Friday Afternoon Links

This and that for your Friday reading.

- Jim Stanford points out that free trade hasn't delivered any productivity gains as promised - and has in fact moved Canada further away from the model that's working elsewhere:

The famous Macdonald Commission, influenced heavily by market-oriented economic analysis, made two core recommendations in this regard. Canada’s social welfare programs should be rationalized to reinforce labour market discipline. And we should pursue comprehensive free trade with the U.S., to expose our firms to the full force of competition and eliminate our remaining 10-per-cent productivity disadvantage. The proposals were fiercely debated, but in the end implemented. The Macdonald Commission’s 1985 report heralded a new era of economic rationalism; it might be less “compassionate” than previous policy frameworks, but would surely deliver the productivity goods via the invisible hand of a freed market.

The graph that accompanies this article starkly illustrates the ironic results. No sooner had the Macdonald Commission helped spur a historic turn in Canadian policy, than Canada’s relative productivity began to fade. The more social programs were curtailed, the more we faced global competition, the more sectors were deregulated, and the deeper taxes were cut, the worse Canada’s productivity performance became. Today we’re right back where we started: poor cousins again, with business sector productivity equal to only 70 per cent of U.S. levels, and still sinking.

In terms of innovation, our performance has been even worse: lagging far behind the U.S. and most of the industrialized world. As we focus on extracting and exporting ever-more unprocessed minerals, our capacity to develop innovative products, services, and processes for the world has withered away.
...
Indeed, the experience of most successful industrializing countries in recent decades suggests a very different idea of how innovation, productivity, and export-led growth actually occur. From Korea to Finland, China to the Netherlands, Brazil to Germany, countries which actively direct and manage growth seem to perform better in productivity, innovation, and global trade. These countries have fostered investment and innovation with focused sector strategies; deliberately favourable capital market, exchange rate, and trade policies; and sophisticated efforts to manage income distribution so that productivity growth visibly translates into higher living standards (unlike Canada where there is no longer any visible link between productivity growth and personal incomes). Intellectual support for the effectiveness of those approaches is provided by recent new thinking in development economics, highlighting the central role of a proactive “developmental state” in attaining qualitative and quantitative economic progress, rather then reifying market forces.

- Meanwhile, Ezra Klein points out how tax expenditures - preferred by the Cons and other anti-government parties as a means of handing out money without creating any corresponding social institutions - are both less effective and more dangerous than direct spending.

- And Andrew Jackson notes that even the IMF doesn't buy the rhetoric of budget hawks anymore, warning that misplaced austerity may do as much damage to bond markets just as it does to workers.

- pogge rightly suggests that Peter MacKay's use of defence resources for political purposes would serve as a resignation-worthy offence for any minister with the slightest sense of responsibility.

- Finally, following up on John Ibbitson's column today, Alison gives a clear-cut example of the Cons encouraging exactly the kind of wink-wink, nudge-nudge attitude toward political deception that led to the newly-named Robocon.

On battlegrounds

Paul Wells has a theory about the political playing field developing for Canada's 2015 federal election. And his laments that a new NDP leader won't get to take a three-year sabbatical aside, I can only hope that he's right.

Yes, it's true that the Cons will enjoy a few more favourable ridings in the West after their seat redistribution takes effect. But it's equally true that they'll still need to win a substantial chunk of Ontario to get anywhere close to a majority of seats in the House of Commons.

Wells' theory (to paraphrase) is that the Cons plan to push the resource sector, while cutting public services and generally expressing apathy toward the other industries made uncompetitive under a resource-inflated Canadian dollar. Which means that their road to a continued majority would involve successfully chanting "drill baby drill!" to win over voters in the province whose economy is suffering most from that mantra.

I won't say it can't be done, particularly with both corporate oil money and the resources of the state being used to sell the message in the interim. And there are at least a few possibilities for more favourable terrain (such as a major scandal that turns parts of the populist West into a wasteland for the Cons). But if Wells is right in forecasting the issues we'll be debating in 2015, I have to like our odds of toppling Harper.

New column day

Here, on the open questions as to whether Nathan Cullen's plan for pre-electoral cooperation would serve any useful purpose.

For further reading expanding on the points in the column:
- I've previously posted on some of the practical considerations involved in Cullen's proposal, while also questioning whether we should write off the possibility of the NDP winning a true majority on its own and pointing out the failures of strategic voting schemes in 2011.
- Alice ran through her own list of pros and cons to the Cullen plan.
- Malcolm crunched the numbers as to the vote retention rate needed to make pre-electoral cooperation work.
- And Stuart Parker theorized that pre-electoral cooperation might work better than some of the proposed alternatives.

Friday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to end your week.

- Sure, it's a plus to know that Canada's military is ready and willing to leap into action to protect what matters most to the government of the day. Now if only that meant something other than serving as political operatives to protect the Harper Cons' interests.

- Which is to say that the breaking robocall scandal is far from the only example of the Cons' anything-you-can-get-away-with mentality pointed out by John Ibbitson:

(I)t is certainly true the Tories push their campaign tactics to the edge of legality and sometimes beyond. They pleaded guilty last year to violating federal election laws in 2006 with their “in-and-out” scheme to fund the national campaign with money laundered through local campaign accounts.

And they may have instilled such an intensely partisan anything-you-can-get-away-with mentality among their campaign workers that one or more of them concluded it would be okay to cross the line of legality.

Political parties can’t be held responsible for the actions of rogue supporters. But they can he held accountable for creating environments that produce those rogues.

This is a mirror into which Stephen Harper and everyone who works for him should be looking.

- Meanwhile, Carol Goar slams Jason Kenney for ignoring what had been a reasonable set of compromises and accommodations developed in the previous Parliament to force through a bill designed to unduly restrict Canada's refugee system.

- Andrew Jackson points out how Andrew Coyne's attempt to dismiss Paul Krugman's economic prescription falls flat:

(A)s any reader of Krugman’s blog knows, he has acknowledged that a very modest US recovery is underway, while pointing out that the US economy is still operating well below its potential growth path.

He argues – incessantly – that the US economy needs additional stimulus if that gap is to be closed, and he has never argued that the first stimulus package had no effect, only that it was far too small to promote a meaningful recovery.

So there is absolutely no contradiction between what Krugman has argued and the fact of a very tepid US recovery.

Coyne goes on to side with the Fraser Institute argument that fiscal stimulus in Canada had no impact – an argument that has been thoroughly debunked by neutral economists such as Serge Coulombe...

- And given my own interest in chronicling what happens in Parliament, I'll readily note that it's worth reading about Elizabeth May's vigil in the House of Commons.

Parliament in Review: December 15, 2011

Thursday, December 15 was the final day in the House of Commons before the winter break.

The Big Issue

Once again, debate focused primarily on Bill C-26 to clarify the availability of self-defence under the Criminal Code. And the opposition parties started proceedings by granting unanimous consent to an effort to speed through second reading of the bill - which I'm pretty sure resulted in the Cons regularly expressing gratitude for the cooperation.

But then, that wasn't the only point of distinction between the Cons and their opponents. When Kevin Lamoureux asked whether the NDP would have amendments to present, Mike Sullivan suggested it might take the time to listen to experts at committee before taking a final position. In contrast, when Lamoureux asked whether the Cons would in fact consider amendments, Harold Albrecht helpfully responded by cheerleading for his party's "decisive action" in ramming through C-10 while listening to nobody but its own spinners.

Meanwhile, Alain Giguere highlighted the difference between peace officers who are trained to use minimal force and citizens who may not be, then warned that good intentions could produce harmful results. Pat Martin discussed his own experience in apprehending vandals, but also noted that there's a glaring lack of support for people who want to escape unsafe streets. Elizabeth May wondered whether we should empower citizens to collect evidence rather than trying to apprehend suspects for themselves. And Peter Julian slammed the Cons' overall dumb-on-crime agenda.

In Brief

Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet criticized the Cons' attempts to shift committee work from the public eye to behind closed doors. Nycole Turmel proposed some resolutions for Stephen Harper to consider over the holidays. Charlie Angus again questioned why the Cons were punishing Attawapiskat with a third-party manager for highlighting their own neglect. Julian noted that the Cons seem entirely willing to claim money grows on trees when it comes to the massive cost of corporate tax cuts, jails and fighter jets - while Christine Moore noted that they'd recently decided to chip in tens of millions of dollars on added research just to keep the F-35 facade upright for a few more months. Wayne Marston and Giguere both asked whether Jim Flaherty would countenance improvements to the CPP, only to be told that the Cons have no interest in anything other than funneling private savings into the financial sector. James Bezan proposed a bill to inform Canadians of the dangers of tanning beds. Dennis Bevington wondered how a government supposedly interested in northern security could shut down the only Coast Guard office in the western Arctic. And Marie-Claude Morin asked whether the Cons would bother to renew social housing agreements to allow for some level of stability for vital social services - with Diane Finley's response pointing to past spending suggesting otherwise.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- pogge points out that the Cons' response to the perception that judges aren't fully onside with their efforts to impose top-down control has been to eliminate the judiciary's ability to ensure fair results:

Where the institutions of government have put constraints on Conservative ambitions, this government has tried to game them, sabotage them or roll right over them. If a regulator like Linda Keen gets in the way, she gets fired. Legislation from Jason Kenney and now Vic Toews has attempted to give the ministers ever-wider latitude to act on their own discretion without accountability. If regulatory processes threaten to prevent, or even slow down, government-approved development projects then regulatory processes need to be "streamlined."

It shouldn't come as a surprise that they're also trying to game the legal system to prevent judges and courts from impeding their agenda. It's what these Conservatives do.

- Which is to say that we should fully expect them to next try to ensure that partisan appointees can prevent the likes of Election Canada from investigating fraudulent voter suppression.

- Dave comments on the B.C. Libs' punishment budget.

- Finally, this week's column will run a day late - as in the meantime, the Leader-Post is dedicating its opinion page to a well-deserved tribute to columnist Ron Petrie.

Leadership 2012 Roundup

A quick survey of what's happened in the NDP leadership campaign over the past couple of days...

- Niki Ashton has rightly criticized other candidates' operatives who seem to be working to push her out of the race. But the behind-the-scenes maneuvering may only backfire it if gives Ashton and her supporters reason to be wary of the contenders behind it.

- Nathan Cullen's economic plan has received some media attention already. But it's well worth noting that a plan which largely mirrors Brian Topp's take in increasing the resources available for social equality may offer about the best hope possible for Cullen to earn down-ballot support - particularly compared to other candidates who are relying more on reputation than policy proposals in appealing to the NDP's base.

- Meanwhile, as the media picks up on the significance of the labour movement in the campaign, Paul Dewar's labour policy looks like the most thorough nod toward both safety and bargaining interests so far in the campaign.

- Thomas Mulcair released transit and housing plans. But perhaps more interesting than the controversial is the choice of other priorities Mulcair attached to both as defining his campaign:

Today’s announcement was one of several proposals Mulcair has made during his leadership campaign tour including a comprehensive cap and trade program to combat climate change, a plan to provide every Canadian access to a guaranteed benefit pension and a proposal to require that 50% of all appointments to the boards of Crown Corporations and government agencies be women.

- Peggy Nash unveiled one of the more interesting endorsements of the campaign - though considering the controversy surrounding the CAW's past involvement with and against the NDP, I'm somewhat surprised Nash wanted to make much of a show of Ken Lewenza's support.

- Brian Topp took questions at Rabble, including this answer how environmental revenues should be used:

In my view all revenues derived from our plan to reduce carbon emissions should remain within the environmental plan. These funds will be needed to do the job we need to do (transitioning to a much lower-carbon, much more-energy efficient and – not incidentally – a much for productive, competitive and prosperous economy). also, keeping them focused there will ensure public support for green measures. And I don’t think we want the government to become a carbon addict – dependent on revenues derived from carbon emissions which we want to radically decrease.

- Finally, Chantal Hebert questioned Brian Topp's view that the Libs can safely be ignored - which makes for a fair criticism, even if the answer isn't necessarily to try to swim a three-legged race the rest of the way. Aaron Wherry compiled the candidates' response to this week's final membership numbers. And the leadership events page is heating up - including visits to the Regina area by four candidates over the next week.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Thomas Walkom points out that the McGuinty Libs' choice to emphasize austerity rather than stabilizing Ontario's economy may lead down exactly the same destructive path travelled by Greece and other countries:

(T)he crises in Spain, Portugal and Greece occurred because government spending cuts designed to remedy debt problems sent those countries spinning into economic decline.

Throughout much of Europe, measures aimed at reducing debt have created a self-reinforcing spiral of doom.

Government workers are laid off to save money, which leads to higher unemployment. Higher unemployment reduces tax revenues, thereby widening fiscal deficits. Governments are forced to borrow more to cover these shortfalls, thus increasing debt.

And on and on.
...
If we assume, as Drummond seems to, that the U.S. economy will never fully recover and that the price of oil (and therefore the loonie) will stay perpetually high, then Ontario’s economy will remain precarious.

In this scenario, “unprecedented” spending cuts of the kind Drummond recommends would be the worst possible action.

It would be far better for Queen’s Park to undertake a less ambitious debt reduction scheme, even if doing so caused the government to miss its 2018 target date for balancing the budget.

Spain’s austerity regime has led to a youth unemployment rate of 50 per cent. Greece’s has led to rioting in the streets. Ontario doesn’t need either.

- Chris Selley rightly suggests that total online surveillance is an intrusion into the lives of Canadians that deserves a fight. And Rick Mercer rants:



- Aaron Wherry surveys a few suggestions from MPs on how to make Parliament more effective.

- Mike de Souza reports that an obsession with pushing unrestrained tar sands development at the expense of all other economic priorities may prove to be just as damaging for Alberta on its own as for the other regions of the country which are more obviously suffering for the Cons' warped priorities.

- Finally, J. Rhys Kesselman has some ideas to actually improve Canada's retirement income system. But since they run contrary to the Cons' strategy of transferring wealth from those who need it most to those who need it least, I wouldn't expect them to get anywhere as long as Stephen Harper is in power.

Tuesday Night Cat Blogging

Cats in formation.

On universal growth

Alice has weighed in on the final membership numbers for the NDP's leadership campaign, pointing out that B.C. and Ontario between them will go into next month with a combined majority of the party's membership. But I'll add one more observation as to the provincial membership numbers which speaks well for the NDP's growth as a federal party.

Keep in mind that B.C. and Ontario - along with Saskatchewan and Manitoba - saw contested provincial NDP leadership races in the past few years. And so there may have been reason to think the party and its provincial leadership competitors might have already exhausted any potential growth - particularly in the western provinces where it's either in government or the obvious main challenger.

Likewise, Nova Scotia elected an NDP provincial government in 2009, and could have been expected to have little room left to grow.

But none of the provinces which seemed like they might have hit a ceiling did anything of the sort. In fact, every single province saw at least double-digit growth in the course of the federal leadership campaign: Ontario led the way in total numbers while ranking 4th in percentage; Nova Scotia ranked 3rd in percentage by nearly tripling its; B.C. added another 8,000 members above those who participated in last year's provincial race; and even Saskatchewan and Manitoba saw impressive boosts to hold onto most of their provincial weight.

If there's anything slightly disappointing in the final tally, it's that Quebec's membership growth was somewhat lower than I would have hoped. But on the balance, there's every reason to be satisfied that the NDP's leadership contenders have managed to find room to grow in every Canadian province - and excited about the prospect of continuing to build in the years to come.

On limited choices

Daniel Leblanc's report on a possible detente between Thomas Mulcair and Brian Topp certainly makes for some interesting scenario-building. So let's follow up on what Paul Wells has already written.

Obviously, we wouldn't expect locked-in supporters of any candidate to be swayed by the appeal. So the obvious first target would figure to be the substantial number of voters who are undecided to date. And to the extent voters buy the idea that it's necessary to choose from Mulcair or Topp in order to keep the NDP's Quebec gains (which itself seems rather questionable when Topp has less caucus supporters in the province than Peggy Nash), the main effect would be to elevate Topp above the second tier of candidates to become the chief challenger to Mulcair.

But that strategy would succeed only at a massive cost to Topp's ultimate prospects. Even if he manages to win enough early-ballot support to emerge as the second-place contender, any signal that Mulcair is an acceptable choice would only give the supporters of every other candidate reason to figure there's no need to line up to stop the front-runner. Which means that absent some follow-up plan to severely damage Mulcair in a campaign where no attacks have yet managed to make a dent, the most plausible effect of making the message stick would be to elevate Topp to second place...while effectively handing Mulcair the leadership.

That makes me wonder whether Topp's motivation may be a matter of setting up his place in the pecking order within a Mulcair-led party, rather than any perception that he has a plausible path to victory. But it'll be well worth watching both how Topp handles Mulcair from here on in, and how the other campaigns respond to the move to narrow the field.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- The outrage against the Cons' total online surveillance scheme continues, with Dan Leger, Mia Rabson and Michael Geist adding noteworthy comments to the mix.

- Meanwhile, the Star rightly criticizes the latest legislation to hand Con cabinet ministers the power to make major policy decisions by fiat with no accountability. But lest there be any doubt, that's been happening since long before the Star apparently noticed the issue surrounding refugees.

- And the minister responsible at that time is doing her own share of damage to vulnerable groups, in this case the workers whose retirement benefits stand to be slashed. So let's offer a reminder of what the Cons hope the public forgets: if we're facing a declining tax base and need to build up reserves, the sane thing for any government to do would be to make sure we're taking in enough revenue now to bridge the gap, rather than slashing taxes with no regard for (or outright hostility toward) our ability to fund social needs.

- Susan Delacourt rightly notes that the only surprising part of Vic Toews' ravings this week is the fact that anybody in the media bothered to challenge the Cons on their standard-issue demonization of all opposition.

- Finally, Jessica Bruno reports on the desperate need for better parliamentary oversight over federal government spending. But it's also worth being careful not to accept the Cons' distorted definition of what our representatives should be doing: surely it's equally important to identify and support what actually needs funding, rather than spending a disproportionate amount of time declaring what shouldn't be.

Parliament in Review: December 14, 2011

Wednesday, December 14 saw another day of debate devoted to free trade issues, this time addressing a proposed treaty with Jordan. But first...

The Utterly Unprecedented, Stunning Development Which Shook The Very Foundations Of Canada's System Of Government As Administered By Stephen Harper

Helene Laverdiere asked a simple question to Peter MacKay. And MacKay actually answered it.

The Big Issue

Gerald Keddy started debate on C-23 with a fairly helpful summary of the goods currently traded between Canada and Jordan. But as the opposition parties noted, there's much more to the picture than mere dollars: Brian Masse pointed out Jordan's abuses of migrant workers, while Wayne Easter highlighted its political instability. Wayne Marston noted that the main difference in philosophy between the NDP and the Cons is that the former considers human rights to be a top priority in foreign relations, while the latter somehow believes that deals aimed solely at shiny dollar figures will take care of all other issues. Masse questioned how Canadian industry can be expected to compete against sweatshop labour, and tore into the Cons over their utter negligence in dealing with the United States on border issues. Linda Duncan noted that the Cons' versions of free trade agreements were omitting even the lip service that was once paid to labour and environmental standards in NAFTA and other previous deals. Chris Warkentin, apparently concerned about any such talk, invoked the Cons' amendment-barring tactic to make sure that omission wouldn't be fixed within the bill. And Raymond Cote noted that Parliamentary scrutiny should be a crucial means of preventing Canada from signing onto bad deals - rather than the nuisance the Cons find in any critical analysis of every bill they present.

In Brief

Alex Atamanenko expressed disbelief that the Cons would approve of GMO contamination of Canada's food supply, while Libby Davies made a statement criticized their efforts to undermine the long-term viability of a publicly-funded health care system. Nycole Turmel responded to Stephen Harper's description of the Kyoto Protocol as "stupid" by pointing out some genuinely stupid political decisions. Marc Garneau raised the Cons' newly-announced intention to move all committee proceedings behind closed doors. Kennedy Stewart wondered why the Cons are rushing to force through approval for new pipelines when we already lack the resources to monitor the pipelines which currently exist in Canada. Peter Julian noted that the Harper government's spirit of giving was limited to further freebies for rich corporations - to which Jim Flaherty responded by offering the public a lecture about credit. Brad Trost, apparently concerned that we're not selling off our natural resources fast enough, introduced a bill to facilitate total foreign ownership of uranium mines. Ryan Cleary's bill proposing an inquiry into the cod fishery was defeated by the Cons at second reading. And Helene LeBlanc summed up the case for her infrastructure motion, while Dan Harris criticized the Cons' attempt to impose a private toll structure on any new infrastructure.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your Monday reading.

- Damian Carrington reports on the Harper Cons' sad efforts to prevent the European Union from accurately accounting for greenhouse gas emissions from the tar sands, offering in particular a look at how Canada's actions look to our global neighbours who don't operate from the Cons' petro-state starting point:

Darek Urbaniak, at Friends of the Earth Europe, which obtained the new documents, said: "These letters are further evidence of Canadian government and industry lobbying, which continuously undermines efforts to combat climate change. We find it unacceptable that the Canadian government now openly uses direct threats at the highest political levels to derail crucial EU climate legislation."

The unveiling of Canada's threats is the latest in a series of recent embarrassing revelations. On 12 February, the occurrence of a secret strategy "retreat" in London in 2011 was discovered. High-level officials discussed the "critical" issue of winning the tar sands argument in the EU, to "mitigate the impact on the Canadian brand" and to protect the "huge investments from the likes of Shell, BP, Total and Statoil". Representatives of Shell, Total and Statoil attended the meeting alongside the UK's state-owned Royal Bank of Scotland and the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.

In December, the Guardian revealed the secret high-level help given to the Canada by the UK government, which included David Cameron discussing the issue with his counterpart Stephen Harper during a visit to Canada, and stating privately that the UK wanted "to work with Canada on finding a way forward". Canada's minister for natural resources, Joe Oliver, stated: "[The British] have been very, very helpful."

The UK proposed an alternative "banded" approach to ascribing carbon emissions to different fuel types, which does not single out tar sands. But environmentalists dismiss it as a delaying tactic and the Guardian understands that the UK has failed to present its proposal formally or provide supporting evidence.

- Meanwhile, Greg Weston notes that the Cons' pathetic excuse for a mining complaint agency (designed to do absolutely nothing without the consent of the corporations whose actions might be challenged) has burned over a million public dollars while proving as useless as expected.

- Erin points out Ontario's corporate capital tax giveaway - which slashed public revenue without having any positive economic impact.

- Kennedy Stewart's motion to allow public petitions to require a response in Parliament looks like a great step in promoting direct democracy.

- Finally, T.C. Norris rightly questions how media outlets often misreport on polling by both cutting out the multiple sides to the story actually told by poll results, and misinterpreting the context of a given set of results.

Leadership 2012 Candidate Rankings - February 19, 2012

We'll get plenty more information about where the leadership campaign stands once we see how membership sales have turned out. But there's been enough news in the past week to make one change to the rankings for now.

1. Thomas Mulcair (1)

When I started these rankings, I clarified that being ranked at the top of the list (and thus having a seemingly greater likelihood of winning than any other candidate) didn't necessarily mean Mulcair was more likely than not to emerge as the NDP's leader. Now, I'll at least temporarily revisit that clarification: while the principles behind the rankings haven't changed, I'd currently place Mulcair's chances of victory somewhere slightly north of 50%.

2. Peggy Nash (2)

Meanwhile, the identity of his top challenger remains the same as well. But I'll be curious to see whether there's been any positive/negative impression polling to show if Nash actually enjoys enough enthusiasm to actually gather momentum, or whether inertia is the most important factor operating in her favour.

3. Paul Dewar (4)

I don't think the poll results released this week change the relative positioning of the candidates as spun by Dewar's camp. But his latest set of endorsements gives him a far stronger answer to the question of "can he win support in Quebec?" than he could offer so far, and that's enough to vault him narrowly ahead of...

4. Brian Topp (3)

The other part of the reason for the change in this week's rankings is that one of Topp's weaknesses from day one only seems to have been exacerbated as the campaign has progressed. The more Topp turns off supporters of other candidates, the less likely he is to earn enough down-ballot votes to win - and while I'm not entirely unsympathetic to the need for clash in the leadership campaign, Topp seems to have provoked more of a negative response than any other candidate which severely limits his chances of emerging as a compromise choice.

5. Nathan Cullen (5)

Cullen had a great week in the media thanks to shows of support from key outside groups. But while he looks like a strong bet to finish third or fourth on the first ballot, it's still questionable whether enough of the NDP's base will provide him with any down-ballot support to permit any growth from there.

6. Niki Ashton (6)

A quiet week may signal that Ashton is looking to the debates to make or break her campaign from here on in - which may well make for her best hope, especially if her fund-raising hasn't picked up.

7. Martin Singh (7)

Finally, it's been another quiet week from Singh's camp as well - and again, no news isn't good news for a candidate already stuck at the back of the pack.

[Edit: added labels; fixed wording.]

Parliament in Review: December 13, 2011

Tuesday, December 13 served to confirm the range of concerns that hadn't yet been taken into account in the Cons' seat redistribution bill - even as debate came to a close and the bill was rammed through against the protests of a united opposition.

The Big Issue

In response to the start and end of third reading debate on C-20, Stephane Dion and Mike Sullivan wondered why the Cons had been unwilling once again to countenance any amendments. And Scott Reid answered the latter question with a remarkable assertion:

Mr. Speaker, I have been around here for five Parliaments now and three of those were minority Parliaments. Two of them were Conservative minority Parliaments. My experience was that it was very difficult to get any legislation through at all.

I think I am correct in saying that aside from legislation initiated by the opposition, no legislation went through unless it was being presented on the condition that should it be defeated on a bill, the government would fall and have an election.

Of course, that can be disproved simply by looking at the progress of the first substantive bill ever introduced by the Cons after they took power, not to mention dozens of other examples (as a stroll through the progress of bills in the 39th and 40th Parliaments on LegisINFO would reveal to anybody concerned about facts). But it doesn't come as much surprise that Reid and other Con MPs have been instructed to wilfully ignore what actually happened in order to portray themselves as victims of democracy.

Meanwhile, Alexandrine Latendresse pointed out the obvious flaw in the Cons' statement that the bill had to pass immediately, since on its face it includes transitional provisions to allow for different possibilities as to when it would take effect. Francoise Boivin spoke about how Ed Broadbent convinced her of the need for proportional representation. Pat Martin discussed what consultation really means and looked forward to an NDP government putting the principle into action. Martin then noted the need for specific representation for different types of communities of interest - intriguingly adding socio-economic needs to the usual list based on culture and geography. David Christopherson noted that part of the effect of the Cons' bill would be to limit the time for public input on the redrawing of riding boundaries. Peter Julian pointed out a noteworthy correlation between provinces who elected Lib MPs and those who would lose seats under the Libs' proposal. Jamie Nicholls noted that pure representation by population (absent regard for provincial and cultural concerns) was never the basis for agreement on Canada's historical development.

Selective Benefits

Alexandre Boulerice spoke on his bill to bring federal parental leave up to par with that provided under provincial jurisdiction, with Christine Moore pointing out the existing gap. Kellie Leitch confirmed that the bill would do nothing more than to bring federal standards in line with provincial ones - but nonetheless declared that the Cons have no interest in bothering. And Rodger Cuzner similarly declared his party would rather see a uniformly lower standard of benefits for employees under federal jurisdiction than try to ensure equity within each province.

Pop Quiz

Terence Young compared the Cons' seat reallocation bill to which of the following events?

A. the Arab Spring
B. the fall of the Berlin Wall
C. the French Revolution
D. the war of 1812

The answers are: A and C. Which would raise far more questions about the Cons' total lack of perspective if anybody were paying attention.

In Brief

Kennedy Stewart presented a petition for a more systematic approach to combating hate crimes, while Claude Gravelle offered one seeking improved rural access to communications technology. Elizabeth May lamented the Cons' decision to tear up the Kyoto Protocol. James Rajotte was entirely unabashed about declaring the Cons' fealty to bankers. Nycoel Turmel wondered whether the Cons would reconsider their determination to shred the data underlying the federal gun registry under threat of legal action by Quebec, while Francoise Boivin noted that the Cons' own vandalism in refusing to ensure the current registry was accurate didn't provide an excuse to do otherwise. Libby Davies challenged the Cons' unilateral plan to limit health care transfers. In a series of questions on the latest report from the Environment Commissioner Megan Leslie wondered why the Cons had no interest in enforcing the law when it came to environmental offenders, Laurin Liu asked about dangerous goods transportation only to be met with the clearest indication yet that the Cons couldn't care less about preventative measures before an accident actually happens, and Philip Toone highlighted the need for accurate data about fish stocks in order to make decisions about Canada's fisheries (then followed up in adjournment proceedings). Carolyn Bennett reminded the Cons of the "99 other Attawapiskats" which have just as much need for federal action even if they aren't in the headlines at the moment. Peter Julian contrasted the virtuous circle of investment in needed services and infrastructure against the Cons' vicious cycle of handouts to the corporate sector coupled with an eroding standard of living for most Canadians. Andrew Scheer delivered his decision letting the Cons off the hook on technical grounds for their attempt to push Irwin Cotler out of his seat. Larry Miller introduced a private members' bill to prevent the bulk export of transboundary waters - but with a noticeable lack of interest in extending the standard any other types of water. And Wayne Easter slammed the Cons' disrespect for the law in forcing through their attack on the Canadian Wheat Board.

Leadership 2012 Roundup

A quick look back at the last few days in the NDP's leadership race...

- In addition to his support from Leadnow and Avaaz, Nathan Cullen won cross-partisan support from the B.C. Green Liberal Caucus. But it's an open question whether the result will be a net plus for Cullen, as a positive response from a group which apparently fits comfortably within the Conservative-friendly B.C. Liberals may not send quite the message he's hoping for in trying to unite anti-Con forces. Meanwhile, Cullen also took questions on Rabble, featuring this noteworthy response on the relative role of government and business:

Traditionally private industry has existed under the power of the state and that it was a privilege (not a right) to operate a business. Now it seems that the tail wags the dog and that Canada now has a lobbyist for the oil sector in the prime minister and his cabinet. I'm not aware of any legislative barriers that prevent our governments from re-establishing the role and responsibility of the state.

- Paul Dewar filled in the last major gap in his base of endorsers, picking up the nod of two highly-respected Quebec MPs in Helene Laverdiere and Hoang Mai. Dewar also took questions and criticism about his French - but that makes his ability to convince at least a couple of the NDP's new wave of Quebec MPs of his merit all the more important.

- Thomas Mulcair earned a public endorsement from Charles Taylor - leaving roughly zero room for anybody to counter with a more distinguished party figure in Quebec.

- Brian Topp confirmed that if elected leader, he'd ask a Quebec MP to step aside to allow him to run in a by-election - which as Aaron Wherry notes makes for a well-worn path to Stornoway. But I wonder whether it would be worth making the case that Topp might be able to do more good outside the House in any event: after all, it's not as if asking daily questions to a perpetually-unresponsive Stephen Harper did wonders for the public's impression of the last two Lib leaders. Topp then made an appearance on the House with Evan Solomon, responding with his answer to each of the other candidates' cases for the leadership.

- And on the media and commentary side, Lawrence Martin updated the number of NDP members and voters anticipated in advance of yesterday's deadline. And it's worth keeping in mind the difference between the two: if turnout is in the two-thirds-of-members range normally seen in leadership votes, then a total membership of 115,000 would likely set the number of votes required to win in the range of 40,000. PSAC-Quebec released a report card on candidate responses to a survey on values about the public service - but perhaps more striking than the union's own evaluation is the fact that only three candidates responded in the first place. And Trefor analyzed the candidates' positions on Israel/Palestine policy, while DL classified the candidates into two tiers.

Parliament in Review: December 12, 2011

Monday, December 12 saw two main topics of debate. But perhaps most striking was the introduction of the Cons' newest tactic to dictate the terms of discussion in the House of Commons.

The Big Issue

Much of the day's discussion focused on the Cons' copyright bill. And Paul Calandra started proceedings by moving that question be put in order to prevent any amendments to the legislation at the last stage where the bill could be amended in substance; naturally Scott Simms among other lamented the fact that the Cons had started using yet another means to shut down discussion of any alternatives.

Calandra also grandstanded about how our corporate overlords would never be anything less than benevolent in deciding what rights consumers should hold, only to be met with Charlie Angus' example of Sony CDs containing spyware (which the Cons want to give precedence over any consumer rights). Jean Rousseau discussed the history of fair dealing. Philip Toone noted that the Cons' scheme could only be explained as an example of trickle-down theory run amok, while Andrew Cash highlighted the Cons' propensity for listening only to corporate interests. Cash then criticized the destruction of existing revenue streams for artists and noted that blanket licenses - unlike an undue focus on digital locks - would actually allow for more income for creators. Angus commented on the value of the digital commons which the Cons are attempting to make subject to corporate interests. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet and Matthew Dube discussed the value of the course notes the Cons want to make subject to involuntary self-destruction. And with the Cons unwilling to debate or answer questions about their own bill, Kevin Lamoureux and Jose Nunez Melo could only muse as to how nice it would be to get some assurance that consumers won't find that they've bought much less than they've bargained for due to digital locks.

No Such Thing as a Free Trade Agreement

The other bill debated was legislation on a free trade agreement with Panama - with Lisa Raitt likewise moving that the question be put to prevent the opposition from being able to offer any amendments to the bill as foisted on the country. Mathieu Ravignat, Wayne Easter, Robert Chisholm and Brian Masse pointed out Panama's status as a tax haven and money-laundering centre. Masse reasonably suggested that we shouldn't be seeking trade deals that would force Canada to try to compete with child labour. Elizabeth May pointed out some of the (possibly) unintended consequences of NAFTA in limiting governmental action. John McKay pointed to the Cons' consistent pattern of proclaiming themselves "surprised and disappointed" at international events that would have been known to anybody paying the slightest bit of attention. Simms asked whether Panama was similarly eager to avoid debate on the treaty, with Raitt's answer serving only to confirm that the Cons' steps to limit debate have nothing to do with any timeline to implement the treaty. And in a question that particularly resonates this weekend, Chisholm wondered whether we should actually know what's in a treaty and its implementing legislation before ramming them through.

Choose Your Side

As an added bonus, the House of Commons voted on the Cons' seat redistribution bill and related motions. And while the Libs lined up with the Cons to provide a larger cushion than usual for the complete lack of change to the government's wording, it's noteworthy that Elizabeth May joined the Bloc in support of the NDP's motions.

In Brief

Joy Smith's bill on human trafficking received all-party agreement at second reading. Pat Martin warmed the crowd up for question period by pointing to Bruce Carson's sordid history as a Con adviser and beneficiary. Nycole Turmel and Peter Julian questioned the Cons on their suppression of economic and trade data. Matthew Kellway helpfully provided Julian Fantino with his talking points on F-35s after having heard them a few dozen times already; Fantino apparently didn't have enough self-control to avoid sticking with them even after being rightly mocked in advance. Helene Laverdiere pointed out the Cons' continued secrecy about the terms of a new Afghan transfer agreement. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe questioned why the Cons have handed billions of free dollars to banks rather than helping the many Canadians living in poverty. May asked whether Parliament would at least have the chance to debate withdrawal from Kyoto that it had in acceding to the treaty in the first place. Mylene Freeman commented on a committee report on violence against aboriginal women by noting that the Cons had refused to either acknowledge the problem or take responsibility for any solutions. And in adjournment questions Irene Mathyssen followed up on the Cons' mismanagement of Service Canada which has led to the point where most callers can't even get through to a machine, while Jean Crowder asked whether the Cons will support the NDP's bill for a national anti-poverty strategy if they can't be bothered to deal with the problem of their own volition.

A friendly reminder

Some people who should know better are suggesting that universal media condemnation (as opposed to public involvement on social media) should be seen as the main factor in getting the Cons to climb back down on arbitrary online surveillance. So let's take a ride in the wayback machine.

It wasn't long ago that the Cons sprung a nasty surprise on the country on another issue, and were met with similarly strong and unanimous criticism from the media in response. Does anybody remember how willing they were to change course based on editorial ire in the absence of the same level of public outcry?

Of course, the above shouldn't be taken to suggest all social media campaigns are equally desirable or effective - and I'd think the brilliant #tellviceverything hashtag did far more to move the needle than the more controversial @vikileaks account. But the last thing we can afford is for the public to think it's best off staying out of the way and leaving criticism of the Cons to the opinion pages alone.

[Edit: fixed wording.]

Saturday Afternoon Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- No, it isn't much surprise that poll respondents may think we've moved to the right as a country: after all, Con propaganda (largely echoed by the media) has been declaring that for years. But as Warren Kinsella notes, that perception bears no resemblance whatsoever to Canadians' opinions about actual issues.

- Thomas Walkom points out the glaring gap between what Don Drummond rightly suggested should be done in allocating, and what his recommendations would actually do:

Don Drummond, Ontario’s adviser on everything, says the harsh government spending cuts he wants must be seen as fair to succeed — they must hit everyone.

In fact, they almost certainly won’t. The well-off will fare better than the poor and middle class. Public sector employees will be hit harder than those in the private sector.

Groups with political clout — such as the multinational pharmaceutical firms that charge prices Drummond deems too high — are sure to successfully resist proposals that they share the pain. They’ve done so before.
...
That the rich will fare best under Drummond is true by definition.

The well-to-do depend less on government programs than the poor and middle class. That is a fact. Drummond’s call for government to roll back the Ontario Child Benefit will hurt poor families who receive the subsidy. It will not affect the rich who do not.

Nor are the wealthy being asked to chip in through higher progressive taxes. Drummond did advocate that some taxes, including those on property and gasoline, be hiked. He even wants a special tax (he calls it a user fee) levied on rural parents who bus their children to school.

But these kinds of regressive taxes hit the poor and middle class proportionally harder than the rich. A surtax on high-income earners could correct that bias. But Premier Dalton McGuinty specifically told Drummond to stay away from such remedies.

- pogge wonders how ministers with no clue what's in the bills they're demagoguing about fit into the Mostly Competent Government promised of the Cons. And Dr. Dawg anticipates what's coming next on the legislative front.

- Finally, Stephen Maher and Don Martin are among the latest commentators to criticize the Cons' obsession with online surveillance. And the Ottawa Citizen notes that at least some parts of the Cons' bill - though not the most galling ones - can be traced directly to legislation introduced by the Martin Libs.

A cooperative forecast

Nathan Cullen's plan for a pre-election accord between the NDP, Libs and Greens is certainly receiving loads of attention. Leadnow and Avaaz are encouraging members to join the NDP to support it (raising for me the question of how a large number of instant NDP members would allocate their down-ballot support if Cullen drops off the ballot). And Catch 22 is trying to make the case for pre-election cooperation as compared to other options in toppling the Harper Cons, while Malcolm calculates the remote odds of a such a strategy making a difference in actual electoral outcomes based on 2011 voting patterns.

But then, I'm not sure hindsight is the best way to evaluate what a cooperation plan would actually do. Instead, let's consider what would happen in the lead up to 2015 if Cullen were to win the NDP's leadership based on his plan.

To start with, as I've pointed out before, the goal of cooperation is mostly moot if the other main party needed to make the scheme work isn't committed to participating. And that means for a year after the NDP's leadership campaign, the most important question as to the primary plan of the leader of the Official Opposition would be based on the impending result of another party's leadership race - encouraging the media to keep focusing on the Libs for that year, while leaving the NDP's grassroots in limbo out of uncertainty as to how to allocate its resources.

So what would happen based on the results of the Libs' leadership race? Well, if they chose a candidate who supported Cullen's plan, then the next step would be for riding associations on both sides to plan their strategies for a co-operation scheme. Each would have a choice between not participating and planning for a campaign as usual, or participating and having to ramp up for a nomination contest. And both parties would have to work internally and coordinate with each other at all times to set up an agreeable nomination schedule and ground rules - diverting plenty of resources which might otherwise be used setting up a winning message against the Cons.

The co-operation plan would then apply only in the ridings where both parties' grassroots membership preferred cooperation - which would be far from assured based on some of the backlash against Cullen's plan from both sides of the party divide. And then a nomination meeting would only serve to divide the parties once more before the final effort to put their vote shares together.

In other words, if Cullen's proposal works as planned, the result will be a wasted year for the NDP in building itself up in contrast against both the Cons and Libs. And that would be followed by a huge diversion of energy and effort from traditional or innovative political engagement, toward instead setting up and then trying to gain the greatest possible advantage within a one-time ad hoc structure.

So what if a Lib leader were to reject Cullen's plan? On the one hand, any failure is bound to take some wind out of the sails of a party, particularly to the extent the Libs would be seen as dictating what happens within the opposition despite their third-party status.

But at the same time, Cullen and the NDP would be able to make another pitch to voters that their efforts to cooperate have been rebuffed by a party which puts its own self-interest ahead of the goal of replacing the Harper government. And if the same groups which are supporting cooperation now recognized the Libs' refusal to participate as a fundamental barrier to replace the Cons and threw their support behind the NDP, then there's at least some chance that the end result could be a best-case scenario in ensuring that progressive Canadians coalesce within the NDP.

Which is to say that Cullen's proposal isn't without some upside. But the best-case scenario may well be the one in which the Libs reject it and allow Cullen to claim the moral high ground for the NDP. And if the Libs see that possibility too, then it's not out of the question that both parties would end up getting trapped in the plan without any particular grassroots enthusiasm for it.

Musical interlude

JPL - We Move In Symmetry

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Susan Riley brilliantly slams the message that austerity is necessary for everybody but those who already have the most:

Is anyone else getting tired of being lectured about austerity by wealthy consultants in expensive suits who charge $1,500 a day for their advice and have comfortable government pensions, besides?

And do we really need another warning about saving for old age - instead of frittering away money on escalating tuition for our children; or scrambling to compensate for unexpected job loss, or medical expenses - from disapproving cabinet ministers with fat salaries and fatter pensions?

Notice how these apostles of austerity rarely want to impose sacrifices on their fellow HNW (highnet-worth) individuals in the drive to restore fiscal sanity. They talk about fairness, but there is always an excuse for not halting corporate tax cuts, for not eliminating costly, quirky tax credits for people who don't need them. And their zeal for slashing redundant public service jobs and frivolous spending always seems to exclude their pet projects. (The Office for Religious Freedom, anyone? Those problematic F-35s?)
...
Oddly, the federal government takes the opposite approach when it comes to Old Age Security: no saving is too small. It will soon propose moving the eligibility age from 65 to 67, phased in over time. Aside from hurting the most vulnerable seniors, experts say eventual savings, as a percentage of GDP, will be slight.

Maybe they should call their bill Restoring Senior Poverty.

Meanwhile, there is no talk of trimming other pension plans - especially the RRSP, but also the taxfree savings account - that benefit those with ample money to save. Fewer than one-third of Canadians contribute to RRSPs, and a tiny number make the maximum contribution of $22,000 a year. But, by some estimates, RRSP breaks for the richest Canadians cost the treasury $12 billion in 2010.

The issues differ for different levels of government and different parties hold power across the country. But the austerity refrain is the same: protect the rich, hit the middle class and leave the poor for later.

- It's a shame other commentators haven't put the two together yet. But could there be a better contrast for than NDP than that between the Cons dictating attacks on Old Age Security even as experts beg them to consult at least a bit, and the NDP's public engagement to discuss the effect of service cuts?

- Terry Milewski points out how Orwellian the Cons' online snooping bill is in providing for total surveillance of all online activity. And Dan Gardner makes it clear that Stephen Harper is at best a libertarian of convenience:

This week, the Conservative government introduced legislation which would create a vast system of warrantless Internet surveillance. Civil libertarians howled in protest.

Public Safety Minister Vic Toews told them they could either support the government's plan or side "with the child pornographers."

Many more people howled, including conservative newspaper columnists. A few Conservative MPs even dared to suggest that maybe the legislation wasn't entirely perfect and righteous in every way.

By the end of the week, Toews suggested that perhaps it might be possible to modestly amend the bill in unspecified ways - without aiding and abetting child pornographers.

As farce, this was amusing. As governance, it was appalling. But as an illustration of the thinking of the prime minister and his circle, it was invaluable.
...
One moment Stephen Harper is Ayn Rand. The next he's J. Edgar Hoover.

So how can we explain this? The prime minister could be suffering from some sort of personality disorder. But unless and until there's a diagnosis we'll have to go with something else.

It is this: Stephen Harper is interested in advancing certain political goals. Sometimes, a strong civil libertarian position helps do that. The long-form census, for example, generates the data that support social housing, employment equity, and other programs the prime minister doesn't like.

Taking the Randian position was a way of undermining those programs indirectly, and looking principled doing it.

But sometimes civil liberties get in the way of doing what the prime minister wants to do. So he goes all Hoover.

And that provides an obvious follow-up question which Harper shouldn't be able to escape: just what is it that he wants to do with all the surveillance information he gets about Canadians' online activities?

- Finally, Erin highlights that Don Drummond's slash-and-burn plan for Ontario is based on the assumption that interest rates will soar far beyond what anybody is currently predicting - even though fiscal hawks have been nothing but wrong in trying to put nonexistent inflation worries ahead of actual economic development.

New column day

Here, featuring an overview of the NDP's leadership race from a Saskatchewan perspective.

For further reading:
- The per capita membership numbers cited in the column are from Alice. And of course her general coverage of the leadership campaign is well worth a look.
- For those who haven't seen it yet, I discuss the recent polls in this post amidst the rest of my leadership blogging.
- And with the membership deadline fast approaching, the NDP's membership signup form is here.

Parliament in Review: December 9, 2011

Friday, December 9 saw the final day of debate at second reading on the Cons' seat allocation bill. And as usual, plenty of valid questions went entirely unanswered.

The Big Issue

Marc-Andre Morin rightly questioned the Cons' trumped-up sense of urgency in dealing with seat allocations while they do nothing but put off citizens' genuinely pressing concerns, while Denis Blanchette noted that any seat allocations would have to wait for updated census figures anyway. Linda Duncan worried (correctly) that the Cons would try to pair an increased number of MPs with cutbacks in resources for current elected representatives. Tarek Brahmi highlighted how the need to take into account factors beyond mere population is applied to Prince Edward Island's seat allocation, and wondered why similar principles couldn't apply to Quebec. And Peter Stoffer described the Cons' seat reallocation as lazy and hurried compared to the consultation that should be carried out as to what type of representation Canadians expect.

Pop Quiz

Guess which MP said this:

I want to point out one other unassailable fact. In Canada, we pride ourselves for being one of the most progressive democracies in the world.

You're probably wrong - and it's worth watching who's trying to take over the term "progressive" for his party's cause.

In Brief

Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet highlighted the problem of homelessness and called on the Cons to do more than keep their eyes averted. Raymond Cote pointed to the example of White Birch Paper as a case of investors getting rich off the work of employees, then refusing to hold up their end of the bargain. Robert Aubin pointed out that the Cons' promised committee to study workplace language rights seemed to have evaporated as quickly as it was made up as a distraction. Helene Laverdiere questioned the billions in tax freebies being handed to banks while so many Canadians are in need. In response to a particular ill-advised bit of spin, Ryan Cleary wondered just how routine it is for Peter MacKay to take a helicopter from one destination to another. Christine Moore offered up John McCain's take on the rising costs of F-35s, but predictably couldn't get a straight answer out of Chris Alexander. Justin Trudeau challenged the Cons with a $19 billion cost estimate for their dumb-on-crime bill. Francoise Boivin lambasted the Harper government for its disrespect for the rule of law. Jamie Nicholls questioned what rural services are on the chopping block as Jim Flaherty goes into selloff mode. David Christopherson raised doubts as to how elected senators could be "accountable" if by design they'll never face an election after taking office. Peter Stoffer proposed the creation of a ministry of state for education. And Kellie Leitch spoke to a private member's bill on breast cancer awareness, only to have Rathika Sitsabaiesan respond that awareness is only a small first step if the federal government isn't properly funding a system to deal with health issues once they're discovered.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Erin nicely summarizes Don Drummond's report on Ontario's finances. But it's worth noting that leaving aside Drummond's own choice not to follow the instruction, anybody looking for a thorough analysis of Ontario's fiscal realities should be able to discount the report in its entirety based on the fact that Dalton McGuinty's marching orders included an instruction not to even look at how revenue increases might help to address deficits.

- Frances Russell points out how Enbridge's Gateway pipeline could inflict direct economic damage on Canada. But lest there be any doubt who to blame for the attempts to ram the project down the country's throat, Mike de Souza reports that even Enbridge itself doesn't want to rush the environmental approval process at the breakneck pace being encouraged by the Harper Cons.

- Meanwhile, Shawn McCarthy confirms that the Cons' list of civil society groups being targeted as "extremist" threats includes the likes of Greenpeace.

- Finally, Ken Gray describes the Cons' insistence on pushing ahead with F-35s as a betrayal of reality-based fiscal conservatism. And the utter absence of any backup plan can only make the Cons' folly look all the worse.

Wednesday Afternoon Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Heather Scoffield gives far too much credence to the Cons' spin on what their focus group results mean. But her report offers what may be the most definitive indication yet that the Cons' ideology bears absolutely no resemblance to what Canadians actually want:

The report says respondents were generally supportive of the government's deficit-reduction efforts, but were somewhat skeptical of the government's time frame. They were also adamant that deficit reduction should not be at the cost of funding for health care.

They showed little appetite for more tax cuts.

- Meanwhile, Michael Goldberg, Steve Kerstetter and Seth Klein point out another attempt by the Cons to redefine away the real issue of poverty in Canada.

- The Cons' online surveillance legislation has given rise to plenty of backlash, with John Ibbitson, the Vancouver Province and Lawrence Martin all weighing in. And Sarah Schmidt catches the Cons trying to politicize their bill on the fly.

- Finally, Marc Laferriere sums up the impact of Romeo Saganash on the NDP's leadership race - and his anticipated role in the years to come.