Leadership 2012 Roundup

Apparently there have been a few developments in the NDP's leadership race - and indeed enough that I'll likely need to apply a bit more a filter on what I catalogue in my roundup posts. (In particular, I'll generally stop pointing out survey or event-based coverage which doesn't add much by way of new content, as well as setting a higher standard for endorsements and policy announcements to count as newsworthy.)

With that in mind, let's run through some of what's new over the past few days other than the polls already discussed here.

- Paul Dewar's campaign largely set the tone for the start of the week - both by releasing its internal polling results, and by implicitly slamming other candidates (if not by name) as likely to abandon the party's principles.

- Thomas Mulcair lowered his expectations for his own Quebec membership drive, but . Meanwhile, Bruce Anderson commented on Mulcair's effective challenge to NDP voters to accept different positions than the party has proposed in the past.

- Peggy Nash issued a clarification on the role the federal government should play in eliminating the need for health care user fees, though not before Colby Cosh noted her position with interest and Thomas Walkom lamented her answer in Sunday's debate. Nash then found stronger ground in defending the ability of workers to retire at 65. Tim Harper wrote about Nash's strategy of presenting herself as a consensus-builder, including her response to the question of whether she should be discounted based on the NDP's limited success under Audrey McLaughlin and Alexa McDonough:

In fact, the McLaughlin-McDonough era gives pause in some elements in this party about choosing another female consensus-builder, even in the party that has worked harder to achieve gender parity than either of the other two main federal parties.

“Does that mean the Liberals won’t be electing another man?" Nash asks.

- Brian Topp unveiled the endorsement of Doris Layton - which may hold plenty of sentimental sway as the race draws to a close.

- Finally, on the commentary side, John Ibbitson theorized following Sunday's debate that the leadership campaign will involve a decision whether or not to abandon social democracy to move to the centre - though I'm not entirely sure how he placed Topp on the centrist part of any divide. Andrew Coyne mused about a similar question while noting that the effect of going toward the centre might be to lose an identity that has served the NDP well. Lawrence Martin scratched the surface of the possibility of end-of-campaign alliances which might determine the campaign's outcome. Vincent Marissal criticized the length of the campaign, but without offering any obvious explanation as to how a shorter leadership race would have made a different for the decision faced by NDP members. Stephen's list of factors to consider in deciding how to vote is well worth a look. And the last word goes to Alice's latest analysis.

Tuesday Night Cat Blogging

Love-struck cats.

Parliament in Review: December 8, 2011

Thursday, December 8 saw debate on four separate bills - though once again, the Harper Cons were most conspicuous by their silence on a bill they were in the process of ramming through Parliament.

The Big Issue

That would be the Senate patch job which was being debated at second reading. And once again, the governing party decided to stay silent rather than bothering to speak to its own legislation.

Pat Martin asked rhetorically whether there's any reason for public policy to originate with an unelected and unaccountable body, while both he and Francois Lapointe raised the obvious problem of the Senate's ability to nullify the decisions of actual elected officials. On the specifics of the Cons bill, Anne Minh-Thu Quach and Dany Morin offered up reminders that the Cons' plan is to make sure senators are never accountable to voters for their actions, Anne-Marie Day highlighted that the Cons' own bill contemplates the possibility that an election could be ignored and the result nullified after six years, and Bruce Hyer noted that the Cons' scheme discriminates against independent candidates. Jean-Francois Fortin reiterated the Bloc's agreement with the NDP that the Senate should be abolished, while Justin Trudeau suggested the position held by the two most popular federal parties in the province somehow reflects a failure to defend Quebec's interests. Jinny Sims discussed the gap between MPs whose work is based on public service and senators whose role is defined by patronage, while Isabelle Morin offered a reminder of Harper's propensity for appointing candidates who failed at the former into the latter role instead.

Marc-Andre Morin offered to rename the Cons' bill:

Mr. Speaker, to the title “An Act respecting the selection of senators”, I would add “to ensure that the Senate resembles the bar scene in Star Wars”, as my colleague said. Senators appointed for life, senators elected through some crazy, vague process, all at the provinces' expense, people who lost elections, friends: the Senate is a gold mine for comedians.

And finally, Martin delivered some justified outrage for the ages:

There has never been a prime minister who has so abused the Senate and taken partisan advantage as the current Prime Minister, with 32 appointments. After being the one who agreed that the Senate was an outdated and obsolete institution, he has been stacking the Senate for purely partisan reasons.

Let me give an example of this. The president of the Conservative Party, the campaign manager of the Conservative Party, the chief fundraiser of the Conservative Party, the director of communications for the Conservative Party, the entire Conservative war room is now sitting in the Senate, pulling down $130,000 a year of taxpayers money, with staff, travel privileges and resources.

Who was the campaign manager in the last provincial election in my home province of Manitoba? The Conservative Senator from Manitoba, and I do not know if I am allowed to use his name. The former president of the Conservative Party was power shooted into Manitoba on the taxpayer nickel to work full time in partisan activities. He never has to stand for an election because he is there for life to act as an agent of the Conservative Party, not as the chamber of sober second thought, and is salaried, staffed and paid for in a direct subsidy by the taxpayers of Canada. It is appalling and it is atrocious. The senate should be abolished. It is a disgrace that we are using up time in our chamber to even re-arrange the deckchairs on that ridiculous institution.

There must be some old Reformers who have a hard time looking at themselves in the mirror, considering the things they used to say about the Senate. Now they are one. They have become what they used to most criticize. They have tossed overboard every principle on which they were founded in the interest of political expediency. They have been jettisoned over side. It is a disgrace.

Bank Shots

The other bill up for debate was the Cons' campaign loan legislation. Tim Uppal lamented the influence of wealthy individuals through loans to leadership candidates, but didn't have much to say about a concern raised by Stephane Dion and Ted Hsu about giving banks a privileged role in deciding who they deem worthy of funding. David Christopherson questioned how the new requirements might apply at the riding level, and noted that a system which prevents parties from funding elections would be just as undemocratic as one which allows for big-money influence. And in response to a question from Uppal, Christopherson then implored the Cons to actually listen to other parties rather than dictating yet again that they wouldn't accept a single comma's worth of change to their bill.

In Brief

Fin Donnelly introduced a bill to prohibit the importation of shark fins, while Peggy Nash proposed to make the office of the parliamentary budget officer truly independent. Joe Comartin criticized the Cons' contempt for the rule of law, with their defiance of the Federal Court's Wheat Board decision as just the latest example (as also noted by Frank Valeriote in a question of privilege). An NDP question period strategy of asking for basic information was met with the Cons' usual stonewalling, as Nycole Turmel's question on a U.S. trade agreement along with Christine Moore and Matthew Kellway's questions about the cost of using helicopters were all met with equally glaring non-responses. Charlie Angus noted that the Cons' had managed to make matters worse in Attawapiskat by sticking the band with the $300,000 tab for a government-imposed manager. Alexandre Boulerice followed up on the transfer of money out of a green infrastructure fund into whatever the Cons thought would buy votes that week. Francoise Boivin highlighted the costs of the Cons' dumb-on-crime policy, while Andrew Cash questioned whether prisons are the Cons' only housing strategy. Alice Wong answered questions from Irene Mathyssen and Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe on seniors' poverty by claiming poor seniors should be satisfied knowing that their wealthy betters are paying less tax. And Ryan Cleary closed debate on his bill calling for an inquiry into Newfoundland's cod fishery, while Kirsty Duncan spoke to her bill on CCSVI treatment for multiple sclerosis.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Mike de Souza's report on the Cons' attempts to hide both the oil industry's involvement and its own lack of credibility is well worth a read in full. But let's focus on a more basic revelation: Harper has set up a publicly-funded lobbying team to make sure that tar sands operators - who of course have billions in reserves sitting around to let them fund their own lobbying - get their way in any free trade negotiations.

- Meanwhile, the Cons continue to face difficulty defending their evidence-free policy in the courts - this time as Justice Anne Molly declared a mandatory minimum sentence to be unconstitutional.

- The National Post weighs in against the Cons' plans for warrantless online surveillance:

(T)he government will force Internet service providers to install costly monitoring equipment on their networks. Taxpayers will likely be forced to foot part of the bill, but the rest of the cost will be borne by private industry. Smaller providers could be driven out of what is already an uncompetitive market. The law would also make it much easier for police to force telecommunication companies to retain information on their customers and to enable tracking devices on mobile phones.

This type of legislation brings us one step closer to George Orwell's dystopian vision of a totalitarian state that keeps its citizens under constant surveillance. Yet there is no evidence the new law will achieve its public policy objectives.

Law enforcement agencies have been unable to come up with a single investigation that has been hampered by the limits of the laws currently on the books. Even the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police could not find a "sufficient quantity of credible examples" to support the additional powers the lawful access legislation would grant them, according to a series of internal e-mails obtained by the Vancouver-based group Open Media. Postmedia News has also obtained government documents, in which officials from within Public Safety Canada object to some of the key arguments the Minister has used to justify the bill.

- But the Cons do believe some things should be kept secret - like public policy discussion. Fortunately, the NDP is fighting them every step of the way.

- Finally, Stewart Webb and Michael Byers tear into the Cons' faith-based defence procurement policy:

Thanks to the introduction of faith-based procurement, the Harper government can now ignore the complexities and inefficiencies of design specifications, equipment testing, contract tendering, specified industrial regional benefits, etc.

From now on, decisions on new equipment for the Canadian Forces will be divinely ordained, and channelled to Canadians through Mr. Fantino’s divine connections.
...
Instead of engaging with our analysis, Mr. Fantino told the House of Commons that we are “critical of everything that is holy and decent” about the government’s defence procurement efforts.

As the quotation at the beginning of this article illustrates, this is the second time that Mr. Fantino has referred publicly and explicitly to the divine nature of his new portfolio.

God’s interest in fighter jets was, to say the least, an unexpected revelation for us.

Too close to call

Apparently it only took yesterday's flurry of polls to create the easy narratives the media has been craving in the NDP leadership campaign. But there's plenty of reason for caution about the messages that have been drawn from the polling.

To start off with, "Thomas Mulcair on top" isn't exactly news in light of the NDP supporter polling done over the past few months. Instead, what's noteworthy in the member-based polling - including that from Mulcair's own camp - is the relatively small lead currently held by the front-runner. If Mulcair is starting between 25% and 31% on the first ballot, then he may be fairly well assured of a place on the final ballot. But he'll still need a pile of lower-choice support to emerge on top.

And if there's another consistent theme in the polls released yesterday, it's that there's nothing but uncertainty as to who will remain on the ballot to challenge Mulcair (and thus whose supporters he most needs to target).

Of course, the stories have focused on the candidates' relative positioning - with Paul Dewar's camp making a particularly concerted effort to suggest that Brian Topp ranks below Dewar. But the two full poll results released yesterday show remarkably little gap between the second- and fifth-place candidates: both suggest that the fifth-place candidate could vault all the way to second by winning over, say, Niki Ashton's supporters, while the 31% undecided number in Dewar's poll signals that there's plenty of room for small shifts with a massive potential impact on the candidates' rankings.

And what's more, both polls also suggest that an alliance among any three of Nash, Dewar, Topp, Cullen and their supporters would result in the beneficiary being on at least even terms with Mulcair for the final ballot.

(As for the 28% number released by Topp, it looks like the outlier compared to both the polls released yesterday and the earlier ones showing Nash with a strong second-place standing. But at the very least it offers another layer of uncertainty.)

Naturally, the candidates' rankings will be highly important when it comes time to start dropping contenders. But for now, the key takeaway looks to be that it's too close to call the race between four strong challengers to Mulcair - and all candidates will have to be ready for the large number of permutations and combinations that could result.

Parliament in Review: December 7, 2011

Wednesday, December 7 packed plenty of contentious debate into an extremely short day, with a time allocation motion and debate on two bills fit within an afternoon sitting.

The Big Issue

Once again, Peter Van Loan sought to limit debate on one of the Cons' bills - this time their legislation on seat redistribution. Joe Comartin rightly slammed the Cons' constant stifling debate as "farcical". Stephane Dion noted that the new bill results in significant changes from the previous versions being pointed to in the Cons' latest chorus of "but it's been talked about before!". Alexandre Boulerice mentioned how many far more important issues were going unaddressed even as the Cons rammed through bill after bill. Jack Harris summed up the differing perspectives on the bill which the Cons were set to ignore. Mauril Belanger and Jonathan Tremblay pointed out the irony of using anti-democratic tactics to silence MPs in the name of democratic reform. And Pierre-Luc Dussault asked generally whether the Cons think limiting debate should be done as a matter of course - which they seemed to confirm in once again forcing through the motion.

Meanwhile, the day also saw some debate on the Cons' Senate legislation. Dusseault and Malcolm Allen pointed out that the election process set up by the Cons is at best illusory. Francoise Boivin noted that any hope of the Senate serving as a centre of thoughtful debate has been utterly undermined by the Harper Cons' hyperpartisanship. And Alexandre Boulerice highlighted the cost of the Senate - enough to fund both the added MPs the Libs claim we can't afford and the party funding the Cons have slashed with millions to spare.

In Brief

Francois Pilon emphasized the need for action after a couple of decades of inaction on child poverty - while Kerry-Lynne Findlay nicely contrasted her party's take by pointing out volunteer efforts while showing no interest in having Canada's elected officials do anything about poverty. Jack Harris noted how little thought and planning went into the Cons' bill to trash the gun registry, while Francoise Boivin followed in question period by pointing out the problems the Cons have created in tracking firearm sales and Andre Bellavance raised the issue of Jim Hillyer's shoot-em-up gestures during the gun registry vote. Jamie Nicholls noted the absurdity of the Cons' defence that direct interference in the Montreal Port Authority didn't count because it didn't work, while Alexandre Boulerice spotted yet another falsehood from Tony Clement. Charlie Angus, Linda Duncan and Jonathan Genest-Jourdain again connected the immediate emergency at Attawapiskat to the desperate needs of First Nations across Canada. Peter Julian lamented the fall of manufacturing-sector employment to its lowest level since anybody bothered to measure it. Ryan Cleary wondered why ACOA development funding was being used to move fish processing from Newfoundland to China. Wayne Marston suggested Canadians should have a more secure retirement plan than the Cons' roulette wheel. Julian introduced a bill to prohibit sweatshop labour goods, while Frank Valeriote proposed to prohibit recorded surveillance of Canadians' homes and property. Guy Caron managed to win the unanimous support of the House for a Senate bill to authorize the continuation of the Industrial Alliance Pacific General Insurance Corporation. Dan Albas' bill to repeal a Prohibition-era restriction on liquor transportation earned all-party approval. And Mylene Freeman challenged the Cons to do something about a glaring lack of pay equity for women.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Michelle Lalonde notes that despite continued giveaways from both the federal and provincial governments, Quebec's asbestos industry may soon fade away due to a lack of any economic case for private funding.

- Jessica Bruno reports on major cuts to the federal public sector which have been inflicted without any particular accountability so far - including job losses among the civil servants responsible for key areas like employment insurance, immigration and health.

- Meanwhile, that is indeed Canada's public safety minister getting rebuked yet again by the courts for improperly denying the rights of Canadians abroad.

- Steve rightly notes that the media's lack of interest in the NDP leadership campaign has much more to do with its own shallow political coverage than any shortage of interest within the party.

- Nancy Peckford points to Sana Hassainia's example as a case of our political institutions utterly failing to take into account the needs of new parents and others whose voices are all too often shut out.

- Finally, Stephen Maher reminds us why Stephen Harper has silenced his party's members for so long - as the first few outbursts under a majority government have been on the ugly side.

Sunday Afternoon Links

Assorted content to end your weekend.

- David Olive highlights the complete lack of need for the Cons' planned attacks on Old Age Security:

Say what you will of Stephen Harper’s success in scaring Canadian seniors with his recent musings about cutting seniors’ benefits. It does not warrant the public debate that the most charitable of the PM’s critics on this issue have tepidly welcomed.

The affordability of a higher-quality health care system does merit debate. Also affordable housing, the cornerstone of poverty reduction. Also education reform that better matches students with a workplace that, as a business think tank complained last week, is suffering a “desperate shortage” of skilled workers despite 1.42 million Canadians out of work.

The PM is wrong about the sustainability of Old Age Security and the Guaranteed Income Supplement, paid to the poorest Canadians. And Canadians have let him know it.
...
On his return from swanning with the swells in Davos, the improbable venue where Harper first floated his soak-the-seniors idea, the PM was given an earful from his own caucus. They have been inundated with complaints from constituents fearful and angry about the prospect of either themselves or someone they love being deprived of some portion of their average modest $500 a month in OAS payments. (That’s $6,000 a year, considerably below the poverty line. Hence the Guaranteed Income Supplement paid to the poorest seniors.)

Neither Harper or his more excitable ministers have explained why OAS and GIS suddenly are a “crisis.”

Nor have they offered a scintilla of convincing evidence for their case. Which is not surprising, perhaps, given the weight of contrary evidence in the many reports on this topic. But you’d think the PM would at least have read those reports before needlessly frightening a large part of the population.

- Meanwhile, Selena Ross reports from an NDP meeting to consult with citizens about the rumoured cuts to OAS.

- Thomas Walkom points out the futility of trying to justify torture as a matter of evidence-gathering as the Cons are determined to do:

(T)icking-time-bomb cases are so rare as to be almost non-existent. Countries like Morocco that use torture employ it not just for exceptional threats but as a standard investigative technique.

Thus Syrian jailers tortured Canadian Maher Arar in 2002 — not because they believed he was about to blow up downtown Damascus, but because that’s what Syrian jailers do.

Naturally, Arar told his torturers whatever they wanted to hear. His “confession” was then passed on to Canada.

But, as Justice Dennis O’Connor’s inquiry into the affair later discovered (and CSIS, to its credit, confirmed), the confession was useless — because it just wasn’t true.

And that is the practical problem with torture. It is unreliable.

- Tria Donaldson and Max Fineday write that Romeo Saganash's leadership campaign offered important inspiration to young First Nations activists.

- And finally, Alice offers a look at whether the Toront-Danforth by-election campaign stands in its early stages, while Linda Diebel presents Olivia Chow's take.

Leadership 2012 Candidate Rankings - February 12, 2012

It's undoubtedly been an eventful seven days in the NDP's leadership campaign - and one of the most important weeks of the race is just around the corner as the membership deadline approaches. But does any of the activity change this week's rankings?

1. Thomas Mulcair (1)

Certainly not at the top. And in fact Mulcair may be breathing a sign of relief after today: a contentious discussion about the Middle East might have been one of the most obvious sources of possible trouble for him, but nothing of the sort materialized in the foreign policy debate.

2. Peggy Nash (2)

I didn't see today's performance as one of her better ones, but it was still more than enough to position her as the primary alternative to Mulcair. And the Quebec MPs she's adding to her endorsement list may go a long way in holding off Topp as the campaign progresses.

3. Brian Topp (3)

Meanwhile, nobody looks to have missed more opportunities to try to shake up the race than Topp. But he did deliver a solid all-around performance - and it could be that he's reasonably concluded that it's time to start building up general down-ballot support rather than serving as the campaign's agitator.

4. Paul Dewar (4)

The French-language debate had potential to send Dewar's ranking in either direction. But instead, he held his own without hugely impressing - meaning that he'll stay in the top tier, but still figure to have trouble standing out as the campaign progresses.

5. Nathan Cullen (5)

Another effective debate performance can't push Cullen up the rankings this week. And indeed I have to wonder whether some media perception of momentum will ultimately backfire: it seems to me that the biggest weakness of his co-operation plan is less the Libs' progressive bona fides in government than their actions to keep the Cons in power while in opposition (raising issues about their trustworthiness in recognizing any "clear and present danger" from Stephen Harper or acting to address it), and I have to figure Cullen will face some largely unanswerable questions on that point before long.

6. Niki Ashton (7)

She did extremely well in today's debate, expanding on her previous themes and holding her own on foreign policy issues. But this time the rest of the field mostly matched that performance - and she needs to start recovering ground quickly to have much of a chance of emerging ahead of the field.

7. Martin Singh (8)

Meanwhile, Singh was clearly a cut below the rest of the candidates today, generally failing to stick to the topics presented and having some trouble making an impact even on his choice of replacement topics. But the good news for him is that at the current pace, enough candidates will drop out to leave him alone in first by about mid-2013.

Parliament in Review: December 6, 2011

Tuesday, December 6 saw a day devoted primarily to debating the Cons' seat redistribution bill. And the result was some interesting interplay between the three official parties in the House of Commons - if no lack of contradictions as well.

The Big Issue

In effect, the debate on C-20 saw three different positions clashing strongly throughout the day - with the lone agreement among parties being a concurrence of opinion between the NDP and the Bloc on the NDP's alternative proposal.

The NDP's take - presented first by David Christopherson - was that seat allocation should be treated as one of the most important real applications of the House of Commons' unanimous recognition of a Quebecois nation. Guy Caron criticized the Cons' total lack of consultation before imposing their preferred seat distribution on the provinces, while Pat Martin discussed his own participation in consultations on the constitution. In response to the cost argument raised repeatedly by the Libs, NDP MPs pointed out repeatedly that the cost of an unelected, unrepresentative Senate is far greater than the price of enough seats in the House of Commons to combine that principle with additional seats for growing provinces. And Bruce Hyer, Libby Davies and Jinny Sims noted that seat allocations should themselves be seen as a far less important issue than proportional representation and the ability of elected MPs to do their jobs without being stifled by a government which tolerates no dissent.

Meanwhile, the Cons and Libs limited their argument to the exact number of seats which should be divided up with substantially equal percentage allocations. Tim Uppal argued that any reductions in seats for a province would reflect "picking winners and losers" and needlessly inflaming tensions - making for a standard well worth applying to the Cons' own decisions on funding for programs and transfer payments. The Libs pointed to a quote from Stephen Harper suggesting that Canadians already have too many elected representatives, and also argued that it was percentages rather than raw numbers that really defined the relative weight of provinces. (Of course, they utterly abandoned that position in their attacks on the NDP for defining its policy in terms of proportions rather than specified seat numbers - and both Matthew Kellway and Alexandrine Latendresse rightly highlighted the contradiction.)

Finally, in what may have been the most stark difference of the day, Jamie Nicholls pointed to George Brown's one-time theory that representation by population would serve to entirely extinguish French Canadianism - only to be followed in short order by Michael Chong's proud invocation of Brown as the historical model for the Cons' bill.

Needless to say, the Cons couldn't allow that type of substantive debate among elected representatives to go on for long. And so in the name of democracy, Peter Van Loan again gave notice of his intention to shut down debate.

Do Unto Others

Pierre Poilievre lashed out at the opposition parties for denying a request for unanimous consent to split his time. Yes, that would be the same Pierre Poilievre who's served as parliamentary secretary to a Prime Minister who has publicly ordered his party never to consent to anything the opposition requests.

In Brief

Joy Smith presented a petition calling for use of the Nordic model on prostitution (which would criminalize purchasing rather than selling). Justin Trudeau had an intervention shut down due to his failure to wear a tie in the House. Nycole Turmel, Alexandre Boulerice and Nicholls all raised questions about political influence exerted by Con insiders Dmitri Soudas and Lou Housakas in the Montreal port authority. Charlie Angus, Linda Duncan and Jonathan Genest-Jourdain pointed out a complete lack of investment in tolerable living conditions in Attawapiskat and other First Nations across Canada. On the anniversary of the Ecole Polytechnique massacre, Francoise Boivin questioned why the Cons were removing controls on exactly the type of weapon used in the shootings. Megan Leslie pointed out that after deferring any action on climate change by saying they'd get around to it just as soon as China, India, Brazil and South Africa went first, the Cons were still standing in the way of agreement even after all the major developing countries were on board. Jean Crowder highlighted that the Cons were keeping EI cheques out of the hands of workers who needed them by refusing to properly staff Service Canada. Francois Lapointe again noted that Quebec's asbestos mines were shut down, and wondered when the government would bother planning an economic transition for the affected region rather than clinging to a dying industry. Alex Atamanenko pointed out a gruesome and unsanitary horse slaughter video as an example of the type of issue the CFIA should be equipped to address. Mylene Freeman noted that the Cons are doing effectively nothing to help 1.6 million women living in poverty. And Raymond Cote spoke to a private member's motion on the importance of the port of Quebec.

Saturday Afternoon Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Thomas Walkom highlights the lesson we should draw from the economic devastation caused by the shutdown of an Electro-Motive plant which was supposed to serve as a poster child for corporate giveaways:

Using tax breaks to encourage domestic production is a standard prescription. Yet, ironically, that’s exactly what the Harper government did.

In 2008, it offered tax write-offs worth an estimated $5 million annually — not to Electro-Motive (which, at the time, was owned by two hedge funds) but to Canadian railway firms that used locomotives.

The idea was to encourage companies like CN to replace their engine stock more quickly. And if it hadn’t been for globalization, the scheme might have created a few more jobs in London.

But globalization does exist. Canadian railways can still get those tax breaks on new locomotives. It’s just that now they will buy them from Indiana and Mexico.

None of this means that manufacturing has to be doomed. Ottawa could take a leaf from the U.S. and pass Buy Canadian legislation. The province (which is not tightly bound by international trade agreements) could penalize companies that purchase goods from jurisdictions with unfair labour laws.

Governments could even copy the tactic of Trudeau-era trade minister Ed Lumley, who famously threatened to hold up the import of Japanese autos until companies like Honda built assembly plants here.

But Canadian governments don’t do such things. To be seen as anything but avidly free-trade spooks both politicians and business.

- Meanwhile, Erin notes that artificially low royalties are doing nothing at all to spur resource development, but plenty to ensure that the public doesn't benefit when resources are exploited.

- Barbara Yaffe theorizes that the NDP should abandon its environmental principles in order to try to win seats in the West. To which I can only offer a reminder what happened - in Western Canada and elsewhere - to the last official opposition to try to appease the oil sector rather than providing some meaningful alternative to a government which acts as a wholly-owned industry subsidiary.

- pogge wonders whether any self-pronounced speech warriors will take up the cause of environmentalists singled out for silencing by the Con government for the content of their message.

- Finally, Frances Woolley compares the relative effects of RRSPs and TFSAs. But it's worth pointing out that the people who benefit most from the multiplicity of tax-sheltering devices are those who don't have to choose between them, but can instead take advantage of all of them.

Leadership 2012 Roundup

News and notes from the last few days as the deadline to sign up looms just a week away in advance of a convention that's set to far exceed the turnout the NDP expected.

- Niki Ashton responded to questions about whether she'd stay in the race with a strong indication that she won't be pushed out.

- Nathan Cullen added a noteworthy endorsement from Brian Masse, who becomes the first MP from outside Cullen's home province to back his leadership bid.

- Paul Dewar unveiled his foreign policy, while Daniel Leblanc wrote that this weekend's Quebec City debate could serve as as a crucial test of Dewar's French.

- Thomas Mulcair met with the Toronto Star editorial board, offering up an interesting perspective on the need to expand beyond an appeal to "ordinary" Canadians. And Mulcair also unveiled endorsements from three more MPs.

- Peggy Nash earned the endorsements of two more Quebec MPs, released plans party-building and foreign policy, and criticized the Cons' prioritization of the oil and gas sector over any other economic development.

- And before his exit from the race, Romeo Saganash took aim at regressive tax expenditures.

- Meanwhile, the Star Phoenix covered the Saskatoon candidate forum, while QMI didn't exactly do the same for last weekend's Sudbury debate. Rick Salutin framed the core debate over the NDP's future based on the respective leadership positioning of Cullen and Nash. Chantal Hebert had plenty to say - first in musing that the race was still largely taking shape, then highlighting both the importance of challenging the Cons in Western Canada and what strikes me as an overblown assumption that the NDP can't carry out that task while also building on its Quebec gains. And Joan Bryden notes that the NDP's membership-driven voting process won't leave much room for the type of backroom dealing that's decided so many Canadian leadership races over the past decade.

Musical interlude

Matthew Good Band - Symbolistic White Walls

How bizarre

A tweet responding to this week's column post raises a point worth plenty more discussion. So let's go into a bit more detail about how the Sask Party's response to should indeed be considered utterly bizarre - even if it may reflect standard operating procedure for right-wing political parties.

By any reasonable account, the most important development in the decision released Monday was the finding that the Sask Party's entire essential services bill was unconstitutional and thus had to be struck down. And after a couple of days of criticism from enough media outlets, even Brad Wall had to acknowledge that the decision reflected real failings on the part of his government.

Unfortunately, though, anybody reading the Saskatchewan Party's press release in hopes of figuring out what was happening in the province would completely miss that point.

Instead, the finding that the Sask Party's actual bill was found to be unconstitutional is mentioned once, then buried under an avalanche of "commitment to essential services". A passage from Mr. Justice Ball suggesting that essential services legislation could be valid if (unlike the Sask Party's bill) it involved some reasonable proportionality and dispute mechanism is treated as supporting the position of the same government which was found to have exceeded its authority. And even the one-year delay in implementation of the decision (standard in cases striking down significant legislation) and the fact that another bill met the bare standard of being found constitutionally permissible are somehow presented as victories for the Sask Party.

Now, I don't dispute that such a distortion is standard political operating procedure for parties who combine top-down messaging strategies with utter contempt for their audience. And indeed the Harper Cons do much worse on a daily basis.

But those of us who think public policy should be grounded in reality should indeed consider it bizarre (or worse) whenever we see such ridiculous spin from any government - as we'll never be able to keep our leaders honest in dealing with the public if we come to think it's normal for them to be self-delusional.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- David Climenhaga marvels at the fact that the Fraser Institute manages to claim charitable status while serving as an entirely political organization:

The Fraser Institute is serious all right, although its research is not serious in the normal sense of transparency and lack of bias, no matter what it claims. But it surely is political. Indeed, the Fraser Institute is all politics, all the time.

As it turns out, this is important, because the Fraser Institute is also a registered charity, meaning that those Canadians who do pay taxes are in effect subsidizing its purely political operations. Indeed, to go a step further, we are also subsidizing those wealthy individuals, organizations and corporations that bankroll the Fraser Institute's propaganda efforts to work directly against the interests of ordinary Canadians.
...
When a charity files its annual income statement with the Canada Revenue Agency, it is always asked: "Did the charity carry on any political activities during the fiscal period." Yet in each year between 2000 and 2010, according to a recent Access to Information request by the Alberta Federation of Labour, the Fraser Institute answered "No."

"Any rookie observer of Canadian politics knows this is nonsense," the AFL wrote in its Jan. 17 submission to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance on Tax Incentives for Charitable Donations. "The Fraser Institute is actively involved in the Canadian political landscape. Any reporting or suggestion otherwise is a sham."

In 2010, for example, the Fraser Institute explicitly communicated to the public calls for laws to be changed, thereby engaging in politics as defined by the CRA.
...
(N)ever mind why the media treats the Fraser Institute's dubious findings with such respect, the question most often asked about this organization. That seems obvious enough considering who owns the media.

A better question is: Given its responses to the CRA, can Canadians have any confidence that the Fraser Institute is staying within the 12 per cent of its allowed limit for political activities?

Moreover, it is fair to wonder: Is anyone at the Canada Revenue Agency paying attention or even raising concerns about the Fraser Institute's constant political activities, let alone questioning its charitable status?

- Frances Russell summarizes the anti-social goals of the Harper Cons:

The 2008 federal budget provided a handy compendium of what the Conservatives consider "core" responsibilities -- national defence, public security and the economic union. Period.

Absent is any reference to the pillars of the Canadian postwar state -- equalization, pensions, medicare and employment insurance.

Instead, Conservative "nation-building" amounts to an array of expensive "boutique" tax cuts like the Children's Art Tax Credit, alone projected to cost $100 million in 2011-12. The Frontier Centre for Public Policy reports that more than 70 per cent of these "boutique" tax credits for everything from hockey and dance lessons to tools go to the 25 per cent of taxpayers earning more than $50,000 annually.
...
The Conservatives believe Canada cannot afford its public pensions. They commissioned Edward Whitehouse, an economist for the World Bank and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development to do a study. He reported that Canada "does not face major challenges of financial sustainability with its pensions" and "there is no pressing financial or fiscal need to increase pension ages in the foreseeable future." Nevertheless, the Conservatives persist they are too generous.

The forthcoming assault on pensions and Canada's social safety net is driven by Harper's libertarian "no tax is a good tax" ideology. Not reality.

- Meanwhile, Marc Laferriere calls out Con MP Phil McColeman in particular for fearmongering about Old Age Security with no basis in fact. And Leftdog notes that the Cons themselves claimed to want to defend Old Age Security against exactly the type of attacks they're now planning to inflict.

- Kady highlights the Cons' remarkable position that elected representatives from all parties are to speak only when a majority government tells them to, rather than having any place voicing the concerns of their constituents.

- And finally, Thomas Walkom describes the strategy behind the Cons' fake citizenship oath.

Leadership 2012 - Saganash Bows Out

In my most recent leadership candidate rankings, I mentioned that I still saw a possible path to victory for Romeo Saganash. To expand slightly on what I'd planned to turn into a more substantive post, that view was based on the possibility that he could effectively put into practice Tarik Brahmi's theory of a Stephane Dion-style victory - with a stellar resume and strong issue focus combining to overcome the lack of a top-tier campaign organization and a lack of soundbite-friendliness in English. (And I'm not sure the comparison would have been a fatal one, as a party which recognizes the value of an opportunity to form government wouldn't have been as quick to throw a new leader under the bus as the Libs were with Dion.)

Now, Saganash is apparently set to announce that he's dropping out of the race. So what will effect will that have on the rest of the candidates?

The timing of Saganash's departure means that his campaign should have already managed to sign up most of the prospective members who had any interest in joining the NDP for the purpose of supporting him. And the result may be to significantly tighten the race among the top six candidates - as Niki Ashton and Nathan Cullen figure to be natural magnets for First Nations and rural votes to the extent they can keep Saganash's new members interested in the campaign.

Meanwhile, there's bound to be plenty of speculation about Saganash eventually backing Brian Topp (as rumoured before he entered the race initially). But whether or not that endorsement materializes, the biggest advantage for Topp in Saganash's departure may be the fact that he's now the only Quebec-based candidate left other than Thomas Mulcair. That figures to provide Topp with a unique narrative about bridging any gap between the party's new Quebec MPs and its longstanding national base as the leadership vote approaches - giving him a much better chance to emerge from the field than if voters concerned that the next leader should be from Quebec but uncertain of Mulcair had a third option.

New column day

Here, on how the evolution of labour rights under Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms can be traced directly to anti-labour overreach by right-wing governments - and how Brad Wall seems determined to push the limits yet again even as his first effort proved unconstitutional.

For further reading...
- The two cases discussed in the column are here (warning: PDF) and here.
- The Wall government's bizarre response to having been found to have acted unconstitutionally is here.
- Again, Murray Mandryk discussed the effect the decision will have on Wall's always-sketchy claim to moderation. And the Star-Phoenix muses about hard cases making bad law, while conspicuously refusing to suggest Wall bears any substantial responsibility for the case that developed.

[Edit: fixed link.]

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Mind you, some of the stories are a couple of days old precisely because there's been an embarrassment of riches in the Con criticism department this week. Most of the time, stories about a government violating immigrants' privacy for the sake of a photo op, blatantly politicizing a gratuitously extravagant system of medal-awarding or going far over the top in claiming political disagreement means undermining a country's troops would rank relatively high on any weekly list of outrages.

- But instead, the Cons are reaching the cartoon-villain standard of pushing trans fats and torture.

- Yet even those affronts to reason and human decency may not quite say as much about the mindset of the party governing our country as the fact that the Cons are under orders to be needlessly disagreeable:

At the time, it was explained to me by a staffer that the snub was unintentional -- Conservative MPs are simply told to deny any request for unanimous consent not emanating from the government side.

- All of which is to say that whatever morality supposedly guides the Harper Cons doesn't figure to serve much purpose other than as an example of how to get it wrong.

- So what can we do to change matters? Well, George Lakey points out what peoples' movements were able to accomplish in Norway and Sweden.

- And in another great opportunity to work toward something positive at home, Alice discusses the impending Toronto-Danforth by-election, while Megan O'Toole notes that the Libs' oft-repeated promises of a star candidate have fallen by the wayside.

Ten More Days

I'll post a quick reminder that the deadline to register for an NDP membership in order to be eligible to vote to elect a new leader is February 18 - ten days from today. And particularly for voters who supported the NDP in 2011 for the first time as the best alternative to Stephen Harper's Conservatives (as well as for younger Canadians who would have voted if they'd been able), the leadership election will represent a unique opportunity to set the direction of a strong and growing Official Opposition in the absence of decades-old factions and entrenched interests.

So I'll encourage anybody interested to read up and then sign up - as it'll take as many active citizens as possible to help turn Canada in a better direction.

Parliament in Review: December 5, 2011

Monday, December 5 saw the House of Commons debate the NDP's motion on climate change. And while the Cons tried to put up a relatively brave facade on an issue where they've been fighting progress at any turn, they inevitably ended up showing their true colours.

The Big Issue

At the outset, it's worth noting that Megan Leslie's motion was worded in a way that wouldn't be at all objectionable to any party except to the extent one wanted to focus on a mention of the Kyoto Protocol:

That this House urge the government to: (a) play a leadership role in tackling global climate change and ensuring Canadian jobs aren’t lost as the rest of the world moves towards a new sustainable energy economy; (b) work in a leadership role at the United Nations Conference on Climate Change in Durban towards a binding climate change treaty with the goal of limiting average global temperature increases to 2°C; (c) recognize the real, science-based threat of global climate change, as well as respect and adhere to its commitments under the Kyoto Protocol and the Copenhagen Accord; and (d) take immediate action to lower net carbon emissions in Canada and increase Canadian trade with our major partners in a new sustainable energy economy.

But it shouldn't come as much surprise that the Cons opposed the motion in its entirety even while claiming to be meeting most of its objectives. Michelle Rempel suggested it's the duty of any patriotic Canadian not to accept valid criticism from abroad, though she had rather less to say in response to Pierre Nantel's observation that Cons actually applauded their own government for receiving fossil awards. Michael Chong took credit for provincial programs in his spin as to how much the Cons' current and planned programs figure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Stephen Woodworth rather undermined his party's "only 2% of global emissions!" line by listing off a grab bag of projects featuring such global-scale impacts as a 52-home development and batteries installed in two B.C. communities. And Brad Trost mocked the idea that a transit strategy could be useful in Saskatchewan, only to have Mike Sullivan inform him that in fact the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities is demanding the type of transit strategy that Trost's party can't be bothered to provide.

All of which goes to show that Francois Choquette's hope that a few Cons might be more open to action than they appeared was entirely misplaced.

Meanwhile, Leslie criticized the Cons' lack of interest in developing an economy that wasn't totally dependent on the fossil fuel industry. Kirsty Duncan and Leslie agreed on the grave dangers posed by increasingly severe weather events. Charmaine Borg and Hoang Mai noted that the costs of climate change are being foisted on future generations - making for a far more severe intergenerational transfer of wealth than the one the Cons have tried to invent when it comes to pension funding. Bruce Hyer noted that the Cons have been outright destructive rather than merely lax in dealing with climate change. Ted Hsu mentioned the jobs available in the green energy sector while wondering why the government wouldn't support further development. Jinny Sims challenged the Cons' jingoistic view that being Canadian means cheerleading for environmental damage. Francine Raynault noted that the Cons are two years behind their own promised schedule in regulating oil and gas sector emissions.

Finally, Linda Duncan deserves plenty of credit for a number of well-thought-out interventions. In her speech, she listed off the international commitments which the Cons have either outright broken or sloughed off - including ones made at Copenhagen and Cancun under the Harper government. In response to a question from Christine Moore, Duncan noted that it's perfectly possible to develop the oil sands within a reasonable climate-change policy framework - but that the Cons have no interest in bothering. And under fire from, she highlighted the Cons' hypocrisy in claiming that it's not worth engaging with developed countries to reduce emissions when China's emissions might increase, while simultaneously encouraging the export of bitumen which can only contribute to that very expansion.

Bottom Lines

The Cons have come under plenty of criticism for being willing to give away the farm in trade negotiations - including billions of dollars in increased prescription drug costs and most ability to support local economic development through procurement policies among other major giveaways. But Brian Masse pointed out one of the few concessions that the Harper Cons were seeking from a potential trading partner which signals where the government's priorities really lie:

Apparently it is not enough that the government dumps hundreds of thousands of tonnes of cancer-causing asbestos onto developing countries every year, now a trade official confirms that Canada wants India to drop its 10% duty on Canadian asbestos exports.

While other countries are banning or restricting the deadly material, the Prime Minister is actively seeking ways to profit even further from it.

In Brief

Pierre Dionne Labelle took a turn lamenting the increasing use of (and need for) food banks. Peter Julian highlighted the OECD's findings about growing inequality, while Louis Plamondon noted that Canada's unemployed were taking the brunt of the Cons' EI failings. Helene Laverdiere wondered why the Cons were still allowing Suncor to funnel money into Syria's repressive regime even while engaging in a display of fist-shaking for the cameras. Olivia Chow followed up on her safety theme by questioning the Cons on their failure to require terrain warning systems on airplanes. Maria Mourani introduced a bill to expand the availability of family leave, while Russ Hiebert tried again to attack unions through his own bill. Larry Miller was caught napping during the presentation of reports - but the opposition parties, unlike the Cons, were willing to allow him the courtesy of consent to making up for the mistake. And a take-note debate on organ donation led to the Cons evading responsibility by claiming the issue is beyond their jurisdiction, while Dany Morin repeatedly and effectively questioned the government as to how it could seek to inform the public about a need for organs while categorically rejecting them from anybody who had engaged in homosexual activity over the previous five years.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- The New Democrat comments on the need to develop the NDP as a movement as well as a party. And a national movement to protect pensions looks like a great place to start.

- I'm generally in agreement with Trish Hennessy on the substance of what we can take from the utter failure of constant tax-slashing to do anything to help the economy. But while it's worth looking out for anti-union animus, I don't see how (a couple of isolated online comments aside) there's been any particularly effective effort on that front in the wake of Caterpillar's abandonment of its London plant. And indeed, the fact that even plenty of corporate actors are running from any association with Caterpillar looks like a compelling signal that nobody seems particularly prepared to defend the employer's callous disregard for its workers - leaving only the question of what ending to write for the stronger narrative on the workers' side.

- Meanwhile, Bruce Livesey wonders whether the business model is at the root of many of organized labour's current challenges.

- Sure, one might be tempted to file the Cons' embarrassing gaffe in getting their own by-election date announcement wrong under "mostly competent government". But in fairness, isn't it normally taken as a given by Harper and company that what really matters is the press release rather than the substance of any action?

- Finally, Lawrence Martin debunks the myth that the Cons have been anything but weak in managing either the economy or Canada's public finances.

Tuesday Night Cat Blogging

Solar-powered cats.

Leadership 2012 Roundup

A few leadership notes covering the gap between Sunday's informal debate and tonight's version in Saskatoon...

- Niki Ashton unveiled her justice platform, proposing a "judicare" program to ensure greater access to the legal system as well as soft drug decriminalization.

- Nathan Cullen took questions from Aaron Wherry, featuring his view that energy is the "elephant in the room" which isn't getting as much attention as he'd like in the leadership campaign.

- Paul Dewar earned a report from Tim Naumetz on his party-building plan, as well as a story from the Star.

- Thomas Mulcair strengthened his standing in Atlantic Canada with endorsements from multiple Nova Scotia MLAs, including Finance Minister Graham Steele.

- Peggy Nash talked to David Akin about the leadership campaign so far, including the fund-raising numbers released last week.

- Romeo Saganash appeared on CBC's C'est la Vie,

- Finally on the commentary side, Scott Stinson wasted plenty of space concern trolling over the fact that NDP leadership candidates haven't piled up money they wouldn't be allowed to spend before raising the slightly more relevant question of whether donor numbers might be an issue. And Ian followed up on some of the problems with Nathan Cullen's electoral cooperation plan.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Geoffrey Stevens discusses the basic problem behind the Cons' insistence on cutting back actual help to people while wasting billions on prisons and fighter jets:

(I)f the government did have a weakness (which, as noted, it does not concede), it might be that it does not suffer fools gladly — “fools” being loosely defined as anyone who fails to applaud everything the Conservatives do. This is quite a large category, encompassing (or so pollsters tell us) two-thirds of the Canadian populace.

Not only does the government not embrace criticism, it does not trust experts. The overhaul of the old age security system that Harper announced, minus details, in Davos (safely removed from the fools in Parliament) illustrates the point. As Harper sees it, the changes — which apparently will require seniors to wait longer and accept smaller pensions — are needed to make OAS sustainable for future generations. But is that really the case?

Non-partisan experts argue that if the Conservatives factor in economic growth and increases in the working-age population though immigration, they will discover a quite different picture, and not a bleak one at all. One of those experts is Kevin Page, the parliamentary budget officer (and a troublesome fellow in Tory eyes) “We don’t have a long-term sustainability problem,” Page says. “I think he (Harper) is doing it for broader problems.”

Common sense would suggest that the Conservatives acknowledge that independent experts just might have a point worth considering (by a royal commission perhaps?). At very least, the public deserves a more convincing explanation and some reassurance before the best finance minister on the planet attacks a pension system that has served the country well over the years.

- Bea Vongdouangchonh reports on Joe Comartin's efforts to make Parliament more open and democratic.

- Sixth Estate laments the embarrassment of riches in trying to choose a single weekly Flack Award.

- Last week's column looks to have been particularly well-timed, as word gets out that the Wall government is trying to recruit some of the same people taken in by Ireland's false promise of an economy built on corporate giveaways to help build a similar set of bubbles in Saskatchewan.

- Finally, kudos to the team of labour activists which succeeded in demonstrating that the Wall government's essential services legislation was unconstitutional. And Murray Mandryk nicely sums up how Justice Ball's findings that the Sask Party's essential services legislation was the most draconian in the country serve to undermine the Wall government's pretense at moderation.

Parliament in Review: December 2, 2011

Friday, December 2 saw the final day of debate in Parliament on the Cons' omnibus crime bill. And for at least a moment, the proceedings took a perhaps surprising turn.

The Big Issue

As debate wound down on C-10, Irene Mathyssen questioned why the Cons insisted on delaying the passage of greater sentences for child abusers in order to keep them tied to other, less explicable parts of the bill. Francoise Boivin pointed out that the Cons' campaign of fear hadn't actually managed to keep Canadians from feeling safe in their communities - meaning that the supposed need for the bill was entirely lacking. Boivin and Irwin Cotler then compared notes on the Cons' stubborn refusal to so much as listen to opposition amendments, a theme discussed as well by Guy Caron in the final speech on the bill. In a lovely example of translation, Con MP Robert Goguen was quoted calling for a "more repressive justice system". And Gordon O'Connor claimed that the Cons have no control whatsoever over what Stephen Harper's Senate toadies might do to amend the bill.

But the passage of the day came from Alain Giguere in pointing out that the Cons had also been rather selective in their omnibus legislation by focusing on low-level individuals rather than systemic problems:

(T)his omnibus bill always makes me think of the late Italian anti-Mafia magistrate Giovanni Falcone. Before he died, he said that there were three kinds of policies: those that work for the Mafia, those that work against the Mafia and—the most dangerous of all—those that let the Mafia be.

There are a lot of measures in Bill C-10, but there are a lot of things missing too. It does not address the serious crime of money laundering. Where are the regulations against money laundering in this bill? Is there special punishment for people who import cocaine in containers? Will police officers be assigned to the fight against serious crime? The bill does not talk about that.

The government is increasing prison sentences for petty criminals, for people who sell drugs. We all agree that criminals must be punished. But we should start by going after organized crime, after the people who commit crimes, who bring in containers and order assassinations. I would like to know this will affect organized crime, when we know that any small-time drug dealer is easily replaced.

When all was said and done, a voice vote on the bill led Andrew Scheer to conclude...that the "nays" had it, as the opposition parties were apparently more fired up to oppose the bill than the Cons were to voice their approval. And so matters stood - at least until the inevitable recorded vote.

In Brief

Annick Papillon highlighted the positive example of transit in Quebec City, while Jose Nunez-Melo noted the urgent need for much more similar development with federal support. Jonathan Genest-Jourdain asked whether the Cons had bothered following up in the slightest on departmental visits to Attawapiskat. Caron and Philip Toone pointed out the climbing unemployment rate even as the Cons try to take credit for implementing their vision for Canada's economy. Laurin Liu mentioned a lament from one of Nelson Mandela's cabinet ministers about hardly recognizing Canada under Stephen Harper; while nothing on the record reflects Rob Anders responding with a hearty "filthy commie!", we can only assume it was said. Djaouida Sellah demanded answers as to whether CETA will indeed result in billions in giveaways to big pharma. Rodger Cuzner compared the standard 85% occupancy for a properly-managed call centre with the appalling 99% level at Service Canada (which the Cons only want to exacerbate by further slashing jobs). Manon Perrault wondered whether yet another international commitment - this time the ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities - would ever be followed by action. Glenn Thibeault proposed a bill to require the development of a universal charger for cell phones. And Jean Rousseau, Thibeault and Manon Perreault spoke to the NDP's seat redistribution bill at second reading