On permanent campaigns

Luke Savage is right to point out that Canada's permanent campaign has merely taken on a different dynamic under the Trudeau Libs, rather than actually coming to an end with the Harper Cons losing power:

Again, branding is the key here.

As a part of its Sunny Ways™, the government has displayed a visible fondness for the affirmation of process. It is “pro-trade” and appears to be pro-TPP, but it will “broadly consult”; it is pro-electoral reform but non-specific about what that reform will be (consultation first); it was elected around a very specific and widely trumpeted set of economic proposals, but it has yet to put these into a budget or even schedule one because it has to consult first.
...
The political dexterity this approach affords the Liberals is staggering, as these past 100 days have already demonstrated. Justin Trudeau and his party espouse no ideology, and contend to embody the political preferences of all. It is an approach to politics which, to quote Peter C. Newman, promises “as little as possible but as much as necessary”.

The campaign never ends.

That said, it's worth noting what that means for the NDP and progressive activists.

It's all too true that the Libs seem inclined to govern as nothing but Cons with smiles on their faces - and Justin Trudeau has wasted little time in showing us the results.

But the scope of what's seen as "possible" and "necessary" is different for a party which has relied largely on progressive voters to win power than for one whose pitch for support is aimed solely at the right wing of the political spectrum. And so at this point in Trudeau's stay in power, the most important role for those of us whose distrust of the Libs has been borne out in practice is to ensure that they have no viable political choice but to live up to their promises and avoid introducing new regressive choices into the mix - rather than simply waiting to see what happens, and hoping to challenge their credibility later.

Parliament in Review: November 24, 2011

The main topic of debate in the House of Commons on Thursday, November 24 was again copyright - and once more, the Cons couldn't be bothered to try to defend their own legislation.

The Big Issue

But that left plenty of time for opposition speakers to raise the level of debate while pointing out that the Cons' choices figure to cause serious problems for creators and consumers alike. Marc-Andre Morin, Denis Blanchette, Helene Laverdiere and Francois Lapointe all noted that media conglomerates look to be the sole beneficiaries of a regime built around the supremacy of digital locks. Mylene Freeman noted that the new legislation would take us from a grey area as to consumer rights, to a black-and-white system where many seemingly ordinary activities would be criminalized. Mike Sullivan revisited the history of copyright, and particularly how the licensing-for-airplay model developed. Isabelle Morin expressed disbelief that the sentences the Cons want to impose for copyright violations are far more severe than those applicable to serious crimes. Charlie Angus discussed the dangers of locking down content, then noted that the Cons' attack on royalties amounts to taking away the capacity of many artists to earn a living. And Jonathan Tremblay raised the point that increased public reliance on electronic storage of information makes it all the more problematic for media giants to be able to control access.

Meanwhile, a couple of Cons did get involved in asking questions of NDP MPs. MP Joyce Bateman asked an eminently reasonable question about the plus side of providing for mandatory licensing for the perceptually disabled. But particularly considering their obstinate refusal to consider a levy-based model in general, one has to wonder whether the Cons would have met exactly the same response from an opposition party by alleging that the result is a "braille tax" (particularly since Mike Lake raised the "iPod tax" talking point yet again). And Brad Trost responded to Pat Martin's musing about allowing income averaging for artists in particular by locking onto the concept as a general means of cutting government revenue.

Trade-Offs

The other government bill discussed was C-14, dealing with the Agreement on Internal Trade. Lake deigned to speak to the content of the bill, but somehow dismissed Guy Caron's valid questions about the effect of the AIT as irrelevant to a bill designed to alter it. Caron then discussed the difference between desirable harmonization of standards and unacceptable intrusion on a province's ability to legislate in the interest of its citizens, while Dennis Bevington noted that northern regions are particularly vulnerable to having easy work skimmed off by outside bidders (leaving no local capacity to do needed work).

In Brief

Chris Charlton introduced one private member's bill to allow CPP claimants to receive arrears for more than the current limit of 11 months, and another to make public information about Stelco's acquisition by US Steel. Charlie Angus highlighted the information commissioner's warnings about the Cons' interference in access to what should be public information. Nycole Turmel raised a proposal for health-care discussions with the provinces which the Cons obviously decided to ignore, while Libby Davies wondered why no progress has been made on prescription drugs as promised when the last 10-year agreement was signed. Jack Harris pointed out that the lone source the Cons have pointed to in support of their train wreck of an omnibus crime bill had in fact criticized their heavy-headed approach. Alexandre Boulerice compared the patronage appointment of Jean-Pierre Blackburn to the history of Alfonso Gagliano and other Lib outrages. Yvon Godin questioned Con MP Bernard Valcourt's position that any worker without a grade 12 education should be ineligible for EI benefits. Joe Comartin called for the answer to the traditional Thursday scheduling question to be less politicized - to no avail based on Peter Van Loan's spin-heavy response. Leon Benoit introduced a motion on CCSVI treatment for MS, with Anne Minh-Thu Quach taking care to ensure any further action is based on evidence before indicating the NDP's agreement. Rathika Sitsabaiesan asked what the Cons are doing to try to rein in student debt, and was informed by Kellie Leitch that the plan is...to raise the amount of debt permitted under the federal student loan program. And John McKay questioned whether the Cons cared in the slightest about the rule of law when it came to the execution of Moammar Gadhafi - with Deepak Obhrai's response raising more questions than it answered.

Parliament In Review: September 26, 2011

Monday's session in the House of Commons was dominated by the debate over another military extension in Libya.

The Big Issue

Once again, the Cons were able to win a vote for perpetual military action with the support of the Libs and Bloc. But it wasn't for a lack of trying - and indeed some success - by the NDP in pointing out the gap between the Cons' explanation for an extension and what Canadians expect from their government.

Indeed, in response to Jack Harris' question, Peter MacKay made it clear just how open-ended a standard the Cons have to apply in order to convince themselves that military action is still needed:

Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I will have an opportunity to make a speech shortly but I want to ask the minister whether he agrees that the situation today is far different from what was facing the United Nations on March 17 in the House? It passed the first resolution when Colonel Gadhafi was the regime in power in Libya and was actively threatening to effectively massacre civilians. We now have the opposition, the National Transitional Council, having taken Libya's seat at the United Nations. The regime no longer exists. Therefore, Canada's role can be entirely different from what it was in March of this year.

Hon. Peter MacKay:

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my hon. colleague that the conditions have improved. However, the work that is yet to be done remains. We need to be clear. Civilians are still being attacked by the Libyan regime as recently as this weekend. There is still capacity in place that permits Gadhafi to control a certain element. There is a certain following in the country who have access to weapons that can be used against civilians.

Which of course leads to a pop quiz: what countries on the face of the globe don't have some armed "following" that could conceivably harm civilians, such as to demand Canadian military intervention if the same standard were applied?

But the Cons would look worse before the day was out. Philip Toone went a step further and caught Nina Grewal with no clue what purpose there could be in maintaining a no-fly zone as a means of an enemy without an airforce. And Dean Allison contributed a double dose of embarrassment: completely whiffing on Pierre Nantel's seemingly simple question about the current capacity of Gadhafi forces, then making the statement that the Cons' sole idea of democratic development is freezing and unfreezing oil money.

Meanwhile, NDP speakers including Paul Dewar and Charlie Angus pointed out that Canada and others helped contribute to the Gadhafi regime which is now being pointed to as an enemy which demands military intervention. Jack Harris noted that Norway for one has already transitioned away from a military role, then pointed out that the Cons' supposed commitment to the prospect of popular emancipation raised by the Arab Spring hasn't been reflected in actual nation-building work. And Rathika Sitsabaiesan spoke from her own experience in a war zone in pointing out how humanitarian development matters far more than military intervention.

Unanswerable

Of course it's an embarrassment that the Cons are continuing to treat Tony Clement's G8 porkfest (the steady stream of new revelations included) as beneath anything approaching a reasonable response. But one could hardly blame them for being too frightened to move beyond nonsensical talking points in the face of some of the biting questions which met them yesterday. Here's Thomas Mulcair:

Mr. Thomas Mulcair (Outremont, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, earlier this year the Prime Minister released an important documented entitled “Accountable Government: A Guide for Ministers and Ministers of State”. Could the Prime Minister tell us if it is within the guidelines for a minister to run government funding out of his constituency office? Is it within the guidelines to have inaccurate and incomplete information provided to the Auditor General? Also, is it within the guidelines to have ministers interfere in spending reviews?

Mulcair again:

Mr. Thomas Mulcair (Outremont, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, according to the minutes from meetings on the G8 legacy fund, the President of the Treasury Board told local mayors “...budgets in addition to the basic G8 Summit Management Office Budget must first be determined by the Prime Minister's Office”.

Can the Prime MInister tell us how his office was the one determining budgets for a local slush fund? How was his office involved in diverting money from the border fund to help the member for Parry Sound—Muskoka get re-elected?

And Charlie Angus:

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, the Muskoka minister had many schemes for funnelling money into his riding under the pretext of the G8.

One scheme involved building a massive hockey arena and then telling everybody it would be used as a media centre. When the OPP raised questions about this pet project on security grounds, what was his reaction? The minister told local mayors that it was good news that the Prime Minister was filled with fury at police for daring to raise questions about security at an international summit.

Will the member explain why the Prime Minister was so furious at officials who were not willing to rubber-stamp his every whim?

In Brief

Charlie Angus made a statement on the Cons' continued failure to ensure that children on First Nations reserves receive anything approaching the educational opportunities their fellow Canadians enjoy elsewhere. Laurin Liu commented on the environmental dangers of the Keystone XL pipeline. Peggy Nash asked why Canada's economic policy shouldn't be based on actually rewarding job creation, rather than giving away free billions based on the desperate hope that they might someday result in economic development where previous decades of the same policy have failed. And Wayne Marston questioned whether Canadians want to gamble their retirements in the stock market rather than being able to rely on a stable CPP.

[Edit: fixed typo.]

Parliament In Review: September 23, 2011

Friday's session in the House of Commons saw a few themes discussed which figure to be hot topics of discussion for the next little while - with the continued focus on the Cons' anti-refugee bill partially giving way to economic and foreign-policy issues.

Focus on the Economy

While the Cons' legislative agenda of course has nothing to do with the economic issues at the top of mind for Canadians, the NDP's question period focussed nicely on what the Cons' economic choices actually mean. Thomas Mulcair pointed out that no private-sector actor would wilfully pass up low-cost investment opportunities like the possibility of putting money into infrastructure at rock-bottom interest rates, leading to this exchange with Shelly Glover:

Mr. Thomas Mulcair (Outremont, NDP):
...
Will the Conservatives stop making excuses and start investing in the projects that will restore falling infrastructure while putting Canadians back to work and strengthening our economy?

Mrs. Shelly Glover (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what this country cannot afford to do.

Meanwhile, Laurin Liu pointed out the economic and environmental costs of pushing ahead with a plan to extract and export as much raw material as possible from the tar sands. And Mathieu Ravignat highlighted the absurdity of paying premium private-sector prices to do what can be done publicly.

No Refuge

John Rafferty offered up what may be the best summary yet of what the Cons' anti-refugee bill will do, while Irene Mathyssen and Peggy Nash catalogued some of the groups who would be caught by the Cons' desire to target refugees. Alexandrine Latendresse challenged whether the bill would have any hope of being found to comply with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. And Kevin Lamoureux and Matthew Kellway were able to agree that the bill needlessly targets the most vulnerable immigrants to Canada.

But perhaps the most noteworthy contribution was this from Helene Laverdiere:

We know that people who fish have developed nets with which they can catch tuna and let dolphins go free. In this bill, we get the impression that if the smugglers are the dolphins and the refugees are the tuna in this analogy, then the government is casting a large net to catch refugees and let the smugglers go free.

War vs. Peace

Two foreign policy issues also found their way into the discussion - with the results of one nicely serving to frame the other.

In question period, Paul Dewar pointed out that the Cons' assurances that Canada's troops in Afghanistan wouldn't be involved in combat had predictably proven to be false. And that typical gap between promise and reality looks like an important part of the backdrop for the discussion of Libya which is set to take place tomorrow.

Instructions from On High

In principle, there shouldn't have been much basis for Yvon Godin's question about the Cons' handling of committee motions to be dealt with in question period. But given that the Cons responded in substance rather than pointing out any difference between government instructions and MPs' actions, it would seem that questions about what the Cons do in committee are fair game.

In Brief

Helene Laverdiere questioned why the Cons are preventing Tunisian nationals now resident in Canada from having a voice in that country's elections. Irene Mathyssen introduced a bill to ensure that benefits under the Canada Pension Plan and Old Age Security are indexed to a senior consumer price index. And Deepak Obhrai apparently believes that the Auditor General's G8 report - which was of course not officially released until after May's election - has been officially superseded by the campaign where the Cons consistently declared it to have been off limits for discussion.

Friday Morning Links

This and that to end your week...

- Have no fear, members of the far right: of course the Harper Cons don't mean it when they sign an environmental protection agreement. Or pretend to disagree with foreign dictators. Or claim they didn't pressure the civil service to rebrand the country with their leader's name.

- And with that Con track record of dishonesty, no wonder Canada's non-profit sector is running far, far away from any association with Harper and company.

- Meanwhile, how can anybody doubt that it's perfectly normal for government ministers to conduct official business under an alias to avoid detection? Just ask that titan of modern governance, Hugh Jass.

- Finally, Carol Goar highlights the plague of prisons the Cons are so eager to inflict on the country:

What makes Drucker’s book compelling is not the statistics he presents; most of them are well known. It is the way he traces the explosion of America’s prison population back to one politician’s gut-driven policies and the way he uses his skills as a clinical psychologist to track the consequences on the streets of Harlem and the South Bronx.

Drucker wrote his analysis as a wake-up call to his fellow Americans, not as a warning to Canada. But it offers readers on this side of the border a foretaste of what lies ahead if Harper ignores the advice of everyone from health-care professionals to toppled media magnate Conrad Black, who has seen the American justice system from the inside.

Assuming the Prime Minister goes ahead, here is what Canadians can expect:
• An exponential growth in prisons. The Conservatives have refused to provide taxpayers with a credible estimate of how much they plan to spend on penitentiaries. It won’t be as costly as the American crackdown, which threatens to bankrupt several states, but the bills will keep mounting long after Harper’s departure.
• A deterioration of the social structures that communities need to prevent crime.
• A disproportionate increase in the number of poor, non-white people behind bars.
• A belated recognition that there was never any evidence tougher sentences improve public safety.
• And over time, a made-in-Ottawa “plague of prisons.”

Is this the legacy we want for our children? Is it the future we want for Canada?

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Andrew Jackson describes the next phase of the global economic crisis:

Now we face a new financial crisis, or at least a stock market correction of major proportions, which may precipitate a new phase of the crisis.

The financial markets seem to suffer from acute schizophrenia, with the bond markets demanding more fiscal austerity in much of the Euro zone, while stock markets are panicking at clear signs of slowing US and global growth.

How should governments be responding to the panic in the markets?

Not, as they have, by caving in to the bond markets.
...
The key problem...is that the policy shifts we need seem to be political non starters. Which is why the G7 focus remains very much on austerity. Which will make things worse. Which is why the stock markets are panicking.

- Yes, it's well and good to point out that Stephen Harper's appearance with Rob Ford reflects a break in his usual image control. But isn't it more significant that Harper is willing to make common cause - behind closed doors or otherwise - with somebody so bent on imposing uncompetence in the first place?

- Which isn't to say that the Cons have offered anything different. But they've at least tried to pretend to offer a steady hand even while flailing wildly at Canada's public institutions.

- Finally, in a signal of what looks like a much-needed debate this fall, the NDP is backing up its previous call for a firm end date to Canada's involvement in Libya by demanding that the Cons withdraw this fall.

Parliament In Review: June 14, 2011

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

The Big Issue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vote of the Day

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

Poor Planning of the Day

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

In Brief

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

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

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted material for your weekend reading.

- It's looked for some time like the NDP has an opportunity to make some serious inroads in Quebec. And the NDP's plan looks well designed to differentiate the party from the Bloc without disturbing the Gilles Duceppe's efforts to paint the other national parties as one and the same:

The NDP is taking another route, lashing out at planned corporate tax cuts, but also trying to present a new face on sustainable development in the province.

NDP MP Thomas Mulcair said his party has been working with opponents of the ongoing exploration for shale gas in Quebec, and that its new candidate in Manicouagan, Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, was a key player in the fight against uranium development in the province’s north.

Mr. Mulcair added that unlike the Bloc, the NDP not only expresses its opposition to the oil industry in the West, but can do something about it with MPs all over the country.

“The Bloc can only talk about the tar sands in Quebec,” Mr. Mulcair said, comparing that party to a hockey team made up entirely of defencemen. “That’s the difference with the NDP, which is a social-democratic, pan-Canadian party, with a strong track record that is attracting more and more people in Quebec.”

- Rick Salutin points out how the Cons' governing philosophy is based on trying to break down public trust in democratic institutions:

There are people who don’t just have trouble trusting others, they don’t even seem to trust trust when they see it in action. They cringe at the sight. I think of Stephen Harper in this category. It’s not just his attempt to control what others say, or the flow of information. He couldn’t wait to cancel the national child-care program and replace it with small grants to families. You’ll never accomplish a lot that way but you avoid anxiety and disappointment over how a large national program might work out. Ask yourself this: Can you imagine the Harper government (as they now say) bringing in medicare?

What of Harper’s claim that this election shouldn’t be over “distractions” like trust, but about the economy? I’d say an economy is all about trust and distrust. Next Tuesday’s budget will focus on taxes, which are the concrete form of political trust. If we trust our leaders to use our taxes to do things we can’t achieve on our own, then we pay — not happily but willingly. If we don’t trust them, then we’d rather not pay and we choose leaders who will do less. The whole Harper economic program has been to lower taxes incessantly, starting with the GST, so there’s less money to do things and less reason to take a chance on the kind of public trust required to deal with large problems.

Nothing is more fragile and easier to lose than public trust, especially in the area of taxes. When bankers took tax money as bailouts and then used it for further bonuses, they hammered that trust, justifying Harperian distrust.

- Greg is on a roll in pointing out why there's every reason to be wary of the Harper Cons' motives in trying to push for military action in Libya.

- Finally, it seems to have completely escaped any mention by the media, but NDP MP Don Davies has introduced a private member's bill to lower Canada's voting age to 16. Of course the odds of such a bill passing in the near future seem low (and I still suspect that the ideal would be to go somewhat further), but it's still a huge plus to see at least one party working to ensure that more Canadians are able to have a say in the country's electoral system.