Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- The Cons are apparently looking to take the fun out of #spotasenator by making it no challenge whatsoever - using the thoroughly embarrassing Pamela Wallin to raise money in Palliser. For those looking to put people over patronage appointments, Noah Evanchuk's next Regina canvassing blitz happens Sunday.

- Meanwhile, the Cons' cone of silence extends to Canada's northern reaches, as Western Arctic candidate Sandy Lee (while enjoying her own #spotasenator moment with Mike Duffy) has refused interviews unless she receives a copy of the questions in advance.

- Martin Patriquin and Phillipe Gohier's discussion of the state of Quebec politics is well worth a look - particularly in noting how the NDP is appealing to voters who have previously backed the Bloc as a populist option.

- Linda McQuaig is right to note that positive results from a coalition may be well within reach. But it's worth also recognizing that one of the main obstacles is the Libs' continued insistence on undermining any effort to build multi-partisan hope for change.

- Finally, pogge annihilates Adam Radwanski's willingness to accept the Cons' spin about their track record even faintly resembling "competent government".

Deep thought

I'm pretty sure this whole "fabricating quotes from Sheila Fraser" fiasco will blow over without any particular damage to the Cons.

After all, as Mother Teresa said, "be faithful in (Stephen Harper), because it is in (him) that your strength lies". And who are we to doubt such a sainted figure?

On costly thanks

I can only assume that Huntsville Mayor Claude Doughty somehow thinks he's defending the Cons' G8 scandal by speaking out. But if anything, his comments only raise more serious questions about how the Harper Cons have consistently abused public money:

Claude Doughty, mayor of Huntsville, the main site of the summit in Ontario’s Muskoka region, defended the program, saying some of the projects were meant more as a “thank you” to area municipalities for being host than as G8-related facilities.

“I don’t think there was ever any intent that some of them would be used by the world leaders,” he said. “You have to appreciate that a lot of people in Muskoka did a lot of work to prepare for the G8, myself included. And for those municipalities that went out of their way to really do those things, this was a bit of a token of saying, ‘Thank you.’”

So what's new about Doughty's response? Well, until now the Cons had normally at least tried to pretend that their G8 spending had something to do with the conference. But on Doughty's account, a substantial chunk of money was spent on projects that everybody knew had nothing to do even with the G8 - let alone with the border security fund the Cons used as their pot of money to dole out G8 largesse.

In other words, even the Cons' own allies say they were paying off their friends with our money - all while covering up the true nature of the funding. And however Doughty thinks he's justifying the Cons' actions from a local perspective, I'd fully expect the inconvenient questions he's unwittingly raised to ensure that he'll never ride the Cons' gravy train again.

Monday Evening Links

Content goes here.

- Andrew Jackson notes that there's more than one way to eliminate a budget deficit - and that the NDP is on the right track in its choice of ways to get there:

As Mike McCracken says in a short note included in the NDP platform, major changes in the mix of spending compared to the current fiscal plan would likely give a boost to job creation. The big items in terms of job creation are significant tax credits to business for job creation and real investment in place of no strings attached tax breaks; the major green jobs package; and modest funds allocated to child care and other services which would create new jobs while meeting caring needs.

While it is fiscally cautious, the New Democrat platform does point to a better way to bring down the deficit, through job creation rather than through spending cuts.

- Robert Silver nicely sums up the reality surrounding the Cons' attempts to pretend that some undisclosed and inaccessible auditor general's report will rebut the thoroughly damning draft released today:

Stephen Harper’s spokesman, Dimitri Soudas, among other Conservatives, alleges that the final report tells a very different story.

In the midst of an election campaign, this is what we call all-in poker. If Mr. Soudas et al.’s version of events is accurate and the report exonerates entirely the Conservative government, there is zero chance that the report will not be leaked by the Harper camp today. What, is Stephen Harper suddenly paralyzed by Parliament and its rules? Really? “Oh, I would really, really like to release a report that I have a copy of that exonerates me and saves my now-floundering election campaign; but damn, those rules of procedure won’t let me.” Yes, this sounds like the Stephen Harper that we all know and love.

Or – and it is kind of binary with these Conservatives – the final report is bad news for Mr. Harper just like the draft report is. It doesn’t exonerate the Tory Leader at all. If that’s the case, then not only does Mr. Harper have the substance of the report to deal with but the subsequent spin that will make it so much worse for him.

- It never hurts to give voters a low-effort way to participate in the election campaign. And the NDP's Spot a Senator project should nicely serve to harness the power of public interest to call attention to unelected nonrepresentatives using our money to boost their parties.

- Jesse Brown asks whether any Canadian political party is appealing to the tech-savvy voter. Cory Doctorow provides the answer.

- And finally, Murray Dobbin discusses how the Harper Cons' brand of consumer-based and cynical politics builds on decades of efforts to distance citizens from the governments who are supposed to respond to their interests.

On archaic practices

Susan Delacourt reminisces about the days of yore when governments not only informed opposition members of Parliament of federal funding in their ridings, but actually allowed them to take credit for it.

How times have changed.

Monday Morning Links

Assorted content to start your week.

- While I don't share her pessimism about the possibility of votes translating into seats, it's well worth noting Lysiane Gagnon's column on the NDP's position as the top national party in Quebec:

Mr. Duceppe used to focus his attacks on Stephen Harper, since the biggest fight in Quebec is waged between the Conservatives and the Bloc in the Quebec City area, while the Liberals are painfully holding on to their old bastions in a dozen of Montreal’s predominantly anglophone ridings. Rumour, meanwhile, has it that, because of the bonne entente between the Bloc and the NDP, the Bloc is running a weak candidate in Outremont to help Thomas Mulcair, the lone NDP MP in Quebec and the right-hand man of Mr. Layton, keep his seat in what used to be a traditionally Liberal riding.

But the latest Angus Reid poll is a wake-up call for the Bloc. For the first time in its history, the NDP has become the second political force in Quebec, with 24-per-cent support – only 10 points behind the Bloc, which lost two points since the previous Angus Reid poll on March 24.

Moreover, Mr. Layton is more popular than ever in his native province: 36 per cent see him as the best choice for prime minister (against 15 per cent for Mr. Harper and 10 per cent for Michael Ignatieff).

- Cheryl McNamara points out plenty of the good reasons for Canada's current opposition parties to work together in unveiling a new citizens' group pushing for a post-election coalition:

Harper is banking on a disengaged and ill-informed electorate for his political success. He accuses the opposition of forcing an election on Canadians, who clearly do not want it or understand the magnitude of the contempt of Parliament charge; and he presents a Conservative majority as the only stable solution to the dysfunctional Parliament that his government has orchestrated over the past six years.

If his party is handed another minority, what then? The contempt of Parliament charges and past indiscretions have made it impossible for the opposition to work with it. The only alternative is a coalition government, and Harper knows this.
...
If the Canadian electorate are sick of elections every few years, they better start warming to the idea of coalition governments.

Everything Harper has worked hard for is in danger of taking a hit. He will not go down without a fight. Caving into his anti-coalition tactic will neither serve the left nor democracy. It's up to the engaged electorate to give the Liberals and NDP the political will to stand up to Harper and do what they must do to restore stable governance.

- Most of the criticism of the Cons' latest patronage arrangement has understandably focused on the plan to pay more salary and severance to political staffers. But perhaps the more telling change is that the Cons are also robbing from the non-partisan to pay the partisan by funding ministers' and staffers' travel expenses out of the pool of money normally directed toward the civil service:

(M)inisters will have a little more money to play with since the government has decreed that their offices should no longer have to foot the bill for international travel by ministers, their staff and parliamentary secretaries. Those costs will now be absorbed by government departments instead.
...
The policy document specifies that separation payments "are to be funded through departmental operating budgets," a policy that does not apear (sic) to have changed.

However, the offloading of international trips onto departmental budgets is new.

- Finally, Bill Curry trumpets a "new" development model for First Nations communities - consisting of partnerships between band governments and developers which is leading to direct investment returns for the communities themselves in addition to the development they're seeking to promote.

Needless to say, that outcome looks like a win-win for the communities involved. But it raises the question of why our municipal and provincial governments are bound and determined to avoid any development models which would result in similar returns for our own public sector.

The trifecta

Law-breaking. Lies. And cover-ups. All in one juicy story about how the Cons (and particularly Tony Clement) abused the massive public funding allocated to year's G8 summit.

We'll see if any more news is forthcoming during the course of the election campaign, or whether we'll have to rely on second-hand reports of Sheila Fraser's draft audit as the best information available. But either way, it's hard to imagine a story that cuts more directly to the Cons' supposed strengths - and the gap between the Cons' spin and the reality documented by Fraser would seem likely to support the narrative that it's long past time for a change.

You have a choice

Along with its platform, the NDP has also unveiled a slick video laying out the party's message concisely - both in terms of some key platform themes, and the overarching point that Canadians shouldn't listen to the attempts of the Cons and Libs to narrow their range of choices:

NDP Platform Notes

A few observations on the NDP's platform released this morning.

First, the platform stands out from those of the NDP's competitors in its focus on actually eliminating poverty. In addition to promising an immediate end to seniors' poverty through the GIS, the NDP is also pushing for a quickly-implemented Child Benefit aimed directly at child poverty, as well as legislated goals and targets for general poverty reduction which don't seek to pass the buck to other levels of government.

That focus on taking immediate action toward eradicating poverty contrasts nicely with the Libs' platform, which merely paints the GIS as a reduction to seniors' poverty and try to depict such unrelated measures as RESPs and volunteerism as somehow dealing directly with general poverty issues. And of course the Cons are looking to pretend that there's no problem worth fixing.

So for Canadians who see eliminating poverty as a top priority for their federal government, the NDP's platform offers both the most immediate action, and the strongest commitment to ensuring that a country as wealthy as ours doesn't leave any of its citizens behind.

Second, there's plenty of material dealing with jobs and economic development. And while I'm not a huge fan of how the platform accepts framing like "job creators" (albeit meaning those who actually creating jobs, in contrast to the Cons' definition where it tends to mean the wealthy) and "competitiveness", the combination of some direct reference to those with direct incentives for hiring through the Job Creation Tax Credit (along with investments in capital, infrastructure and renewable energy) should do plenty to ease any concerns about how an NDP government would handle the economy.

And on the democratic reform front, the NDP nicely pairs much-needed values as to a willingness to work with competing parties and encourage dialogue with civil society with new legislation to limit some of the abuses of prorogation and patronage that we've seen under the Harper Cons. (And yes, PR is also a part of the platform.)

On the downside, the NDP has followed the Libs' mistake in leaving any near-term emission reduction targets to be determined later. Which is of particular concern given that proceeds from a cap-and-trade system are included as a part of the platform's costing starting this year.

In all, the platform looks to have accomplished much of the political task of providing realistic commitments which are easily understood and measured. But there's work left to be done in differentiating the NDP's plans from the often similar-sounding (if weaker) promises already released by the Libs - and in establishing that the NDP should indeed be in a position to make good on its promises when the campaign is done.

By their own logic...

The Cons are claiming that a failure to mention a seemingly settled issue in a party's platform should be taken as evidence that the party lacks commitment to it.

The Cons' own platform doesn't mention the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - except to criticize the fact that it doesn't mention property rights.

So does that mean that by the Cons' own standards, we should be worried that they're not committed to the Charter, and will gut it at their first opportunity?

(Of course, I'm sure there are even better examples. So search away at the Cons' platform to see what it is that they're failing to defend.)

Sunday Morning Links

A few quick links to pass the time before the NDP's platform release...

- Liveo Di Matteo offers a reality check on the size of federal government spending - which (temporary stimulus aside) is at its lowest point in the last five decades even before the Cons promise to keep slashing billions more each and every year.

- Pogge follows up on John Ibbitson's column on Con voter suppression by pointing out another example of the Harper Cons' efforts to drive voters away from the polls:

What Ibbitson doesn't mention is all the talk about "an unnecessary election" which I think is designed to have the same effect. In our parliamentary system, when the government loses the confidence of a majority in the Commons in the manner that just happened, an election is necessary. The exception would be when an election has recently been held but that clearly wasn't the case late last month when the motion of non-confidence passed. This election is clearly necessary.

But all the claims to the contrary coming from the Conservatives — and echoed by a lot of the pundits — seem designed to encourage voters to blow the whole thing off and stay home. It's possible, in fact probable, that not all of those who have picked up that rhetoric are consciously attempting to suppress turnout. But I'd bet good money that some of them are trying to do exactly that.

- Alice notes that national polling numbers won't tell the full story of how well positioned Canada's parties are to take advantage of any opportunities - with the Libs in particular figuring to have a difficult time turning soft support into votes on the ground.

- Finally, Andrew Potter comments on the sad reality that the two men portrayed (however questionably) as the lone choices to lead Canada have both reached their current positions by showing contempt for our country:

Setting aside the firewall letter, Harper has never really hidden his disdain for parts of Canada that aren’t as successful at digging oil out of the ground. He accused the Maritimes of having a “culture of defeat” and once said that Canada “appears content to become a second-tier socialistic country, boasting ever more loudly about its economy and social services to mask its second-rate status.” Never mind his own recent boasts about the economy and his education plan: these aren’t the instincts of a man blessed with an expansive and generous view of his countrymen.

And so it is that Michael Ignatieff and Stephen Harper, for all their differences in world view and intellectual temperament, have both spent their careers riffing off the same underlying theme, that Canada itself is irrelevant. Given all of this, it isn’t clear why either man wants to be prime minister. Harper—who most days could win handily an angriest-man-in-Canada competition—clearly loathes his job, the press, and the daily imperatives of life down on Supreme-Soviet-Upon-Rideau. As for Ignatieff, he has certainly worked hard to dispel suspicions that he’s off to Harvard at the first opportunity, but his job application True Patriot Love is such a cloying Via Rail portrait of Canada that it is hard to take seriously the idea that he actually believes it.

So when Canadians head to the polls on May 2, it is with the rather unpleasant knowledge that whoever ends up prime minister, we will be led by someone for whom the federal government is little more than a convenient vehicle for his own snobbery, condescension and resentment. It’s a depressing choice: Stephen Harper, the alienated and embittered Albertan, who has perhaps come to appreciate the rest of the country for which he has shown such contempt. Or Michael Ignatieff, the gallivanting, sugar-spun cosmopolitan, who has finally decided he needs a country after all.

On clear contrasts

Susan Delacourt is right to point out that all parties are running against Ottawa as it stands to at least some extent.

But it's worth noting as well the fundamental difference between the NDP running on the idea that Ottawa is broken - implying that it can and should be fixed to play a positive role in citizens' lives - and the Cons presenting the position that what's needed is a wrecking ball rather than a renovation. And while the U.S. no longer seems like it'll be providing an example of what the world looks like with no functional government, there's still reason for Canadians to ask for themselves whether their frustrations will be best resolved by renewal or by demolition.

Saturday Afternoon Links

Content goes here.

- While the Star-Phoenix editorial board is still looking for corporate tax cuts at the first available opportunity, it's at least recognized the striking contrast in treatment between corporations being handed massive amounts of money now, and the targeted and/or delayed-reaction benefits being offered to anybody else by the Harper Cons:

As Prime Minister Stephen Harper has been telling Canadians, his party's promise to cut their tax by allowing income splitting and with a fitness tax credit will only be delivered when the budget is balanced, possibly in 2014-15. Couldn't the same principle apply to the corporate tax cuts, especially when the current rates demonstrably haven't proven onerous?

And if the government thinks targeted tax cuts, such as the fitness credit, work for ordinary Canadians, could not the same incentive work for corporate behaviour when it comes to investing more in plant and equipment, job creation, and innovation instead of providing a general tax reduction?

Yes, it's all very complicated, but sometimes it has to be asked, whose interests are being served.

- Meanwhile, Erin brings a Star Trek theme to his latest evisceration of corporatist talking points. And Canada Uncut takes on the tax evasion techniques of Canadian banks.

- What thwap said:

(F)or genuine progressives, honesty is the best policy. (NOT, mind you, the Liberal Party hacks on "Progressive Bloggers" who are willing to return harper to power if it means they can steal enough votes from incumbent NDPr's and strong NDP challenges to harper. That sort of scum studies up on progressive issues only so that they can get jobs explaining why their party's latest betrayals of them are necessary and good.) By "honesty is the best policy" I mean that we must honestly and fearlessly express our views. We should not be afraid of "alienating" clueless people. How is the country supposed to turn away from right-wing economic nonsense, support for NATO or Israeli imperialism, worship the rich/bury the poor social policies, or police-state values, if there's nobody out there trashing such garbage?

And people are never going to move towards democratic socialism unless we sing its praises loud and proud. If you believe in something, and the majority doesn't, you have to ask why that is so. Given the serial failures of right-wing hegemony, I'd say that we're more than justified in our belief that we are right and the majority is wrong.

Last word, ... honesty ALSO means acknowledging when your opponents are right. This doesn't mean that you have to take the time to read everything from shit-heads like Ezra Levant or Jonah Goldberg. Some people have already discredited themselves with their consistent errors and stupidities. I just mean that if you come across an opposing view that effectively challenges you worldview, engage with it honestly, ... don't run from it.

- And finally, NDP MP Peter Julian is the latest to point out why Stephen Harper doesn't want Canadians to vote or otherwise participate in politics:

(H)ow do we get Canada’s prosperity and equality back? All of us, as activists and concerned citizens, must re-engage in the political system. We must stop the take-over of our public policy and public decisions in the interests of the few at the expense of the many. That means exposing the lie that all politicians and all political parties are the same. They’re not. No political party is perfect. But the Canada’s New Democrats are made up of strong activists for social justice, economic equality, and sound environmental stewardship.

As a proud New Democrat, I ask you to surprise Stephen Harper by doing what he doesn’t want you to do: vote. Canada will be the better for it.

The cone of incivility

Yes, I'd hope that many more candidates from all parties will ultimately sign on to the Civil Election principles - and more importantly, run campaigns to match. But it's also well worth differentiating between candidates who don't sign due to lack of awareness or personal choice, and those who are outright prevented from doing so.

Which raises the question: might the Cons' cone of silence extend even to a non-binding commitment to basic civility where it conflicts with their central campaign strategies?

Saturday Morning Riding Links

A few local campaign notes for your weekend reading...

- Yes, the story receiving the most attention in Quebec today is the polling showing Thomas Mulcair with a twenty-point lead over Martin Cauchon in Outremont. And it's certainly striking to see that a riding considered a Lib stronghold for so long has reached the point where a prominent former cabinet minister is struggling to stay even slightly competitive.

- But the more noteworthy news from the standpoint of changing seat projections may be the latest from Hull-Aylmer. There, the combination of a endorsement from the Public Service Alliance of Canada and a series of missteps by the Bloc's candidate both look like significant boosts for the NDP's Nycole Turmel in one of the party's top Quebec targets - positioning Turmel at least as the clear alternative to Marcel Proulx, if not outright turning the race into a photo-finish in the making.

- In case somebody took the Cons seriously in claiming that no party would allow participants in a public event to present anything other than the party line, Jack Layton has clearly proven otherwise in his Kamloops town hall. And it's particularly worth noting Layton's willingness to answer challenges honestly rather than trying to paper over them or change the subject.

- And for those looking for their own opportunity to meet a leader who isn't afraid of questions, Layton's tour will take him to Saskatoon this morning and La Ronge this afternoon.

Musical interlude

Dirty Vegas - Electric Love

Friday Afternoon Links

Content goes here.

- While all parties are at least claiming to be willing to keep boosting health care funding after 2014, the impending round of health-care negotiations with the provinces still offers a rare chance to shape and improve the system in the long run. And Jack Layton is rightly questioning what will happen if the Harper Cons are left in charge of that discussion:

Media in London say Mr. Holder’s campaign wrote to the London Healthcare Coalition, which is sponsoring the April 20 debate, to say they were "puzzled" as to why federal candidates would be asked to debate health care. "I'd think this is more an issue for Deb Matthews and the provincial candidates," the campaign reply said. "We're not attracted to see Ed debate on health care.”

When told about the refusal, Mr. Layton said it demonstrates the true face of the Conservative perspective on health care.

“They don’t believe it’s a federal issue. They want to leave it to the provinces, knowing that the provinces don’t have the resources that are necessary and privatization will become the only option,” he said.

That’s why Canadians cannot trust Mr. Harper to lead the national negotiations on the renewal of the health-care financing agreements that are set to expire in 2014, Mr. Layton said.

“If Stephen Harper ends up with a mandate, then attitudes like we’re getting from Mr. Holder’s staff person are what we’re going to see behind the scenes,” he said. “If Mr. Harper is in charge of the future of health care in our country, then Canadians should be very, very worried.”

- The broader picture behind the constant efforts to slash corporate taxes in Canada naturally features the similar campaign against public services and reasonable taxes around the world. And Michael Babad cites Jeffrey Sachs on how the push has been just as destructive elsewhere as here:

Jeffrey Sachs is the director of The Earth Institute, Quetelet Professor of Sustainable Development, and Professor of Health Policy and Management at Columbia University. (He’s also committed to fighting poverty and hunger, but he’s still a real live professor.) Here’s what he told the BBC only yesterday:

“Of course, all of our countries are caught in what you could call a kind of tax arms race or what could be called a race to the bottom in fact, which is that each country is trying to get the tax rate lower than the neighbours or the competitors. The result is that everybody is cutting corporate tax rates around the board.

“It is only causing fiscal crisis everywhere and it's a kind of negative sum game, meaning that when both sides do it, neither gains the advantage relative to the other. In fact both lose by adding to the fiscal pressures and the need to then cut the education spending or the social expenditures that are crucial for making sure that the poor half of our societies can also participate and be productive members of our economies in the future.”

He pointed as an example to Ireland, the one-time Celtic Tiger that’s now a pussycat on life support and was once the envy of Europe because of its low-tax regime.

“So you sure can make a little bubble in the short term, but it's not really building the long-term platform for prosperity. Second, I wouldn't say it to Ireland alone, I would say to the European Union, the United States, Japan, other high income countries, indeed in the G20 as a whole. Let's stop this horrendous process where we are being gamed by global companies that are playing off our governments, one against the other and ending up by depriving ourselves of the productive base of our societies which after all are our skilled and educated work forces.”

- Fortunately, there's a new voice working to counter the corporate spin, as Canadians for Tax Fairness is looking to lead the charge for a more equitable tax system.

- Don Mitchell comments on the hope to replace at least a few ineffective Saskatchewan Con MPs with NDP challengers:

It's not as if Harper's herd of 13 MPs has done much for Saskatchewan. They remained totally silent during the province's campaign to resist the Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan takeover by an Australian/American giant. They've taken the lead in attacking the Canadian Wheat Board and eroding its power and resources. Curiously, Saskatchewan farmers who continue to elect progressives to the Wheat Board have also been a major factor in electing sworn enemies of the board as their Members of Parliament.

Some factors which contribute to the Conservative dominance will still be in play in this election. But there is a growing basis of hope for a shift during this campaign.

- Finally, Dr. Dawg points out how the Public Service Commission is trampling on the right of public servants to participate in the federal election campaign.

On targets

The NDP has released its latest ad, focusing on the Cons' broken Senate promises:



Of course, it's always a plus to see the NDP putting some work into challenging the Senate. But I do wonder about the subject matter chosen.

After all, there are two obvious lines of attack on how the Cons have handled the Senate. And it seems slightly off the NDP's ideal message to focus on personal scandal (the Canada Elections Act charges against Irving Gerstein) rather than anti-democratic abuses (in the form of Harper's unelected nonrepresentatives defeating multiple NDP bills passed by the House of Commons).

On lose-lose choices

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

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

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Andrew Coyne's proposal for a Truth in Politics Act offers an interesting way of trying to hold politicians to their promises. But surely our current federal political scene offers the most obvious lesson as to why it would likely be ineffective.

After all, the Harper Cons have responded to every allegation of wrongdoing - however well-founded - by attacking the messenger and claiming that any attempt to hold them to account is politically motivated. And is there much doubt that anybody looking to enforce a campaign promise would immediately face exactly the same type of abuse, dragging the entire system into the same hyperpartisan political ground where the Cons so love to operate?

- Roy Romanow contrasts the pursuit of limitless resource exploitation with the choice to encourage sustainable well-being:

On Thursday, the Canadian Index of Wellbeing releases a report tracking trends in Canada’s environmental performance from 1994 to 2009. My hope is that it will empower Canadians to say, “For God’s sake, put the brakes on and turn the wheel” because we can no longer accept — in this country or any other — the degradation stemming from our seemingly endless and unsustainable appetite for fossil fuels, water, metals and energy. The notion of limitless growth is no longer a viable economic paradigm.
...
Fortunately, we Canadians are not caught up in some form of predetermined drift, rushing headlong toward an inescapable future. We have the collective capacity to shape our future, to decide which values we will embrace, which visions we will pursue and which policy decisions we will enact.

But preserving our natural resources and improving our environment for future generations will require more far-sighted policies and enforcement by government, better stewardship by industry and lifestyle changes by individuals.

- Kevin Milligan's analysis of the cost of the Cons' plan to hand yet more money to those who need it least is well worth a read. But Milligan's analysis does fall into the trap of focusing needlessly on the over/under line rather than the distribution of benefits on the income scale - and just as an increase in the number of people below the income-tax cutoff does absolutely nothing for those already there, so too does the line at which a household could put all of its assets into a TFSA a look rather insignificant to Canadians without plenty of capital assets to move into a plan in the first place.

[Update: I should have known Armine Yalnizyan would already be on the case.]

- I'll temper Dan Gardner's latest by noting that at least some repetition for effect and clarity isn't necessarily a bad thing: indeed, the principle of "say what you're going to say, say it, then say what you've said" is well-established in plenty of arenas beyond the political one without any implication that the audience is being held in contempt. But he's right to note the absurd lengths to which the concept has been applied, particularly on the faux populist right.

- Finally, James Laxer nicely summarizes the limited group of voters who the Cons want to see at the polls - and why we can't afford to let them succeed in driving others away:

Here’s the profile of those they’d like to see at the polls: white men over fifty, especially those who don’t spend much time in city centres; Christian fundamentalists; those in “ethnic” communities who have been vetted by Jason Kenney (a leaked memo exposed the Conservative plan to harvest votes from those they depict as “ethnics”); gun owners; youngish neo-cons who want to grow up to be like David Frum (not a large demographic); and, of course the rich, as well as those who think they will be rich. Women are generally unreliable; and the young are a downright menace. If you’re under twenty-five, Harper almost certainly wants you to pass on voting. Look what happened to the nineteen year old woman who was muscled out of a Harper rally because Conservative spooks found a picture of her on Facebook side by side with Michael Ignatieff.
...
Lower voter turnout is not just a lucky break for the Conservatives. Right-wing political parties have been assiduously working to lower voter turnout in Canada, the U.S. and Europe for several decades. While running for office, the leaders of these parties denigrate government, those who work for governments and the benefits to society that flow from government programs. They promote the idea that politicians are cynics who are “all the same”, “in it for themselves” and “not to be trusted.” (The rich, who DO vote, know that whatever the ethical merits of those who hold leadership positions of right-wing parties, they can always be counted on to back business against labour and to spend billions bailing out the banks when that is required.)

Negative advertising, it has long been known, has the effect of driving down voter turnout in the electorate at large.

No, Stephen Harper does not want YOU to vote. His plan is to tranquilize the majority of Canadians into a state of torpor while he takes complete control of the instruments of the Canadian state.