Parliament In Review: June 15, 2011

Yes, the spring session of Parliament has come to an end. But with much less news popping up on the political scene, I'll take the opportunity to take a look back at the days I didn't get to through my Parliament in Review posts - starting with Wednesday, June 15.

Theme of the Day

The most obvious theme from the NDP was that of poverty - including both pointed questions from Jean Crowder immediately following Jack Layton's opening of Question Period, and a budget speech from Anne-Marie Day which nicely summarized both the limited progress made in addressing poverty and the long ways left to go:

There is nothing in the government's proposals to improve the living conditions of Canadian families. Poverty exists in Canada and increases every year. All experts agree that, for the past few years, the gap between rich and poor families in Canada has been widening. Inequalities persist rather than diminish.

However, there have been some small steps forward. In 1989, Canada's poverty rate was 10.2%; in 2008, it was 9.4%, a reduction of 0.8% in 20 years. In 1989, the poverty rate for those under 18 was 11.9%; in 2008, it was 9.1%, a reduction of 2.8% in 20 years. Canada can do much better for its people, and we cannot be pleased about such a small decrease in poverty.

Our youth are in a precarious position. In 1981, 31.2% of young workers between 14 and 24 had a low-wage job. In 2000, the proportion had risen to 45%, a sharp increase in 20 years.
...
Poverty in a rich country is not an inevitability; it is the result of poor policies. Therefore, the government must propose a real agenda to eradicate poverty and inequality.

Cold Comfort

In response to Libby Davies' questioning asking why Canada - unlike the U.S. and the EU - doesn't require that drug manufacturers disclose testing results as to the effect of drugs on children, Colin Carrie had this to say:

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member and Canadians that we are up to speed. We encourage manufacturers to submit pediatric information and to introduce an additional six-month data protection for drugs if they are filed for pediatric indication.

In fairness, I suppose it would indeed be worse if the government were outright discouraging big pharma from providing relevant pediatric information. But Carrie looks to have made it clear that the Cons' plan is to let the corporate sector decide what information should be available about the effect of medication on children - which hardly figures to be reassuring for parents.

Question of the Day

Within the budget debate, Kennedy Stewart raised an issue which cuts to the core of the Cons' economic policy:

Madam Speaker, I have been reading through the budget and paying careful attention, but I have some questions about the base statistics on which your work is done.

Most specifically, I am interested in what is commonly reported in the U.S. as the natural rate of unemployment. The U.S. Federal Reserve says that the current natural rate of unemployment in the U.S. is about 6%. Former finance ministers here have said it is about 8%.

What natural rate of unemployment are you basing the budget projections on, and can you tell me whether that natural rate is increasing or decreasing?

Not surprisingly, Shelly Glover didn't see fit to actually answer the question. But it's well worth pressing the Cons as to how many Canadians they plan to see out of work in the years to come, as well as on how to ensure that workers ticketed for structural unemployment can maintain a reasonable standard of living nonetheless.

In Brief

Dany Morin raised a question about violent hate crimes against the GLBT community - with Peter Van Loan unable to bring himself to even repeat the terms "gay" and "lesbian" in response. And Randy Kamp asked what looks to be one of the more bizarre questions imaginable - in effect using his own government's lack of openness to suggest that the NDP shouldn't be concerned about budget cuts, since when nobody but the Cons can say exactly what programs will be affected.

Kept on track

Impolitical rightly points out that the Harper Cons are well on their way to implementing every single odious policy that was rightly labeled as unacceptable overreach when included in Deficit Jim Flaherty's 2008 fiscal update. Now if only somebody hadn't proudly missed the opportunity to stop Harper in his tracks...

Monday Morning Links

Assorted content to start your week.

- Following up on yesterday's post, the Hill Times reports that even the first set of cuts from the Harper Cons' majority looks to have a serious effect on our federal government's ability to function for itself rather than relying on self-interested corporations to make decisions:

The 46 axed positions were occupied by term employees with the Adaptation Impact Research Section, the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis, the Climate Chemistry Measurements and Research and Climate Data and Analysis teams. Most of them are located in Toronto, Ont. though some are in Victoria, B.C.

The Public Works cuts will affect the real property services division, and Auditing Services Canada. Eighty-one per cent of these jobs are located in the National Capital Region, said Mr. Gordon.

The work performed by Audit Services Canada will be contracted out to a private firm.

Mr. Gordon said he is at a loss to understand how the government thinks these cuts (which will save the government a reported $172.2-million over three years) will actually result in long-term savings.

He said that the government already contracts out 95 per cent of its work, such as construction or consulting, and that now those who oversee the contracts are being cut.

"They need expertise within government so that they understand what they need. You don't go to a company and say 'We want you to do this kind of work' without writing up a whole proposal and having people who understand precisely what it is you need," said Mr. Gordon.

- Meanwhile, Derek DeCloet notes that it isn't just government that's figuring to get much less efficient thanks to the Harper Cons. Instead, even the much-vaunted oil and gas sector may itself be facing a massive gap between the perception of growth and the reality that it's serving more as a money magnet than an actual source of production - with the Cons' corporate tax slashing only serving to exacerbate the problem.

- While pointing out that nobody but the peaceful protesters against Stephen Harper should be taking any pride in the Cons' G8/G20 fiasco, Gerald Caplan also laments the fact that a few violent acts managed to largely suppress their message.

- On the bright side, Charles Dobson nicely summarizes the best way to get citizens involved in our political system. And I'll add that while social media offers some additional ways to connect people, the importance of face-to-face interaction is likely no less great now than it has been in the past.

- Finally, Bruce Livesey ponders what we can expect as more and more people are left out of the gains from an increasingly inequitable economic system:

how can one suggest that capitalism is terminally ill? Especially since people have been predicting its demise since Adam Smith’s day.

I am not suggesting it’s going anywhere anytime soon.

What I am saying is that evidence is mounting that capitalism is failing the vast majority of people. It is failing to provide working people with jobs, a decent standard of living, security and stability. The Great Recession grinds on with job growth either anemic or even falling, wages are declining, personal and government debts are climbing, food and gasoline prices are soaring, and the income gap continues to worsen. With the exception of a handful of countries, Europe is an economic disaster zone, the US economy is flailing, and Japan’s economy is in deep trouble. The middle classes and unionized working classes are going the way of the dodo. And governments are about to make matters worse by imposing austerity measures and laying off millions of public servants around the world.
...
Even if the forces of socialism fail to re-emerge, capitalism is facing a period of unrelenting instability. As larger portions of the world’s population are driven into penury, you will see greater social unrest, more violence, more social problems, more despair. And that’s entirely because too many desperate people, unable to make ends meet, unable to find jobs, will turn to increasingly desperate measures – either via protests and acts of rebellion, or entering the underground economy of organized crime – in order to seek alternatives to the current order.

In the past, when capitalists have faced rebellion, they have either embraced fascistic parties and authoritarian measures to launch crack downs, or they’ve made concessions – allowed wages to rise and workers to garner more rights. But in an era of globalization and free trade, the ability of capital to give workers higher wages is limited. And cracking down on dissent and becoming more authoritarian, has its limits too, as Syria and Egypt and Libya demonstrate.

Capitalism might not be overthrown, but it will likely be facing a period where its very foundations are undermined because it continues to exclude too many people from the opportunities they want and deserve.

On private opportunities

Last week, I noted that the Harper Cons' generally opaque austerity plans include one cause for alarm, as they're looking to turn public services into sources of corporate profit. And via Digby, the L.A. Times offers an example of how that type of strategy has worked south of the border - with such cataclysmic political consequences that its architect became a frontrunner for the Republicans' presidential nomination:

Louise Cohoon was at home when her 80-year-old mother called in a panic from Terre Haute: The $97 monthly Medicaid payment she relied on to supplement her $600-a-month income had been cut without warning by a private company that had taken over the state's welfare system.

Later, the state explained why: She failed to call into an eligibility hot line on a day in 2008 when she was hospitalized for congestive heart failure.

"I thought the news was going to kill my mother, she was so upset," said Cohoon, 63. Her mother had to get by on support from cash-strapped relatives for months until the state restored her benefits under pressure from Legal Services attorneys.

Cohoon's mother, now suffering from Alzheimer's disease, was one of thousands of Indiana residents who abruptly and erroneously lost their welfare, Medicaid or food stamp benefits after Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels privatized the state's public assistance program — the result of an efficiency plan that went awry from the very beginning, the state now admits.

Though the $1.37-billion project proved disastrous for many of the state's poor, elderly and disabled, it was a financial bonanza for a handful of firms with ties to Daniels and his political allies, which landed state contracts worth millions.

Now, it could well be that privately-determined arbitrarily restrictions (which would never be tolerated in a public institution) might well save a small amount of money at the expense of the programs currently delivered by the federal government. But nobody aside from the private actors siphoning off a percentage of program spending actually figures to gain substantially in the long run - making the Cons' determination to push toward privatization one of the most important issues facing the country over their term in office.

Sunday Afternoon Links

Miscellaneous material to end your weekend.

- Brian Topp points out the biggest difference between the Parliamentary reaction to the Harper Cons' attack on Canada Post workers and previous overreaches by the Con government:

Before May 2, there would have been relatively little debate on Mr. Harper's intervention, since the Conservatives found a like-minded partner in the former Liberal opposition.

But there's a new sheriff in town – a new, more numerous and more determined New Democrat Official Opposition with some important tools available to it to shine on light on issues like this. A majority government is in place, and it can ultimately get what it wants. But a real opposition, fighting on a real issue, can make things go very slowly indeed – so that Canadians can judge the issues, and see what Mr. Harper's government is doing in the bright light of day.

In short, we finally have an Official Opposition capable of, and willing to, do its job.

- Most media discussion of the Ontario NDP's platform has focused on the inclusion of several pocketbook issues. But Martin Regg Cohn notes that there's much more to it than that:

There is a worthy proposal to undo the Tory breakup of Ontario Hydro by putting most of the pieces back together again. Breaking up Hydro was not only hard to do, it left a legacy of uncertainty and inefficiency in the electricity sector.

There are also promises to halve emergency room waiting times, boost long-term care, and eliminate the controversial Local Health Integration Networks that coordinate hospitals around the province. Interestingly, the NDP acknowledges that these “unelected” LHINs would have to be replaced by something else, so they promise no savings — unlike the Tories, who claim, improbably, that they can cut $70 million a year without budgeting for a replacement.

Politically, it is a smart platform — expedient on pocketbook issues but thoughtful in other areas. Opportunism aside, there is an opportunity for intelligent debate on corporate tax cuts and the chaos in the electricity sector. The NDP’s immediate challenge, however, is to raise the profile of its little-known provincial leader. Judging by the beaming expression worn by Horwath’s speech coach Saturday — it could have been a scene out of The King’s Speech — she continues to improve as a public speaker onstage.

- So far the NDP's response has been remarkably understated. But the stunning story of the Cons looking to prosecute an individual who had the nerve to take a story of rape public in the wake of a complete lack of investigation - rather than doing anything about, say, the alleged rapist - would figure to present about as powerful a symbol as possible of the Harper Cons' focus on preserving secrecy over doing what's obviously right.

- Though of course, as Alex Himelfarb notes, the Cons' lack of interest in dealing with specific crimes which might prove politically embarrassing won't stop them from wasting ludicrous amounts of time and money on a fear-based "war on crime" in general.

(Edit: fixed wording.)

On unreasonable outcomes

I've pointed out before how the Cons' deliberate attack on the Canadian Union of Postal Workers figures to create damaging incentives as federally-regulated employers consider how to handle future collective bargaining. But now that we've seen the Cons' endgame, it's worth noting that the incentives for unions may be equally damaging.

After all, the CUPW approached its negotiations with Canada Post from the standpoint of trying to be as reasonable as possible - both in its position at the bargaining table, and in a collective action strategy designed to avoid disrupting postal service. And even from that modest starting point, it was willing to compromise further through the parliamentary process, signalling no apparent disagreement with amendments aimed solely at modifying the worst of the Cons' abuses (eliminating the decree of future salaries lower than those already offered by Canada Post and allowing for some effort at mediation rather than a winner-takes-all arbitration).

And yet even that willingness to compromise was met with a thumb in the eye.

Now, I'm sure the Cons hope that other unions will see the lesson as being that it's not worth even trying to defend collective bargaining rights.

But I'd think that's only one of two possible interpretations - with the other being that the Cons wound up supporting the party which was utterly unreasonable and unduly disruptive, while punishing the one which operated in good faith all along.

And while it remains to be seen what strategies Canadian workers will develop to respond to that message, I'm not sure the Cons or anybody else will have reason to look forward to the result.

Layout Changes

You may have noticed that the blog is experiencing a few technical difficulties following a template change to permit posts like this one to display properly. The JS-Kit commenting system should be restored shortly.

Fund-Raising Review By Province - Conservatives

As promised, let's dig into La Presse's party fund-raising data to see what we can conclude about where and how Canada's political parties have raised money over the past few years - starting with the party which has lapped the field in the area.

The numbers are arrived at as follows:
- The full list of donations is sorted by party.
- The party donations are sorted first by province, then by year.
- Once the sorting isolates the donations for a province and year, those amounts are summed and included in the chart below, alongside the percentage of the Cons' annual donations sourced from the province.

Due to some imperfections in the data, some donations aren't classified by province (in the Cons' case totalling $54,199.70) or year (totalling $3,594,456.53), while others included in more authoritative totals seem to be missed entirely. And the 2010 numbers are even more spotty since they're based on quarterly rather than annual data. But assuming there's no systematic reason for particular types of donations being missed, we should still be able to draw some conclusions from the partial data.

Conservative Donations - 2007-2010 (partial)

Prov	2007$	2007%	2008$	2008%	2009$	2009%	2010$	2010%
AB	$2,380,340.42	20.09%	$3,716,554.54	20.18%	$2,664,881.58	20.00%	$1,452,201.50	24.15%
BC	$2,019,853.99	17.05%	$3,100,353.52	16.83%	$2,250,832.69	16.89%	$1,038,942.14	17.28%
MB	$463,520.5	3.91%	$803,726.78	4.36%	$664,025.63	4.98%	$295,992.94	4.92%
NB	$135,870.93	1.15%	$262,806.92	1.43%	$202,580.19	1.52%	$77,061.01	1.28%
NL	$20,881.78	0.18%	$58,065	0.32%	$18,615	0.14%	$19,010	0.32%
NS	$160,287.36	1.35%	$301,036.59	1.63%	$241,260.57	1.81%	$98,618.29	1.64%
NT	$24,711.25	0.21%	$29,851.25	0.16%	$22,008.50	0.17%	$17,459	0.29%
NU	$1,750	0.01%	$3,735	0.02%	$7,330	0.06%	$7,100	0.12%
ON	$4,891,693.16	41.29%	$7,448,196.41	40.44%	$5,409,701.47	40.60%	$2,405,206.29	40.00%
PE	$73,704	0.62%	$77,067	0.42%	$87,418.49	0.66%	$17,290.02	0.29%
QC	$1,172,699.74	9.90%	$1,804,613.22	9.80%	$1,094,044.96	8.21%	$261,928.92	4.36%
SK	$460,756.01	3.89%	$755,387.63	4.10%	$623,807.58	4.68%	$306,239.01	5.09%
YT	$41,450	0.35%	$56,270.45	0.31%	$38,505	0.29%	$16,390	0.27%
Total	$11,847,519.14	n/a	$18,418,114.31	n/a	$13,325,011.66	n/a	$6,013,529.12	n/a

So what can we tell from the above? On a first look, there are a few details worth highlighting - keeping in mind that with election years and incomplete data limiting the value of looking at the totals, the most important information figures to lie in the comparison between provinces.

To start with, the most remarkable trend in the few years of data is the Cons' drop-off in Quebec fund-raising.

It's not much of a secret that the Cons' strategy from the end of 2008 onward has largely involved punting on the province aside from their then-current seats. But they didn't seem to have a lot to lose to begin with, having never brought in so much as 10% of their annual fund-raising from a province with 23% of Canada's population. And from that starting point, it's stunning to see how their abandonment of Quebec played out from a fund-raising perspective - with a modest but significant drop in 2009, followed by a dive off a cliff in 2010 to the point where the Cons' Quebec fund-raising rated behind that from each of Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

Meanwhile, the Cons have found what strikes me as a surprising counterweight to make up for that Quebec decline.

I'd have expected the Cons to have maximized their western fund-raising long ago, while still having some room to grow in Ontario as they've expanded their vote totals there. But La Presse's numbers show exactly the opposite.

In fact, the Ontario haul as a proportion of Con fund-raising has been relatively stable - which seems to signal that the Cons have already tapped the market to the extent reasonably possible. Instead, it's the prairie provinces that have actually increased their relative contribution fairly steadily in recent years - with Saskatchewan increasing each year, Manitoba nearly doing the same, and Alberta seeing a striking jump in 2010, even as all were already contributing well above their share based on their population totals.

Finally, one other note of interest is the effect that Danny Williams' ABC campaign looks to have had on the Cons' fund-raising in Newfoundland and Labrador. Not that they started from much of a position of strength originally - but in both 2007 and 2009, the party actually managed to raise more from each of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories than it was able to bring in from a province with half a million residents and a nominally affiliated provincial government.

On unlikely donations

Since I haven't seen much follow-up on La Presse's fund-raising map and database, I'll be taking a stroll through the data over the weekend - with a particular focus on how Canadian political donations break down geographically. But before I get into the more serious content, let's start with more of a curiosity.

Until this year's election, it wasn't uncommon to hear commentators frustrated with the state of Canadian politics muse that they'd vote for the Bloc if only it ran candidates outside Quebec. But who knew that at least a few put their money where their mouth was?

From 2007 to 2010, the Bloc raised a total of $29,291.19 from donors outside Quebec - a figure which included multiple donations from individuals in Victoria, Ottawa, and Embrun, ON, as well as a single maximum donation in 2009 from St. John's, NL. But apparently the common cause of putting up firewalls around provincial jurisdiction wasn't enough to induce anybody from Alberta to donate to the Bloc's cause over the four-year period.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Tabatha Southey eviscerates the Cons' determination to force Canadians into a state of constant and unregulated online surveillance at their own expense:

Bill C-51 seems to indicate a shift. It makes accessing our most private data easier by essentially conscripting telecom companies and ISPs into operating more sophisticated version of warrantless wiretaps.

At the same time, it allows the private companies that have a virtual lock on the market – a situation that our supposedly pro-competition government seems to be remarkably at peace with, and one that does, coincidentally, make this monitoring relatively simple – to recoup those costs as they see fit.

Perhaps as a result, there has been little opposition to Bill C-51 from the big six ISPs.

It feels a bit like a lighter version of the Stasi, only privatized. The spies send you a monthly bill, but they're endlessly happy to talk to you about bundling.

- Jeffrey Simpson is equally scathing in criticizing the Cons' ugly determination to keep pushing asbestos around the world:

(W)e mine asbestos, we ship it, we make money from it, and we’ll use every diplomatic trick in the book to defend this odious practice. We are the Ugly Canadians.

The Harper government could care less. It vigorously defends mining asbestos because of one little corner of Quebec, near Thetford Mines, where the asbestos is mined and shipped to developing countries, mostly in Asia. Stephen Harper’s top Quebec minister, Christian Paradis, used to head the Thetford Mines chamber of commerce. Mr. Harper campaigned in the area and supported the mining. He spent part of Friday, St. Jean Baptiste Day, in Thetford Mines, thereby reinforcing his government’s political marriage to asbestos.
...
It’s true that some countries haven’t banned the substance, claiming they monitor how and where it’s used. If anyone believes the myth that developing countries with poor bureaucracies and widespread corruption oversee the substance’s use, then that person is engaging in willful self-deception.

Canada is a curious place when it comes to lecturing others about their bad practices while protecting our own.

- While I'm generally a fan of Susan Delacourt's, her article on the cost of abolishing the Senate looks to avoid or downplay a couple of rather important contextual points.

First, as Delacourt mentions once then omits from all subsequent conmparisons, even the most extreme estimates of possible total severance costs are lower than the cost of operating the Senate for a single year - leaving no plausible argument that abolishing the Senate would be anything but a net plus from a fiscal standpoint on a time frame longer than about 18 months.

And second, Delacourt doesn't mention that allocating one-time spending to buy out current employees elsewhere in the public service is part of the Cons' general austerity plan. In fact, the Cons' supplementary estimates include a total of $1.9 billion ($1.3 billion of it new since March) for purposes including "entitlements on cessation of service or employment" - dwarfing any possible estimate of Senate severance costs, while also highlighting the absurdity of funding the Senate without question while pretending to be interested in identifying and eliminating wasteful expenses.

- Finally, John Geddes' article on Jack Layton is worth a read in full. But it's particularly worth noting Layton's take on the value of collective action:

Layton expounded on his view of urban affairs in “City Politics in Canada,” an essay published in a textbook in 1990. He paints a cityscape rife with class conflict. The business class hires “experts, lobbyists and lawyers” to push its development interests. Community groups dominated by the middle class occasionally face off against business. Poor neighbourhoods “can almost always count on defeat.”

His response is to urge organized community action. He’s aware that his slant raises questions about his perspective on individual liberty. Layton addresses the tension between individual and group interests in the forward he contributed to Trent University lecturer Robert Meynell’s new book, Canadian Idealism and the Philosophy of Freedom. (Meynell includes Charles Taylor among the seminal idealists.) “The idealist current,” Layton writes, “holds that human society has the potential to achieve liberty when people work together to form a society in which equality means more than negative liberty, the absolute and protected right to run races against each other to determine winners.” He sums up: “Idealists imagine a positive liberty that enables us to build together toward common objectives that fulfill and even surpass our individual goals.”

Musical interlude

Staggered Crossing - Further Again

On self-defeating strategies

I've made the point when it comes to other issues. But apparently there's a need to make a more general statement for the benefit of the Libs. So here goes:

You won't find an inch of viable political ground by proposing right-wing policies that Stephen Harper would be perfectly happy to pursue if he dared, but has avoided so far because he doesn't think he can afford the backlash. Instead, all you'll accomplish is to make sure he can get away with them.

On learning experiences

Let's close this blog's discussion of #vancon2011 with one last post, this time dealing with the NDP's constitutional preamble - which figured to be the convention's main topic of interest until it was deferred for further consultation.

There's no doubt that at least some delegates were prepared to fight hard against the proposed changes. But I'm far from sure that the amendment would have been defeated if it had come to a vote at the plenary: while the new preamble won only a narrow majority in the resolutions panel, that same panel was almost unanimous in beefing up and passing the non-merger resolution which was later defeated in plenary, signaling that the influence of the delegates most averse to change was likely to be much smaller in a full vote than it was at the panel level.

So we shouldn't see the deferral as being based on a conclusion that a vote on the preamble would have faced a foregone conclusion. Instead, it looks to reflect a genuine sense that there's room to improve the revised draft now that the NDP has a bit of breathing room.

Now that the consultation process has been set in motion, though, it may be even more important than one might think at first glance.

After all, one of the major criticisms leveled at the NDP in this spring's election campaign was its willingness to consider constitutional change at the national level. And even with the public much less averse to reopening constitutional talks than Canada's chattering classes, there isn't much room for doubt that some controversy would result.

With that in mind, the NDP will probably be well served to consider the revision of its own constitution - complete with a need to broker compromises among multiple types of supporters in the face of changing party demographics - as a smaller-scale test of the challenges involved in engaging in the same type of project on the national level. And if it can satisfy its internal constituencies and come to agreement with time to spare before the 2015 election, then the experience and end result should provide a ready counter if the same line of attack surfaces again.

Friday Afternoon Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Plenty of observers have noted the Cons' complete lack of a reasonable explanation for standing in the way of a global consensus to at least ensure that asbestos is accurately labeled as a hazardous substance. But you'll find the best examples of sheer, evidence-free spin documented by Sarah Schmidt (on the media side) and Nathan Cullen (on the parliamentary side).

- And Susan Riley discusses how the Cons' asbestos stance conflicts with their self-image when it comes to foreign policy:

(T)here is ample evidence developing countries, like India, pay no heed to safety, and that Indian workers, like the young Chuck Strahl, are being directly compromised. But Harper seems to imply it isn't our concern.

His indifference is strangely at odds with his moral, even moralistic, approach to foreign policy generally. He famously refused to remain silent on China's human rights abuses despite potential trade repercussions, yet is prepared to isolate Canada internationally to prop up a dying industry.
...
Two Conservative MPs - Mark Warawa and Patricia Davidson - have also been discreetly questioning asbestos exports, which suggests the Harper decision isn't resting easily on every Conservative conscience. Even federal Liberals are belatedly opposed.

Unlike the seal hunt, which harms no one but the seals, or the tarsands, which are environmentally damaging but economically important, there is no justification - moral, political or economic - for continued federal support for the asbestos industry.

But we should never discount one man's stubbornness.

- Terry Milewski points out that as part of its role in helping the Cons to cover up the facts, the now-defunct Afghanistan torture documents panel managed to redact information which was already on the public record. And Greg Weston notes that such an outcome fits perfectly with the Cons' normal modus operandi.

- And finally, while the Cons try to avoid any actual analysis as to how neutering the Canadian Wheat Board will affect farmers and others, the groups who stand to lose out are starting to go public - with the town of Churchill looking like one of the major victims if the Cons decide to push ahead.

On maturing processes

Let's take a look at a couple of final issues from #vancon2011, starting with the series of machinations around resolutions ruling out merger or non-compete agreements with the Liberals.

As I noted at the time, the convention planners gave a prominent place to a resolution ruling out a merger with the Liberals while giving a lower priority to one also ruling out a non-compete agreement - perhaps signalling that at least some within the party saw substantially different issues between the two, and an anti-merger resolution as a more reasonable outcome. But the panel combined the two into a single resolution.

Meanwhile, both resolutions referred specifically to the Libs alone, rather than to a set of general principles to be applied to dealings with other parties. (I'd hoped to amend the resolution in panel to remove the Lib reference so that it would apply to the NDP's dealings with any other party, but the question got called first.)

That left the plenary session to deal with a strongly-worded and restrictive resolution aimed solely at the Libs. And a combination of poorly-received speeches in favour and a strong appeal from Peter Stoffer in opposition resulted in the resolution being defeated.

Of course, that isn't to say that there seemed to be any particular appetite on the part of anybody speaking on either side to approve of merger or non-compete talks. But the plenary vote reflected the willingness of delegates to live up to the party's message of leaving the door open for co-operation where it's possible to do some good in the process.

Which figures to be a plus in the long run. But I'd think the progress of the resolution shows there's still work for the party to do in recognizing and defining its place on the Canadian political scene.

In effect, it seems that at least some delegates were eager to single out the Libs for denigration based on last month's election results. And the focus might have been understandable to a point given the longstanding rivalry between the two parties, as well as the fact that as recently as a couple of months ago the NDP perceived itself as facing an uphill climb to overtake the Libs.

But from my standpoint, the focus of the resolutions only made exactly the same mistake the NDP has criticized in others for so long - ascribing undue importance to the Libs instead of zeroing in on what the NDP has done and can do as a party. And hopefully by the next convention, the respective positioning of the NDP and the Libs (which still seems new now) will have become familiar enough that delegates won't see the need to trumpet it.

Underestimated

Others have already noted how refreshing it is to have an Official Opposition which is willing to take a stand on issues of substance. But it's also worth highlighting another important factor in the NDP's strategy for this week.

One of the main blind spots of the Harper Cons has long been their tendency to underestimate the NDP's commitment to positive policy outcomes.

When they first took office, the Cons tried to strongarm the NDP into supporting them in exchange for continuing funding already promised by the Libs. Instead, they were met with a blizzard of protest that resulted in the NDP getting effectively all of the funding in exchange for nothing.

When they unveiled their 2008 fiscal update, the Cons hoped the NDP would be willing to support a long list of disastrous policies in exchange for the prospect that cutting off the per-vote subsidy would hurt the Libs. That miscalculation would have cost Harper his government if the NDP's response hadn't required the Libs to show a similar amount of backbone.

And now, the Cons seem to have assumed that the NDP would be willing to abandon workers across Canada in order to allow its new Quebec caucus to celebrate St-Jean-Baptiste Day. But instead, the NDP is standing firm - and looks to be on such solid ground in doing so that even the Bloc echoing its position that the Cons deserve the blame for intruding on the holiday.

Of course, it remains to be seen how much the filibuster will be able to do to influence the outcome of the Canada Post labour dispute. But at the very least, there should be no doubt that the NDP's rise to Official Opposition hasn't changed its commitment to putting policy ahead of symbolism. And the more Harper continues to guess wrong on that point, the better the chances of minimizing the damage he's able to do.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Paul Wells is pleased to have received some response about how the Cons claim to be saving money. But it's worth taking a close look at the substance of that response, and particularly highlighting that one of the few general explanations actually looks to signal a plan for privatization and outsourcing rather than actual cost savings:

- Focusing on our core mandate and leveraging the expertise of the private sector – one of our key priorities is to provide opportunities for the private sector, particularly for small and medium enterprises. This means, in some cases, getting out of businesses that can be done by the private sector. By leveraging this expertise, our department will eliminate overhead costs, allow us to better focus on our core mandate, as well as support growth in the private sector.

Of course, how "supporting growth" of particular functions in the private sector is supposed to be desirable even as a government brags about eliminating those functions in the public sector is left as an exercise in corporatist dogmatism.

- Meanwhile, if the Cons were actually interested in eliminating their deficit responsibly, they'd do well to take a look at the list of potential revenue sources developed by Canadians for Tax Fairness.

- Chantal Hebert notes that any premier wanting to start a discussion about Senate abolition can get the ball rolling by passing a resolution which would demand a response from other governments. But I wonder whether that possibility might prove better for potential premiers than current ones: might, say, a platform commitment from the Saskatchewan NDP serve to win populist votes (particularly when compared to the Wall government's broken promises on the Senate issue)?

- Finally, it's worth noting that the NDP's focus on organization isn't limited to the resolution passed at #vancon2011, as pointed out by Jack Layton following his keynote speech:

In a news conference following his speech, Mr. Layton said the party has to strengthen riding associations, especially in those ridings where New Democrats came second, and build riding organizations for new MPs.

“It’s kind of a constant process. It’s like tending to a garden. You can’t sit back and watch. You have to work at it all the time.”

Mr. Layton said fundraising is also part of the exercise especially with the Conservative decision to eliminate subsidies for parties.

“We will be working hard to increase the number of people who give us a little bit of money. We have improved our fundraising dramatically over the last number of years, but we have more of that to do,” he said.

Riding the wave

A couple of weeks ago, I pointed out that the NDP's level of Canada-wide support is in line with other parties who have been seen as national contenders for government, in direct contrast to the Canadian Alliance at the point when it saw a merger as necessary for further progress. But the flip side of the NDP's widespread support as of May 2 was the lack of any region which could be seen as a current stronghold - both as a reliable source of a large number of seats, and as an area where there's enough public consensus in support of the party to make fund-raising and volunteer appeals more likely to succeed.

Which means that CROP's latest Quebec numbers - showing the NDP rising to 53% - may be far more significant than one might think in looking merely at possible seat outcomes.

If the NDP can maintain or build on that level of support, then it won't need to rely on vote splits to keep its current seat count in Quebec. And perhaps more importantly, a province with a true majority of NDP supporters would also figure to offer highly fertile territory for fund-raising and longer-term organizational clout which can help to keep the NDP competitive across the country - much like the Cons' Alberta fortress has enabled that party to spend its way to seats elsewhere.

Mind you, the NDP's task in Quebec organization-building will require even more work if the goal is to establish a base to support operations across Canada, rather than merely assembling a ground game commensurate with the NDP's seat count. But the potential reward would seem to make it well worth the effort to try.

New column day

Here, on how the Wall government's economic strategy is resulting in Saskatchewan paying more to get less out of private-sector development.

Stonewalled

Not that it should come as much surprise that the release of the first report (PDF) from the Afghan detainee document panel fits the pattern of delay and distraction from the Cons. But this declaration (italics added) looks to take the stonewalling to a new low:

Status of the Panel’s Review of Cabinet Confidentiality Claims

71. The government provided the Panel only recently with its claims of Cabinet confidences in relation to the documents provided by the government to date. The Panel’s intent has been to complete its review of the redactions based on these claims as expeditiously as possible.

The report isn't clear on how "recently" the Cons bothered to make one of their supposedly vital claims to confidentiality. But it's hard to see how their refusal to so much as present one of the main claims to be evaluated by the panel can be squared with the regular assurances from the Libs and Bloc that the process was humming along to be completed at any moment. And that delay, combined with the complete suppression of the legal advice which lies at the heart of the underlying issue, makes it all the more clear that the NDP was right not to put any faith in a panel process where the Cons never had any incentive to act reasonably.

Update: And in case there was any doubt, the Cons are treating their delay tactics as having permanently ruled out any evaluation of their claims of cabinet privilege. (At least, that's what their repeated message about the process being "over" would seem to want to emphasize.)

On matters of principle

Stephen Harper on how we're supposed to perceive the Cons' foreign policy, as described just weeks ago:

The Prime Minister reflected this new reality in his triumphalist speech to the Conservative party faithful on the weekend, where he articulated Canada’s approach to the world in a single, potent sentence.

“We know where our interests lie and who our friends are,” he declared, “and we take strong, principled positions in our dealings with other nations, whether popular or not.”

He didn’t call it the Harper Doctrine, but we can. It is startling both in its boldness and its utter lack of nuance.

Stephen Harper's government today:

Natural Resources Ministers Joe Oliver had hinted Tuesday the Canadian delegation would remain quiet at the meeting because four other countries had already spoken up against the listing.

But on Wednesday, Ukraine switched positions and indicated it could accept the hazardous listing.

Canada's intervention (to block consensus on the naming of chrysotile asbestos as a hazardous material) followed immediately after Ukraine's announcement. It also came just after India, a major importer of Quebec asbestos, announced it, too, would support the listing. As with Canada at past meetings, India either opposed the listing or remained silent.

Unless consensus among countries can be achieved, chrysotile asbestos will remain off Annex III, contrary to the recommendation of the UN convention's scientific expert committee.

So which principle is it that calls for a government to ignore all scientific evidence (including that from its own non-partisan public service) to prevent hazardous materials from being accurately labeled?

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Adam Radwanski points out how Stephen Harper's continuing Senate embarrassment figures to play into the NDP's hands:

If Mr. Harper was looking to signal once and for all that he’s abandoned his populist roots, he could scarcely have done better than Wednesday’s Senate appointments. Little more than two weeks ago, Josée Verner, Larry Smith and Fabian Manning were all rejected by voters in their ridings – the latter two after biding their time with supposedly temporary gigs in the Red Chamber. Now, all three will have the opportunity to serve in Parliament anyway, at what is theoretically a higher level, courtesy of the leader who only a few weeks ago was still extolling the virtues of an elected Senate.
...
(F)or the New Democrats, this is a dream issue...It will give Mr. Layton, who has argued that the Senate should be abolished altogether, an opportunity to continue positioning himself as the outsider standing up for ordinary Canadians against Ottawa’s culture of entitlement – a message that will be key to any future success west of Ontario.

The Conservatives spent much of the recent campaign enjoying the NDP’s surge, because it mostly came at the expense of the Liberals. But for all that Mr. Harper might relish the prospect of his only national opposition coming from a party firmly to the left of centre, he might enjoy it a little else if that party starts challenging him on what was once safe Conservative turf. A few more announcements like Wednesday’s, and that might start to be a real concern.

- And the NDP looks to be making sure that the Cons can't wriggle their way out of their responsibility for perpetuating a bloated and non-representative upper chamber.

- John Cartwright nicely sums up how our economy is designed to avoid providing good jobs:

With millions of baby boomers retiring in the next decade, one would think that the law of supply and demand for skills would allow new employees to ask for better standards, not worse. But the CEOs already have figured out a response to that. First, the massive increase in the temporary foreign worker program has allowed entire sectors to keep wages low. And second, they have relentlessly attacked collective agreements in both the public and private sectors, resulting in many workers being thankful to keep what they have, let alone improve standards. Nobody mentions that Air Canada agents and Canada Post letter carriers earn less than the average wage in Toronto. The constant, shrill accusations are that these men and women are overpaid and need to accept even less.

That is why the anti-union rhetoric repeated daily by business think-tanks, columnists and politicians is so useful in the CEOs’ strategy. Only unions possess the power to frustrate their plans, and weakening unions is the key to lowering wages and benefits in tomorrow’s economy. The fact is the standard of living that so many take for granted was achieved through struggle. Whether by unionization or other forms of collective action such as the women’s movement, it was always opposed by the elites on Bay Street.

It is the labour movement that has advocated so strongly to improve standards for all working Canadians, as we did with the fight for maternity benefits and to increase the minimum wage. Labour is at the forefront of the efforts to improve retirement security for all. And labour continues to demand that we create a just society and economy that offers good jobs for all.

If you are under the age of 35, pay close attention. Your standard of living, and that of your children, is being decided right now in the boardroom, the workplace and even on the picket line. Sooner rather than later, you will need to pick a side.

- And Jim Stanford highlights the Harper Cons' leading role in attacking workers:

The government has thrown away any guise of neutrality. It has abandoned the principle of leaving free collective bargaining up to the private parties. It invokes phony arguments about the economic recovery, to justify virtually anything it wants to do.

We must also remember that the government could play a more constructive role in resolving the underlying problems that have contributed to theconflicts at Air Canada, Canada Post, and many other bargaining tables.

We need to expand the Canada Pension Plan, which is the most universal, portable, efficient, and secure pension system in the land. We need stable, long-run funding rules for defined-benefit pensions, and an insurance system to backstop pension plans when companies get into trouble.

These are things that government could do to strengthen workers’ pensions, and improve the chances that hard-working Canadians can retire with dignity and security. Instead, this government just jumped right into the middle of collective bargaining, clearly on the side of corporations, to help take pensions away from workers.

- Not that we should expect the Cons to be honest about what they're doing - any more than they're being in hiding their slashing of the public service from the likes of Paul Wells:

(I)t may be a bit ambitious for The Hill Times to put the name “breakout summary of the total reduction in spending” on the information Treasury Board actually provided, because what TBS actually provided was the number “$720 million.” Then they say, if you want to know more, “please” consult the Public Accounts “in the fall.” Handy reminder: it’s June.

But that’s only my third-favourite part. My second-favourite part is where they invite reporters to “contact individual departments or agencies” for more information on their Strategic Review cuts, because boy howdy, that sure has been working well for me so far.

And my first-most-favourite part of this whole email is the little note to me at the bottom where, “for additional information,” they “invite” me “to consult the Budget documentation.” Which made me laugh a long time, because it was the Budget documentation that got me asking these questions in the first place. In March.

Meanwhile Bill Curry at the Globe has been doing excellent work chronicling the real scope and effect of the cuts. He’s not getting a stitch of information from the government, of course; he’s getting it from the public-sector unions, in dribs and drabs as the layoff notices are handed out.

Duly noted. Real information on these cuts will not be coming from the government, at least not before fall.

Tuesday Night Cat Blogging

Cats under the table.

On institutionalization

Following up on my earlier post, there was one massive piece of news from #vancon2011 on the capacity development front in the unveiling of the Broadbent Institute. But while it's hard to see any circumstances where the creation of a new think tank built around a popular former leader could prove to be anything but a huge plus, I'll toss out a few suggestions to make sure the new institute provides the maximum possible benefit for the NDP and its movement.

First, it's worth making sure that the new institute complements Canada's existing left-wing infrastructure, rather than serving to elbow other organizations out of the picture. That may mean leaving some policy development areas alone where they might otherwise look like an obvious opportunity for a think tank (for example, there would seem to be little point in developing alternative budgets when the CCPA already carries out that work). And hopefully it will also mean finding some new fund-raising capacity in the wake of the NDP's electoral success, rather than competing with both the party and other think tanks for existing pools of money.

Second, the institute may have to walk a fine line in how it relates to the NDP. While I'm open to arguments otherwise, I'd hope that it will serve as a more neutral and less partisan voice than its analogues on the right - but that doesn't mean it shouldn't also serve as a pipeline for developing talent for the NDP, including by establishing a profile for a new generation of commentators to present progressive and NDP positions in the media.

Meanwhile, it would also be a plus to see the institute take on some of the work previously done under the party's banner. In particular, consultation projects like the NDP's past economic town-hall tours would seem to be a natural fit for the institute - allowing MPs and other party figures to participate where convenient, while ensuring that regular citizen engagement goes on even in areas where the party isn't able to use its own resources.

And finally, I'd hope to see the institute (like Broadbent himself) serve as a strong force in pushing the NDP to live up to its progressive principles and opening up space on the left - rather than falling into the trap of merely trying to anticipate and provide messaging support for moves to the centre.

Again, the above is just a first set of impressions as to how to maximize the long-term benefits from the founding of the Broadbent Institute - and I'll very much be looking forward to seeing how the group evolves.

On training opportunities

Naturally, there's plenty to catch up on from #vancon2011 - but before I get into the news from the convention, let's note one relatively surprising omission from the agenda for most of the weekend.

At the NDP's previous convention in Halifax, delegates were offered the option of focusing on their choice of the usual schedule (resolutions and speeches), or a multitude of training sessions to assist in riding association development and election planning. And while I'm not sure exactly what results came of that effort (which did give rise to some scheduling problems as multiple sessions happened at the same time), it would have seemed to make sense to include a substantial training component this time as well - particularly to the extent the post-election period looks to be an ideal time to provide training on longer-term building in the absence of an immediate election threat.

Of course, there's still loads of time to develop riding-level capacity in the lead up to 2015. But there doesn't seem to be much room for doubt that the NDP has plenty of building left to do in order to win the next federal election. And we'll have to hope the Vancouver convention doesn't prove to be a missed opportunity on that front.

Light Posting

For those who hadn't noticed, I haven't had a chance to post on #vancon2011 yet. But you can get some updates from my Twitter feed - and there looks to be no lack of noteworthy material to discuss once the convention is over.

Unquestioned

Yes, Chantal Hebert is right to point out the glaring disconnect between the help the media has offered the Cons, and the constant scorn it's received in return. But there's even more glaring evidence of the Cons' manipulations in how the party is currently being covered:

In an odd quirk, even though Mr. Clement is now Treasury Board president, who is responsible for the secretariat that prepares government spending estimates for Parliamentary approval every year, he cannot answer questions in the House of Commons about the G8 spending because he is no longer Industry minister. Mr. Clement had that position when he and Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird (Ottawa West-Nepean, Ont.), Transport minister and responsible for infrastructure spending, approved the riding largesse.

Mr. Clement, who sits right beside Mr. Baird in the Commons, has remained silent over the past two weeks as Mr. Baird, who Prime Minister Stephen Harper (Calgary Southwest, Alta.) depends on to field sensitive political questions in the Commons, has answered all of the questions about the Muskoka G8 spending.

The above is from Tim Naumetz, who from my observation generally does great work for the Hill Times.

But for some obscure reason, he's entirely willing to buy the spin that Clement's shift in position renders him unable to answer for his own actions, rather than even slightly questioning the cynical politics behind Clement's silence. And never mind that the questions about the G8 are instead being answered by a minister who's likewise been moved out of the cabinet position which had any relevance to the questions, and whose sole purpose in responding is to "field sensitive questions" regardless of who actually bears responsibility for the underlying issue.

Which looks to signal as much unjustified credulity in the face of blatant deception as the Harper Cons could possibly want - and also make it clear that however much the Cons want to try to demonize the media, their real opposition lies elsewhere.

New column day

Here, with my first commentary on a subject which I'll plan to discuss plenty more in the future: the need to protect our freedoms of speech, conscience and assembly from private as well as public intrusions.

All according to plan

Oh, that poor, unfortunate Stephen Harper.

If he could have counted on his party's Senate majority to allow its own institution to be reformed, he might have faced some pressure to make the composition of the Senate somewhat less out of touch with the country.

But now that his party's majority is balking at any plans for Senate reform, what choice does he have but to keep right on handing out patronage appointments - to insiders who will of course help run his party's campaigns and support him on every other issue - until he can override the current turncoat quota?

Parliament In Review: June 14, 2011

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

The Big Issue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vote of the Day

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

Poor Planning of the Day

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

In Brief

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

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

On timelines

August 2009: The NDP's federal convention in Halifax votes to have the party's executive draft a new preamble to the NDP's constitution.

May 2011: The NDP achieves unprecedented success in Canada's federal election, forming Canada's Official Opposition for the first time.

June 2011: The revised preamble is made public.

June 2011: Concerned citizens everywhere commence kvetching as to how the new preamble serves as evidence that the NDP's rise in popular support has radically changed its focus.

Truly, concern trolling defies the laws of physics.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Crawford Kilian interviews Linda McQuaig on inequality, including this comment on how to handle the damaging effects of inequality politically:

On whether inequality is becoming a serious political issue:

"Eventually it will be, especially if we continue on our present trajectory of the next few years. But what kind of political issue? Will we deal with it in a constructive way, or will it be hijacked by the right, as it was with the Tea Party in the U.S.? The Tea Partiers are feeding on resentment of inequality.

"Education as a solution would take generations. In the book, we argue for a progressive tax system that would redistribute income immediately. At the moment, 59,000 Canadians earn more than $500,000 a year, but they're taxed at the same rate as those making just $128,000 a year. Two new top rates on those 59,000 would bring in an addition $8 billion without affecting anyone else.

"Progressive forces have an attractive issue in inequality if only they pick up on it."

- Errol Black and Jim Silver point out in response to the Dominique Strauss-Kahn case that the benefits of a union go far beyond wages alone, noting that in high- and low-profile matters alike employees may have much greater ability to report abuses when they have union protection:

The initial focus of the media's coverage of the alleged sexual assault charge brought against Strauss-Kahn was on the implications for him, and on his arrest and treatment by the New York police and justice system. Subsequently, questions were raised about the implications for the IMF. The media were largely silent about the situation of the New York hotel worker and the circumstances that motivated her to report the sexual assault.

A piece posted on Alternet, May 19, 2011 (see: http://www.alternet.org/story/151022), titled "Accusing DSK of Sexual Assault Took Guts - But Union Protection is Essential”, reports that the victim of the alleged assault is an African woman from a former French colony who works as a housemaid in the Sofitel Hotel. It is, of course, a story far from over. But the author observes that there would be no story at all if the housemaid were not protected by her union contract. "There's a reason why most rapes go unreported. But there was one thing the housekeeper knew could not be done to her for reporting her account. She could not be fired for having done so, because of the contract between her union, the New York Hotel Trades Council and the Sofitel Hotel at which she works."

An editorial in the New York Hotel and Motel Trades paper also stresses the importance of union membership. "In the worldwide hotel industry, New York City has the highest proportion of unionization (75%), and hotel employees here have the strongest union with the best contract. They enjoy the highest wages in the industry, excellent benefits, strong job security, good working conditions, and powerful grievance rights. They also have a militant union - their own organization, governed and funded not by wealthy donors but by themselves - that aggressively enforces those rights."

..."(T)he union does make us strong," both collectively and individually, by creating the conditions that allow workers who suffer abuse in the workplace to retain their dignity and seek redress and justice for the harm done them.

- On a rather more mundane note, I wouldn't have thought that the addition of a new area code would make for an obvious source of inefficiency. But since we're apparently now looking at 10-digit local dialing (including what's sure to be confusion as to which local numbers fall under each code), isn't it worth asking whether there's any particular point to maintaining some nebulous sense of comfort at the expense of unnecessary inconvenience?

- Finally, Dan Gardner once again highlights the difference between the principles Stephen Harper once claimed to stand for and the sad reality of his time in office:

Stephen Harper has held power for more than five years, most of that time with far more control of Parliament and the machinery of government than is normal for a prime minister with a minority. Today, he has his majority, and he has delivered a Throne Speech and a budget.

And the record of Stephen Harper's government doesn't look much like the beliefs of Stephen Harper.

Record spending increases. Surpluses turned into structural deficits. Bureaucratic bloat. Vote-buying tax policies that make economists pull their hair out. Hyper-centralization of power. Slush funds. Pork-barrel politics. Cronyism and patronage that would make a Liberal blush. A plan to fix the budget as credible as Greek bonds.

On and on the list goes. In the 1990s, to elaborate on one of countless examples, Stephen Harper called supply management a "government-sponsored price-fixing cartel." Today, he praises it. In the Throne Speech, Harper went so far as to promise to protect supply management in any future free trade talks, even, presumably, if it kills the negotiations.
...
The fact that Conservative beliefs and Conservative policies are scarcely correlated does not bother most Conservatives because they do not see it. For this, they can thank what psychologists call "compartmentalization." It's awfully handy in politics.

As a result, Stephen Harper and the party he created in his image exhibit a strange sort of schizophrenia.

In action, they can be as unprincipled as the most ruthless Liberal. In word, they are often as self-righteous as the most idealistic New Democrat.

Or, to put it in the prime minister's terms, they may spend all their time breaking instruments over their opponent's heads, but they really do believe they're making beautiful music.

Deep thought

I won't claim to have compiled a full list of criticisms of the Cons' government. But I'm pretty sure that putting too many resources into environmental priorities would rank rather near the bottom.

On warped incentives

Chris nicely highlights the Cons' stunningly quick resort to back-to-work legislation after a mere day of Air Canada's CAW strike, at a point where there's been little if any impact on anybody.

But it's worth noting as well how it is that such legislation will indeed serve as an attack on workers: in effect, Air Canada and other federally-regulated employers will lose virtually any trace of incentive to bargain reasonably if they can count on having their preferred outcome imposed by statute whether or not legislation is even remotely needed. And Canadians who recognize that there's a fundamental problem with removing any motivation for institutions to deal reasonably with workers (or indeed anybody else) will have every reason for concern that the Cons are choosing such an unnecessary outcome out of spite toward workers.

Tuesday Night Cat Blogging

Cats on the ledge.

Juxtaposition

Lorne Gunter desperately tries to pretend that nothing has changed in the NDP's reach outside of Quebec:

Outside Quebec the party is relevant in 60 or 70 ridings, with most of those concentrated in Toronto, Vancouver and the North. There was no NDP surge outside Quebec. Indeed, beyond that province, the party has hit a glass ceiling. In ridings where there is no faculty club, no concentration of civil servants or public-sector workers (nurses, teachers, social workers, etc.), no large numbers of freshman and graduate students, and no colonies of enviro-agitators, there is not much hope for the NDP.

Which of course conflicts entirely with the vote and seat totals from May 2. But in case we needed a more direct contrast, let's ask some people who actually know something about the NDP's strategy:

Mr. Lavigne said that the party's dilemma is to capture seniors and immigrants, two increasing populations in Canada that have traditionally not favoured the NDP at the polls.

They've been working on that by focusing on issues such as pensions and health care as well as family reunification.

"We don't intend to give up the seats that we've gained," said Mr. Angus, adding that he expects to see the party grow north of Toronto, in the 905 area code region, and in southwestern Ontario. "We are actually seeing breakthroughs in areas now that are second-tier ridings that were never even in our universe before. We've already begun to do outreach and planning because it's not just about holding these seats; this is about taking government."

Not that I'd see any reason to complain if the Cons are as thoroughly off base as Gunter. But lest there be any doubt, the NDP is indeed building bridges into new communities across the country - and there's a strong chance that given four years to keep up the job with increased parliamentary resources, it'll be able to overcome the Cons' momentary advantage.

Parliament In Review: June 13, 2011

As I'd suspected, there looks to be plenty of material for a review post from just a day's worth of events in the House of Commons. So here's an inaugural daily review of what you may have missed in Ottawa yesterday - with a few themes I'll be developing in future posts.

The Big Idea

While it hasn't received much attention in the media, one of the main points of discussion since Parliament resumed has been the structure of the Cons' tax credits - which in areas ranging from volunteer firefighting to childrens' arts participation are set up as non-refundable credits which offer absolutely no benefit to less-well-off Canadians participating in the activities the Cons claim to want to encourage. And yesterday saw plenty more questions and comments on the subject, with MPs including Randall Garrison and Marc Garneau highlighting the issue. And Pat Martin noted that we can look forward to a more systematic review by the NDP:

(W)e are in the process of doing an analysis, perhaps the first in-depth analysis, of many of the tiny incremental tax credits that the Conservatives have offered Canadians over the last two or even three budget. We are breaking this down by quintile to see who is actually availing themselves of the tax credits being offered.

What we are finding, and it is not ready for publication yet because it is not quite finished, is that the tax credits that are targeted for the sports tax credit or the children's art and music tax credit, for instance, will probably not help many poor kids participate in sports who would not otherwise be participating or participate in music, dance, theatre or art who would not otherwise be participating. It is those who are availing themselves of it who are already participating in that program.

Which is to say that we can expect plenty of focus on the Cons' choice to hand money only to those who need it least in the days and years to come.

Value Statement of the Day

Mathieu Ravignat summed up what Pontiac's voters chose instead of Lawrence Cannon:

The good people in the Pontiac voted New Democrat for the first time and they know exactly what they voted for. They voted for a more respectful government. They voted for a perspective that does not reduce Canadians to economic units, an option which understands that there is more to being a Canadian citizen than paying taxes, that there is such thing as the good life in a country that has at its heart the principle of caring for each other. They voted for a stronger, more social Canada, with a strong place for Quebec in it; a Canada where after a productive life one can take a much deserved rest; a Canada where universal health care is a fact, not simply an empty phrase; a Canada which enables families to make ends meet, that helps create new innovative green jobs; and a Canada which leaves to our children, my children, a beautiful environment filled with diverse ecosystems because it is a good in itself and not a means.

Vote of the Day

Yes, the NDP's budget amendment was defeated and the Cons' budget passed. But it's worth noting that the division from last week continued - with the NDP, Libs and Greens each voting for the amendment and against the budget, while the Bloc voted with the Cons both times.

Gotcha

Amidst the criticism of the Cons over their G8 pork-barrelling and dishonesty, Alexandre Boulerice pointed out how the Auditor General's concerns about a shockingly nonexistent paper trail contradicts the Cons' own 2006 platform, which included a commitment to “oblige public officials to create the records necessary to document their actions and decisions”.

The Stimulus Continues

Over the past few days, one of the NDP's main questions on the budget has been the reason why the Cons refuse to extend the eco-energy retrofit program for more than a single year. But James Lunney's answer to Chris Charlton raises plenty more questions than it resolves:

There is a difference between permanent measures and those that are meant to stimulate activity. The member is aware that we are running a deficit and were severely criticized for that. When we were coming up with the economic action plan, opposition parties were annoyed that we were not operating fast enough and wanted us to spend more, but we have an obligation to balance our budget.
...
We have an opportunity in next year's budget, if we need further stimulus, to move ahead with a program. In the meantime, we are hoping as many Canadians as possible will take advantage of it this year to keep people working and move ahead with energy efficiency in their homes. It is a well-appreciated program that is supported by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Canadian Home Builders' Association.

Now, as best I can tell the Cons' consistent party line to date has been that their stimulus program as announced in 2009 has been wound down, and that there's effectively no need to further stimulate Canada's economy. So it's rather a surprise to hear both that there's still a need for stimulus spending, and that retrofitting is still being classified as such.

Non-Answer of the Day

Anna-Marie Day asked a simple question as to whether the Cons would consider an anti-poverty program. Patricia Davidson responded with the Cons' patented economic word salad - featuring precisely zero mention of poverty.

Of course, an honourable mention has to go to Cheryl Gallant, ducking a doubly embarrassing question from Gerry Byrne about search-and-rescue priorities with a chorus of "Sea Kings! Sea Kings! Sea Kings!"

In Brief

A few more interventions worth noting: Peter Stoffer's question on what a Conservative Canada actually means; Annick Papillon's focus on the social and economic costs of inequality; Andre Bellavance's unsuccessful attempt to push the NDP's Isabelle Morin on the federal government's role in health care; and Jonathan Genest-Jourdain's focus on developing an alliance between Quebec, Coaster, Innu and Naskapi communities in Manicouagan.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- I'll agree with Barbara Yaffe that one of the most important tasks for the Cons as a majority government will be to avoid having their heads inflated to dangerous levels. But I'm not sure how Yaffe could possibly see their actions so far as evidence that they're on the right track: after all, can a party get more arrogant than to claim credit even for the rise of their strongest national rival?

- A couple of notes on the megatrial bill that looks to have the support of the official parties in the House of Commons, but may not pass before the summer if Elizabeth May blocks it.

In effect, the issue looks to be one where all sides have taken a relatively reasonable stance. The huge plus is that the Cons haven't tied a mostly non-controversial procedural bill to their dumb-on-crime legislation in order to try to posture against their opponents - which combined with the fact that the megatrial legislation actually has some basis in a neutral party's review makes it a bill that none of the parties should have trouble ultimately supporting.

But while the other parties in the House have had time to review its previous incarnation of the bill, it's also understandable for May to want to carry out her own assessment rather than being pressured to grant unanimous consent to pass it immediately. And the onus will then be on the other parties (and particularly the Cons) to make the case to her as to why the usual legislative process should be dispensed with - which should hopefully strengthen the resolve of all of the opposition parties to push back against some of the Cons' requests.

- That is, if the Cons can even remember what a reasoned case for a policy looks like. And their rejection of Health Canada's advice on asbestos doesn't exactly serve as a shining example on that front.

- Finally, Warren Kinsella's election post-mortem is well worth a read. But I can't help but to be reminded that some of us were pointing out the dangers of the Ignatieff Libs' ultimate mistakes long before they were ever made.