Parliament in Review: March 27, 2012

Tuesday, March 27 saw a day dominated by the type of serious discussion about the role of the financial sector that we should expect in the years to come - even if the basis for that discussion was less than we should have hoped for.

The Big Issue

The main topic of debate was Bill S-5, a bill on financial regulation which originated in the Senate. And it's surprising to me both how little disagreement there was on the bill, and how petulant the Cons were about the NDP's small attempt to improve it.

While otherwise noting his party's support for the bill, Peter Julian proposed an amendment on the hot-button issue of...the compellability of employees in the Superintendent's office with respect to knowledge acquired while enforcing the legislation at issue. Jean Rousseau worried that without the amendment, an "iron curtain" could hide real issues discovered by the Superintendent. Scott Brison expressed his support as a matter of transparency. But the Cons first stuck to their talking points about "trying to strengthen our banking system" rather than actually addressing the idea in substance, then tried to put on the record that secrecy is everywhere and thus to be supported.

Meanwhile, in much more substantive debate, the Cons went out of their way to highlight that the list of matters put under political control includes bank acquisitions (which will now be subject only to ministerial approval), a point which was duly criticized by Alain Giguere and Hoang Mai. Robert Chisholm pointed out the continued lack of consumer protection after multiple banks decided not to cooperate with an ombudsman's office once touted by the Cons, a point which was then echoed by Glenn Thibeault. Chisholm, Jinny Sims and Libby Davies all noted that something more than technical amendments might have been appropriate to deal with the financial sector. Giguere expressed what strikes me as the due level of alarm about having financial-sector rules set by an unelected, patronage-based Senate. Helene Leblanc suggested that the public have some say in what's done with financial-sector rules, with Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet offering the example of high credit-card rates and Mathieu Ravignat pointing to hidden fees as issues that demand action. Sadia Groguhe expressed concern about the harmful effects of debt and speculation on Canadians' financial stability, while Francine Raynault discussed the need to regulate speculation and derivatives. Elizabeth May pitched a financial transactions tax. And Olivia Chow lamented the recent imposition of account fees on seniors by two major banks.

Predictably, though, the Cons insisted that the bill absolutely had to pass by April 20, leaving no time to seriously debate whether it was worth passing in the first place as they voted down the amendment and pushed the bill forward. But while any actual gap in legislation created by that time frame would have been a severe problem (and several NDP speakers seemed to accept the premise), as far as I can tell the supposed deadline was itself supported by little more than the Cons' own PR. And if it's true that the Cons are indeed setting up legislation with a time bomb set to explode again 2017 as part of a standard five-year cycle, then that should raise a serious question about their motives in doing so - particularly since Harper's gang of Senate cronies will likely be able to block the passage of any replacement legislation under another party's government.

In Brief

Apparently Nycole Turmel's stint as NDP leader wasn't seen by the Cons as demanding quite the same level of message control as, say, Remembrance Day. And so Peter Van Loan actually moved to allow Bloc and Green speakers to join the official parties in saluting her performance as interim leader of the Official Opposition.

Meanwhile, Jasbir Sandhu called on the Cons to confirm Canada's opposition to the death penalty which was about to be applied in India for the first time since 2004. Romeo Saganash and Chisholm both offered their own statements about the NDP's leadership campaign. Matthew Kellway pointed out that though requirements were apparently drawn up to match the F-35s' specifications, the Cons "bungle(d) this file so badly they cannot even cheat properly" as the F-35s still fell short. Alexandre Boulerice called out Robocon as the electoral fraud that it was, while Niki Ashton noted that the last set of Cons behind an illegal electoral scheme were punished with appointments to the Senate. Jean Crowder asked why upwards of a quarter of EI claims don't receive a response within a month. Linda Duncan rightly slammed John Duncan for describing the very communities for which he bears ministerial responsibility as "socially dysfunctional" while eliminating programs to improve their conditions. Louis Plamondon introduced his motion to make the Governor General's salary subject to the general tax regime. That was met with Shelley Glover's response that the Cons are all in favour of royalty which doesn't play by the same rules as anybody else, while Mai and Stephane Dion offered less histrionic takes. And Irene Matthyssen asked once again about the Cons' failure to do anything meaningful to reduce seniors' poverty.

[Edit: fixed wording.]

On shadow boxing

Aaron has already listed and commented on Thomas Mulcair's shadow cabinet assignments. But there are a few additional points worth adding into the mix.

First, while others have pointed out Nathan Cullen's promotion to House Leader, the exact choice of positions is very much worth emphasizing. As the leadership candidate whose message centred on how to approach other political parties, Cullen has been put in charge of...approaching other political parties, at least to the extent of managing business in Parliament. And if "cooperation to defeat Harper" continues to be Cullen's guiding principle, then it will be well worth watching whether that habit has some impact beyond Parliament Hill.

Second, the choice of Linda Duncan as critic for Public Works and Government Services may make for a neat bit of strategy. A strong Alberta figure charged with criticizing patronage, waste and mismanagement should serve to raise serious questions among the Cons' base- and that may not only help to shake loose populist votes on the prairies, but also put at least somewhat of a dent in the Cons' fund-raising and activist networks.

Third, while it's a bit surprising not to see Nycole Turmel assigned any particular policy area, her effectiveness in keeping the NDP's caucus united through trying times looks to fit nicely with her new role as whip.

Finally, it's worth noting which MPs have somewhat less responsibility in the shadow cabinet than one might expect based on their profile and experience - including Niki Ashton (assigned the Status of Women portfolio), Yvon Godin (who sees Labour removed from his responsibilities), Tyrone Benskin (moved from Heritage critic to deputy Official Languages critic) and Rathika Sitsabaiesan (going from Post-secondary Education critic to outside the shadow cabinet structure altogether). But there's plenty to be done in building toward government beyond criticizing the incumbents - and it wouldn't be surprising to see all given important organization-building responsibilities to accompany their work in Parliament.

Wednesday Afternoon Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Nycole Turmel offers a reminder that we shouldn't allow the Cons and their proxies to distract anybody with shiny objects when they're so obviously wrong on the core issues facing the country:

In taking aim at the Conservatives’ priorities, Ms. Turmel criticized Mr. Harper for his seeming preoccupation with MPs’ lucrative pension plans rather than ensuring secure pensions for all Canadians.

“He thinks the most pressing issue right now is MPs’ pension, not the retirement security of millions of Canadians,” she charged. “Maybe it’s because I’m a long, long way from having an MP pension. But I’m here to fight for better pensions for all Canadians.”
...
As part of the government’s search for cuts in government spending – the Harper Conservatives have vowed to find $4-billion in annual savings – Treasury Board President Tony Clement has said that reforms to the MP pension plan are on the table. In fact, Mr. Clement has suggested there are no sacred cows and everything is being considered for the cuts.

Ms. Turmel’s argument – and that of her party – is that this simply a smokescreen to avoid dealing with issues such as helping Canadian families.
...
The Prime Minister recently dropped a 10-year health-care accord on the laps of premiers – saying take-it-or-leave-it.

Ms. Turmel called out Mr. Harper for again failing to show leadership on this file – and offered the premiers to join with the NDP as partners on fighting for good health care for all Canadians.

“We are New Democrats ... we will not let our health care wither and die,” she said.

- Terry Milewski points out that Stephen Harper's talking points from the free-market playbook are now out of place even among the elite gathered in Davos - meaning that they're even further from the reality actually facing most Canadians.

- The Canadian Labour Congress highlights a Corporate Tax Freedom Day as of February 1. And reporting on the same study, Elizabeth Thompson takes note of the fact that corporate tax cuts have led to massive piles of hoarded capital rather than the investment that's been promised.

- And finally, Ryan Cleary suggests that the viability of seal products should be measured based on market demand rather than a stubborn insistence on preserving the hunt. Predictably, the result is a wave of attacks from the Harper Cons, and zero defence from any free-marketeers.

Leading nowhere

After several months of interim NDP leader Nycole Turmel being neatly edited out of far too much coverage of Canadian politics, it shouldn't come as too much surprise that she's behind Bob Rae in the latest Nanos leadership polling. But I'd think the most important news is that Rae himself hasn't made much progress.

After all, the combination of Turmel's low profile and the fact that the NDP hadn't yet started its leadership campaign in earnest made the past few months about the best opportunity Rae would ever have to distance himself from the NDP's leading lights. Yet Nanos shows Rae scoring no higher than 18% in any of the relevant leadership measures even on the most favourable possible playing field - while the NDP is holding its share of popular support from the May election.

Now, the NDP's next set of leadership contenders figures to be the main topic of discussion over the next five months. And once the leadership race is over, the new leader figures to then become the main focus for a period of several months - with many of the same advantages as Rae now holds since the Libs will be headed into their own race.

So for those of us focused on where Canadian politics are headed in the long run rather than merely where they are on an interim basis, the NDP has little reason for concern in where the current interim leaders stand. And any Libs hoping for Rae to be their saviour have reason to doubt that it's going to happen.

Sunday Afternoon Links

Assorted content to end your weekend.

- Of course the ongoing leadership race will do plenty to determine the NDP's future direction. But for those thinking all will be quiet in the meantime, Nycole Turmel isn't missing the opportunity to highlight the the Cons' attacks on workers.

- New Scientist traces the connections between 147 financial corporations which between them own upward of 40% of the globe's financial resources. Which makes for nice timing for Jordon Cooper to point to the dearth of ethics underlying far too much of the sector.

- Gerald Caplan points out the history of leadership contenders and their supporters developing rivalries that can last long past any particularly leadership campaign. But it's worth noting that the degree of lasting enmity varies from race to race - based largely on the tone set by the contenders themselves. And with a few unfortunate exceptions, the NDP's candidates have set a fairly reasonable one so far.

- Meanwhile, Alice provides another must-read leadership roundup post. And Thomas Walkom comments on Peggy Nash's pragmatic radicalism.

- Finally, can we all agree that if the Cons had entitled their anti-gay bullying video It Gets Better (Despite Our Best Efforts) there would have been no reason for concern?

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Nycole Turmel sums up what Canadians should rightly expect from their government - but figure never to get from the Harper Cons:

Canadian families aren't looking for finger-pointing. They're not looking to shift the blame. Quite simply, they are looking for action.

Action on job creation. Not more of Mr. Harper's failed corporate giveaways to the most profitable corporations. Handed over with no guarantee that even a single job would be created.

Action to make their retirement more secure. Not Mr. Harper's half-baked schemes to encourage families to invest even more of their money in a tumbling stock market.

Action to build a sustainable future with sustainable jobs. Not a massive Keystone pipeline project that would see Canadian oil and Canadian jobs shipped south.

Leadership to promote labour stability in tough times. Not Mr. Harper's unbalanced and unnecessary labour interference. His approach will lead to increased labour insecurity by taking away the incentives for all sides to sit down and negotiate in good faith.

- Just in time for the Occupy rallies this weekend, Jim Stanford points out that Canada isn't lacking for its own billionaires sitting on wealth grossly out of proportion with the rest of the country: 61 individuals who between them own twice as much net wealth as 50% of Canada's population. And Roland Martin rightly makes the case for the Occupy movement to focus on morality rather than partisanship - though it's of course worth keeping in mind the need to provide political incentives to bring about the change the movement wants to see.

- Doug Saunders notes that the seemingly daunting trillion-dollar figure needed to start stabilizing Europe and rebuilding the U.S. economy could actually be collected relatively quickly if the countries pleading poverty could agree on global tax enforcement.

- Dan Gardner runs into a Con spokesflack defending the party's dumb-on-crime legislation with talking points which are patently false on the face of the bill. Which should come as a surprise to precisely nobody.

- Stephen Maher comments on the need for the Cons to move past their state of denial when it comes to Tony Clement's Muskoka manipulations.

- Finally, all the best to Mertensville NDP candidate Catlin Hogan as he recovers from an accident. But surely the party knows that rather than risking a negative metaphor, the proper way to treat such a development is to cover it up until the end of the campaign?

On wedges

Greg offers up an important response to the Cons' initial line of attack on Brian Topp. But let's also note how the latest barrage fits into the Cons' broader strategy in taking on the NDP.

Remember what happened as part of the silly season of summer, when the Cons joined the Libs in trying to slam Nycole Turmel and the NDP for even the slightest perceived connection to the sovereigntist movement. After it became clear that the media wasn't about to give either of the other parties a pass on their own links to the Bloc, the Cons and their apologists came up with another position: that past involvement in the Bloc and PQ were just fine, but that Turmel and the NDP should be uniquely condemned for their links to the left-wing values of Quebec Solidaire. Which should offer a rather compelling signal that the issue was never sovereigntism, but instead an effort to prevent the NDP from daring to associate with the activists who would naturally form crucial parts of its base.

Similarly, the attack on Topp looks to be calculated less at the man than at the principle of trying to drive a wedge between the NDP and the labour base - which is even more essential to the NDP's work to build a national movement. And the right response for Topp and the rest of the leadership candidates alike is to point out the importance of bringing people together, rather than allowing the spin to push the NDP and its core constituencies apart.

On direct clash

One of the most interesting questions following the NDP's ascent to Official Opposition status was that of how the Cons would seek to attack a party which didn't carry the Libs' baggage. Now, it looks like we're seeing the answer - and it's worth quickly considering the effects on Canada's broader political discussion.

In just the last couple of days, the Cons have tried to win headlines by attacking the NDP as too close to workers and too interested in human rights compared to their own business-first philosophy. And the NDP is mostly responding with a strong statement of its own values (though I'd prefer to see a full defence of the interests of workers in the former case rather than a hypocrisy charge based on the Cons' own increase in public-sector positions).

Of course, it remains to be seen how the battle will play out - particularly given that there's effectively no recent North American precedent for an unabashedly progressive party pushing its values on a national level from the NDP's current position of strength. But there's every reason to look forward to the direction of Canada's political debate as a result. And it shouldn't come as much surprise if the NDP's message resonates better than the Cons might think.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- The Halifax Chronicle Herald pushes back against the Cons' and Libs' anti-Bloc witch-hunt:

For partisan reasons, involvement with the Bloc has become a game of political football. The Tories and Grits feel like they’ve scored a touchdown because Ms. Turmel’s cancellation of her Bloc membership was so recent. The NDP have responded with a field goal. After all, Mr. Lebel did quit the Bloc 10 years ago. Even if the man had ever been a sovereigntist, surely he’d be entitled to change his mind.

The only reason the Grits haven’t been scored on since this controversy began is because they don’t have a current MP whose federalist credentials are questionable. But for all their grandstanding, they too have welcomed bloquistes back into the fold — and not just any bloquiste, either.

The Liberals’ former MP Jean Lapierre, now a broadcaster, is the prototype of a federalist coming full circle. He quit the Grits after Jean Chrétien became leader, became a founding member of the Bloc, then was welcomed back years later as Paul Martin’s Quebec lieutenant.

It’s time to call off this game on account of hypocrisy. The last message we should be sending Quebecers, now that they have opted back in to federalist politics, is this: "Once a sovereigntist, always a sovereigntist, even if you were never really a sovereigntist."

- Yes, it's noteworthy that Jim Prentice at least hinted at a cap-and-trade system in dealing with Alberta's provincial government. But far more significant than the tentative behind-the-scenes discussion is the fact that even one of the Cons' supposed star ministers couldn't get the job done - and since his departure, the Cons are now running as far as possible from any attempt to deal with greenhouse gas emissions.

- And speaking of policies the Cons want to send down the memory hole, Alison catches the Cons disappearing their previous bragging about Canadian oil investment in Syria.

- Finally, Tim Harper points out that the Cons' secrecy in negotiating yet another security deal with the U.S. is only fuelling Canadian suspicions about what they want to give up. But it's well worth noting that the public apparently isn't seen as an "important stakeholder" in the process:

Toews says his government is not going to negotiate in public.

Important stakeholders have been consulted, and the government is grappling with the question of at what point to bring the broader public into the discussion.

The signs are not encouraging.

Toews has already set up the NDP as the enemy, predicting they would merely “politicize” any public hearings because they are philosophically against any trade deals and are mired in an outdated protectionist mindset.

But, in fact, the only NDP criticism so far has centred on the secretive nature of the process.

If the Harper government is not prepared to come into the daylight at some point and tell Canadians specifically what it may be negotiating away, the NDP criticism will be the predominant Canadian point of view.

For those paying attention, it likely already is.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- The Mark is the latest to point out that the NDP's success in winning over former Bloc members and/or sovereigntists should be considered a huge victory rather than reason for criticism:

The Globe, at least, notes that “Canadians want, and need, former sovereigntists to join the ranks of federalist parties.” Which is, by and large, exactly what the NDP has done with much of Quebec, and certainly much more so than the supposedly more federalist parties (and heck, we give credit where credit is due to the Tories in bringing Lebel onside). Yet the tarring continues for the NDP, despite all their work in killing off the Bloc and bringing those sovereigntists on board. Sure, there will be birth pangs among the motley caucus, but incessantly arguing that every member of the NDP must pass a federalist smell test surely won't bring more sovereigntists their way. If it's good enough for their constituents, it ought to be good enough for the rest of us. Besides, it's not like we make every Tory MP who supported the Alberta firewall swear an oath to upholding confederation.

- Meanwhile, yet another federal poll signals that little has changed since the May election, even with Jack Layton out of the picture on an interim basis. But there's still some rather important news in that lack of change - as anybody who tried to pretend that the NDP's newfound strength was either entirely fuelled by Layton or a temporary blip would seem to have to put that skepticism to rest now that it's stabilized over a period of months and under Nycole Turmel's interim leadership.

- Thanks to the Harper Cons, Canada's federal government is now a dependent subsidiary of the oil industry. And it fully expects Canada's provinces to become the same. Don't everybody be shocked at once.

- Finally, Ontario's other provincial parties are feigning outrage at negative messages while contributing two for every one they criticize. But the NDP is actually working on debunking them without adding more into the mix.

Wednesday Afternoon Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Marc Lee tears into the "unfunded liabilities" spin on public benefits which is now making an appearance in Canada:

(W)hat’s missing from this horror movie is that this is an artifact of CPP being a mostly pay-as-you-go plan. The report calculates all future payouts to beneficiaries, less current holdings of financial assets, but ASSUMES that all CPP contributions from workers present and future ceased. It is as if the CPP closed shop and took in no more premium revenues and simply paid out its legal obligations. On this basis, my telephone connection is an unfunded liability running thousands of dollars because I do not have that money in the bank to pre-fund those future phone bills.

In the real world, we have to consider both income/revenues and expenditures, particularly since the CPP is “intended to be long-term and enduring in nature,” according to the Chief Actuary. So a second calculation that does include future contributions from workers, and this basically wipes out the “unfunded liability”, though not entirely. By this second estimate there is still a shortfall of $6.9 billion, but this is over the coming 75 years and amounts of 0.3% of the CPP’s liabilities.

The gist of the Chief Actuary’s report is that the CPP is financially sound for at least the next 75 years.
...
(S)urpluses are being accumulated and invested in financial markets. A decade from now, those surpluses will be depleted and expenditures will exceed contributions, with the difference made up by income from accumulated assets. Those CPP assets are currently worth $143 billion and are anticipated to continue to rise, even amid negative cash flow from premiums less benefits. That is, only a share of investment income will be needed to keep payments up, and the rate of return on CPP assets would have to drop big time for the plan to start drawing down its capital at all.

So when the right cries “unfunded liabilities” do not panic. They are either mis-informed or deliberately trying to mislead you.

- Barbara Ehrenreich writes about how the U.S. has turned poverty into a crime.

- Pogge points out the latest example of the Cons' deliberate know-nothingness being both a point of pride and an all-purpose excuse for ignoring realities which don't fit their political spin.

- Finally, Claude Denis offers up some more educational content about the realities of Quebec politics:

Much has been written over the years about the effect of the Bloc’s electoral dominance on Quebecers’ sense of belonging to Canada: that it has insulated them, weakened their sense of responsibility for the governance of the country, etc. But we are now seeing that the Bloc has also enabled non-Quebecers to ignore Quebec, to treat it as a non-entity when it comes to governing Canada. So, since the early 1990s, Canada has been governed essentially without francophone Quebec, and people outside Quebec like it just fine.

Now the NDP has come along to upset that happy blindness. Canadians outside Quebec are being shown that if Quebecers are going to rejoin the game of governing this country, the game itself is going to change. This was a risky gamble from the start for the NDP: speaking convincingly to Quebecers might alienate other Canadians. Indeed, the New Democrats had faced this choice many times before and had always shrunk from the challenge.

Jack Layton decided to go for it. He and his team are trying to articulate a new language of solidarity on the centre-left, between Quebecers and other Canadians. The first difficulty was to bring enough Quebecers on board. The second one, likely to prove the greater, is now to make other Canadians accept a change in their own sense of the country, of themselves, and of Quebec.
...
Layton’s mistake — if any — has been to call attention to Turmel and to what she represents too soon. The plan was to engage Canadians and Quebecers in a renewed political conversation over the next several years. Obviously, and sadly, circumstances forced Layton’s hand. Considering that Canadians outside Quebec have not had time to adjust to new realities brought on by the “vague orange,” he might have chosen someone else, most likely not from Quebec, and delayed a reckoning.

But who knows if and when this would have been possible? As it is, rather than looking at this as a mistake, I would rather see Layton’s choice as another courageous gamble. In effect, he is telling his fellow Canadians: “open your eyes.” Please.

Still feigned indignation

At the very least, the media finally seems to have picked up on the reality that all Canadian national parties include some former Bloc members and/or sovereigntists in their ranks. But that leads to the next obvious problem: that it's scolding the NDP for a position it doesn't hold rather than picking up on a rather important difference in the parties' messages.

No, the NDP is neither saying "everyone was doing it" as a defence to any misdeeds of its own, nor implying that other parties' acceptance of former Bloc members is wrong while its own is just fine. And the Globe itself knows better:

“What is at issue is the hypocrisy that the Conservatives displayed when they were commenting on Madame Turmel’s former membership in the Bloc,” said Mr. Lavigne. “They did this at the same time they themselves have members of their cabinet who are former members of the Bloc Québécois.”

And again, if spun to fit the Globe's narrative rather than the real one:

Mr. Lebel has a defender in an unexpected corner: outspoken Winnipeg NDP MP Pat Martin: “He is one of the most affable and friendly Conservative Ministers in cabinet,” Mr. Martin told the Globe. “He’s my office neighbour and frequent gym buddy. Quite the athlete, actually.” Mr. Martin argues that you cannot “grow your party” by ignoring others and “shunning anyone who once belonged to a different party.”

“Denis Lebel reminds us that many people have been associated with the Bloc for many different reasons quite separate and distinct from the sovereignty issue,” he says. “I hope more former Bloc members come and join the NDP.”

So the NDP's position is in fact consistent: national parties can, do and should accept former Bloc members and/or sovereigntists (which aren't necessarily synonymous). And the other parties' criticisms of the NDP for doing just that are entirely hollow given that they've adopted the exact same principle in putting together their past and present cabinets.

Of course, there are indeed two parties trying to say "sovereigntists for we, but not for thee". And those are the Cons and Libs - in part based on a typical IOKIYAC/IOKIYAL sense of self-entitlement, in part thanks to a delightfully brazen "but we question the NDP's dedication to federalism, therefore we get to invent different standards for them" argument.

If there's any good news, it's that it only took a week to get the media to notice the first bit of absurdity in the other parties' attacks on the NDP. And if the NDP's message machine can get the next part of its position to sink in on a similar time frame, then it should be able to put the issue to rest long before Parliament reconvenes.

[Edit: fixed wording.]

On broken systems

Let's add one more to the list of theories as to how the other parties' pearl-clutching over interim NDP leader Nycole Turmel may actually play to the NDP's advantage - and this time with a far more immediate effect.

Keep in mind that the last national poll taken primarily before the Turmel brouhaha showed the Libs effectively on even terms with the NDP. And it surely can't escape notice that the Libs had spent most of the summer to that point talking about policy and party rebuilding, rather than falling back into their familiar pattern of scandalmongering.

In contrast, the first poll taken after the attacks on Turmel restored the NDP's double-digit lead over the Libs, as well as its strong second-place position compared to the Cons.

So could it be that by piling on Turmel, the Libs merely reminded Canadians that Ottawa is still broken - and encouraged poll respondents to show their support for the party which is working to rise above the same old mud-slinging?

On distinguishing factors

Lest there be any doubt, it's still ridiculous to pretend that any person's past involvement in a Quebec sovereigntist party should be taken to disqualify that person from Canada's public discourse. But for those looking to facilitate the Cons' attacks on the NDP by trying to differentiate between Con MP and cabinet minister Denis Lebel and interim NDP leader Nycole Turmel, let's note that any reasonable distinctions look worse for Lebel than for Turmel.

After all, Lebel's involvement with the Bloc came in the '90s when its primary focus was on separation - while Turmel's came well into the 21st century when the Bloc had settled predominantly into a role as a regional rather than a nationalist party.

And for anybody looking to impose a loyalty test, surely Lebel's lack of ties to any federalist party while he belonged to the Bloc would serve as far more of a red flag than Turmel's simultaneous membership in the sovereigntist Bloc and the federalist NDP.

Again, though, the proper conclusion is that none of Lebel, Turmel or the leaders who appointed them should be forever banished from national participation based merely on past Bloc ties. And to the extent the Cons try to pretend otherwise, the right answer is to suggest that they'll have the right to take an even faintly principled position on giving power to a former Bloc member just as soon as we see Stephen Harper's resignation papers for appointing Lebel to cabinet.

Monday Morning Links

Assorted content to start your week.

- On the Nycole Turmel front: Christopher Majka cheers the fact that the NDP has managed to encourage so many more Quebeckers to see a place for themselves in Canadian federal politics. Michael Taube doesn't see any reason for the anti-NDP pile-on. And Charlie Smith offers another theory as to how the brouhaha could ultimately help the NDP.

- Meanwhile, the Hill Times checks in on the NDP's ongoing staffing process. And it's worth keeping in mind that the party's effective planning and use of its new resources may prove far more consequential in the long run than any short-term distraction or polling.

- John Mumme suggests that Canada look to Australia's superannuation system for an example of improved pensions and retirement security.

- But then, why stop at better national systems when the same issues are popping up around the world? And Thomas Palley's proposal for a global minimum wage looks like a great place to start in ensuring that development around the globe actually results in benefits for workers.

Sunday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Tom Mills challenges the Cons to show any job creation whatsoever as a result of their non-stop corporate tax slashing:

The thing is, if corporate tax cuts really do create jobs, Flaherty should be able to demonstrate it by now with something a little more substantial than theories.

Canada's corporate tax rate has dropped incrementally from 22.1% in 2005-06 to 16.5% today. The government should be able to track what jobs this has created.

Show us the jobs, I'd say. And show us full-time industrial jobs, not part-time service ones. Private sector, not civil service.

Otherwise, maybe we should give trickle-up economics a try.

- After a week of party operatives and media sources outside Quebec begging every NDP supporter they can find for some evidence of internal dissent angle to keep Nycole Turmel in the headlines, the big "gotcha" is...Adrian Dix' continued support for Turmel.

- Meanwhile, Carol Hughes rightly points out that two NDP opposition day motions passed unanimously in the House of Commons - meaning that there's every reason to put pressure on the Cons to translate their support in principle into real policy changes.

- Finally, I'll look at a couple of Alice's observations in more detail later. But for now, her post includes plenty of noteworthy tidbits on where Canada's political parties were in 2010, as well as where they're going in the years to come.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- L. Aaron Wright nicely contrasts the fabricated hysteria over Nycole Turmel against the choices of the Libs and Cons:

Where was the outrage when Stephen Harper tried to recruit Mario Dumont of the ADQ in Quebec, a leader of the Yes side in the 1995 referendum?

Where is the outrage at Maxime Bernier, a Tory cabinet minister, who worked for the Parti Quebecois government as an adviser to then Quebec finance minister Bernard Landry?

I don’t recall any outrage when the Liberals welcomed Jean Lapierre back into their fold. He was made minister of Transport. Mr. Lapierre was not just a former Bloc MP, but also a Bloc co-founder.

All of these politicians supported Quebec sovereignty. Ms. Turmel never has. She is a federalist.

- Kevin Drum serves up some numbers on why unions matter - reminding us why the corporatist right so fears both:

Among men, if you account only for the effect of individual membership in unions, (inequality) would be about a fifth lower (at 1973 unionization rates), which agrees pretty well with previous estimates. But if you also account for the effect of unions on surrounding nonunion employers (who often raised wages to compete with union employers and to avert the threat of unionization in their own workplace), the effect is larger: Unionization at 1973 levels would decrease income inequality by a full third...

The effect of unionization on women is less dramatic because women were never unionized at the same rate as men. For them, increasing returns to education are a bigger factor in rising income inequality than deunionization. For men, however, deunionization has had a huge impact...

(D)eunionization has allowed income inequality to rise partly because unions are negotiating wages for fewer people than they used to, and partly because unions no longer have the power to force the political system to pay attention to the needs of the middle class.

- Meanwhile, Ken Lewenza points out another corporate scam that's transferring money to the least scrupulous businesses at the expense of workers, as corporations are making a habit of simply shutting down without warning and leaving their employees out in the cold when it comes to money already earned:

The abrupt closure of three IQT call-centre operations in Oshawa, Trois-Rivières and Laval has left 1,200 workers reeling, and government agencies scratching their heads. How can a company (in this case a multi-million dollar, multi-national telecommunications contractor) simply pack up and leave, literally overnight? How can they walk away from legal obligations, washing their hands of back pay and severance? Seriously, how?

Weeks have gone by but no one, as of yet, has any real answers to these questions.

Governments appear incapable of even tracking down basic information about the company, who’s in charge and whether or not they’re actually bankrupt.

There’s an assumption among Canadians that there must be rules and regulations holding corporations to account. But this latest fiasco is a rude awakening.

Indeed, we’ve seen this storyline many times before. In 2009, 2,400 non-union auto parts workers at Progressive Moulded Products (PMP) in Toronto faced a similar ordeal — returning from vacation only to learn that their employer had fled town, taking their separation payments with them. CAW members have seen it first-hand, too, at companies like Collins & Aikman in Scarborough, Aradco and Aramco in Windsor, and others.

Each case prompted a public outcry and a spontaneous fight back. Workers demanded what was legally owed to them. But after fighting long and hard, they inevitably end up with less than they are owed.
...
It is both immoral and economically counterproductive to allow deadbeat corporations like IQT to commit these wrongs with impunity. As a society, we must take a hard line with employers who think they’re beyond the greater good.

- Finally, the National Post rightly notes that recognition of both human rights and the negative consequences of gratuitously draconian policy is particularly important in dealing with targets who lack any public defenders. But it'll take plenty of reminders on that point to counteract the Cons' deliberate moves to shield themselves from criticism for analogous actions by declaring that nobody should care about the victims anyway.

Friday Afternoon Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Gerald Caplan calls out the non-stop and substance-free gotcha politics facing the NDP since the public started recognizing that it had a legitimate chance to form government:

It never stops and never will. The moment the NDP seems even close to power, the knives come out.

The election was May 2. The NDP's rise began barely two weeks prior. Here's what it faced in these past three months:

"MassageGate." Suddenly, just before the election, it became necessary for the Sun media to smear Jack Layton over a massage he had 15 years earlier, and for Christie Blatchford to repeat the smear, even agreeing it was a smear.

"LasVegasGate." The NDP makes history in the election. It sweeps Quebec and emerges as Official Opposition. But its new MPs are immediately dismissed as a joke. Like a gang of bullies picking on someone who can't defend herself, reporters fall all over themselves to mock a candidate who spent part of the election in Las Vegas. She becomes a symbol of the immaturity of the new NDP MPs, even though few reporters had ever spoken to a single one of them. Having finally met them, these stories abruptly ceased.

"Jack'sCancerGate." Within seconds of Mr. Layton's announcement that he was temporarily stepping aside because of a new cancer but intended to return in the fall, the burial of the NDP began. The NDP was finished without Mr. Layton, even though he hadn't resigned. He was irreplaceable. Day after day for an entire week, the rhetorical question got asked and re-asked: Can the NDP make it Jack-less? The answer was seen to be self-evident.

"ComeCleanAboutCancerGate." Out of nowhere, the cry goes up that Mr. Layton must divulge everything about his cancer. What was he hiding? The world had a right and a need to know every single detail. Soon the rest of the pack picked it up. Everyone wanted to know something that was none of their business and of no conceivable use if they did know.

And now, finally, "TurmelGate"...

It's only a matter of time until Quebec realizes the province and its interests are no longer a priority for much of Canada, especially for a right-wing government that Québécois repudiated and where the west and Ontario dominate. For all of us who can't envision a Canada sans Quebec, there is dangerous potential here. Unexpectedly, the NDP has emerged as the best federalist bridge between Quebec and the rest of Canada. Jack Layton and Nycole Turmel are the embodiment of that bridge.

- And T.C. Norris also weighs in on Turmel:

(N)ot only did Turmel spurn the Bloc, she did so to run for a party that historically had never had much electoral success in Quebec. So she supported a federalist party in a circumstance where she might have reasonably expected that to be a political liability.

The fact that many in Quebec such as Turmel spurned the pro-independence party for a federalist party should be celebrated not mocked. Turmel is a long-time NDP member and supporter, her true allegiance. Her opponents in any case include many with previous sovereignist backgrounds: Liberal Jean Lapierre, who served in Martin's cabinet, was a co-founder of the Bloc, and Maxime Bernier, who is now back in Harper's cabinet, worked for PQ Premier Bernard Landry, a very serious supporter of Quebec independence.

Turmel represents exactly what we want to see Quebecers do about federalism, Mr. Rae, embrace it.

- Meanwhile, Caplan's list takes on an even darker tone when juxtaposed with the Cons' latest abuse of Abousfian Abdelrazik - as the declaration that Canadians should mindlessly trust their government's spin as to which undesirables should be arbitrarily stripped of all rights seems far too easily transferable to the Cons' willingness to play up any issue they can for political gain.

- Finally, as Aaron Wherry notes, Canadians for Tax Fairness are making the case as to why we should feel good about paying the reasonable price of civilization.

New column day

Here, on the silliness of this week's hullabaloo over Nycole Turmel's past Bloc membership - and the lessons we can stand to learn about Quebec politics in response.

For further reading...
- Marianne White also treats this week's news as a teachable moment rather than an opportunity to scold the NDP for other parties' false spin.
- Brian Topp points out that the reaction from the Cons and Libs is all about fearmongering rather than any genuine concern about national unity.
- And Don Lenihan notes that identity conflicts are an entirely normal part of the Canadian experience.

Wednesday Afternoon Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Martin Patriquin offers up the definitive response to the pearl-clutching over Nycole Turmel's Bloc membership (italics in original, bold added):

(H)ere’s the wee nuance that seems lost on the rest of the county, and one that is particularly important in the case of Turmel: the members of (sovereigntist) parties, whether they are on the left or the right, endorse this supposedly bedrock belief to varying degrees. The Bloc is/was made up of people like Jean Dorion, former president of the endlessly entertaining Société St Jean Baptiste; it’s also the former home of Jean Lapierre, who after co-founding the sovereignist party went on to be a cabinet minister in Paul Martin’s “home of the Clarity Act” Liberal government. Many, many members of the Bloc, along with the Parti Québécois and Québec Solidaire, are happy to live with Quebec’s current status as a province within a larger country. It’s a fact that vexes hardcore sovereignists and federalists alike.

And let’s have a look at Nycole Turmel’s record, shall we? First off, she was a member of the Bloc since 2006, long after BQ leader Gilles Duceppe had transitioned the Bloc from its original sovereigntist shock troop status to a hazy lefty bastion that, while ostensibly sovereignist in message, was more concerned with “defending Quebec’s interests in Ottawa.” Exhibit two: Turmel was member not of Parti Québécois—which is decidedly less whimsical on the issue of Quebec separation—but of Québec Solidaire, a left-first party whose own co-leader told me last year that “we are caught in the prison of the national question.”

Finally, and it’s amazing how few people have clued into this headsmackingly obvious point, but Turmel willingly ripped up her Bloc Québécois membership card to run for a dyed-in-orange federalist party. That alone should be evidence enough that her sovereignist credentials weren’t quite Parizeau-calibre. If anything, Turmel’s (temporary) ascension to the head of the party, like the NDP’s overwhelming victory in May, is proof positive that detaching the left from the sovereignist movement isn’t as impossible as it once was. How far we’ve come.

- Bill Tieleman points out that Canadians are poorer than they think by comparing soaring utility costs to stagnant wages.

- No, it's not news that right-wingers see deficits as an excuse to slash public services rather than having any actual interest in addressing them. But a reminder can never hurt.

- Nor is it particularly surprising that they're fully dedicated to ramping up a needless security state, and that cost evaluations and public consultations are no object in the effort.

- Finally, it's well worth joining the effort to share what looks to have been one of the few redeeming stories to come out of Anders Behrin Breivik's anti-left and anti-Muslim rampage.