Monday Afternoon Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- John Dearing, Gregory Cooper and Simon Willcock discuss the doom loop which is seeing worse-than-predicted effects of the climate breakdown resulting in vicious cycles of ecosystem collapse. J. Besl writes about new research showing that coastal flooding may be faster and more severe than anticipated due to inaccurate measurements of coastlines. And Jan Olsen reports on the warning from the European Center for Disease Prevention and Control that mosquito-borne diseases will become more prevalent as the planet warms. 

- Meanwhile, Inayat Singh reports on the Canada Energy Regulator's conclusion that fossil fuel expansion is incompatible with any effort to meet existing climate commitments. 

- Luke LeBrun and Mitchell Thompson expose how the Con-connected Civitas invited well-known bigots to attack trans people at a secret conference session. And Moira Donegan discusses how women in the U.S. are suffering as a result of social conservatives getting their way in stripping away reproductive rights. 

- Finally, Cory Doctorow's York University commencement speech emphasized the need to reject the establishment admonition that there is no alternative, and instead work on building something better than what serves its entrenched interests. 

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Mary Ziegler and Scott Lemieux both warn of the many other rights in imminent danger due to both the fact of the elimination of abortion rights by the Republican-dominated U.S. Supreme Court, and the excuses made for it.

- Dylan Scott discusses how the decision will lead to increase in child poverty. And Cassandra Szklarski reports on the growing reality of child hunger in Canada - as well as the need for a fundamentally more equitable policies to ameliorate it, rather that short-term band-aids. 

- Meanwhile, Erika Ibrahim reports on the Libs' choice to keep delaying even a framework bill for a national disability benefit. And Sid Frankel, John Stapleton and Shalini Konanur discuss how the demand that people repay the CERB benefits which they were told to apply for is further squeezing people already living in poverty.  

- Emily Leedham calls out Pierre Poilievre's designs on using the threat of withholding federal funding to dictate the lines of academic freedom. 

- Raymond Zhong writes about the proliferation of extreme heat around the globe. 

- Finally, Adam King discusses how Amazon is continuing to violate labour standards in an effort to prevent employees from exercising any collective bargaining power. 

Saturday #skvotes Links

 A roundup of news from Saskatchewan's provincial election as the last day of advance polling begins.

- Crystal Palmer writes about her observations and experiences losing someone close to her to an utterly broken addictions and mental health system. And Gillian Massie highlights the how the Saskatchewan Party's excuse for a suicide reduction plan - consistent with its pattern for most social policies - is designed to do the bare minimum for the sake of appearances rather than meaningfully improving outcomes. 

- Murray Mandryk sets out a few of the questions which haven't been fully answered over the course of the campaign - though it's telling that the list largely involves areas where the NDP has offered well-thought-out solutions while the Sask Party has avoided providing straight answers. 

- Safe Schools Saskatchewan publishes a letter from a new teacher frustrated with the appalling state of the province's education system. 

- PressProgress points out which Sask Party candidates bring anti-choice baggage to the election - with Scott Moe ranking as just the most prominent of an extensive list.

- Glenn Hicks reports on Glen Poelzer's prediction that the NDP will emerge with a substantial increase in seats - though how far that goes of course depends on people's voting choices over the next few days. 

- Finally, the Leader-Post and Star-Phoenix editorial boards advocate for voters to grab a mask and take health precautions, then go to the polls.

On private determinations

Paul Willcocks has previously pointed out why there's reason for skepticism about Andrew Scheer's attempt to play both sides as to whether or not the Cons will try to limit access to abortion. But it's worth looking at a case study as to how the Harper Cons flouted any distinction between private member's bills and government bills when it suited their purposes.

Bill C-377, designed to impose reporting requirements on unions which don't apply to any other organization, was never included in any Con election platform. It was introduced as a private member's bill by Russ Heibert to make use of an advantageous draw in the order of priority, while avoiding the scrutiny that applies to government bills.

But the Senate returned it to the House of Commons with amendments. And at that point, the Cons made clear that it was Stephen Harper, not any MP acting on behalf of any constituents, who was dictating what to do with the legislation - and moreover that reintroducing it as a government bill was on the table:

Despite this being a private member’s bill, the Prime Minister’s Office has been moved to issue a statement.

We continue to support union transparency and the principles of the bill, which will be returned to the House as part of the normal process.
As per Parliamentary convention, we expect that the Senate will respect the will of the House of Commons should the Bill be returned to the Senate.

A Conservative source tells the Canadian Press that the bill will now be reintroduced as a government bill.

That didn't happen in the House of Commons. But it did eventually happen in the Senate, as Harper's Cons broke the Senate's rules to retroactively reclassify C-377 as a "government bill" to allow it to be rammed through in the final session before the 2015 election:

The government has powerful tools to push forward on "government business" — important legislation such as budgets. But C-377 falls under "other business" because it is a private member's bill from a Conservative backbench MP.

Carignan wanted to have C-377 declared a government bill so that he could force it to a vote. The problem is that it clearly isn't government business. The government itself introduced it as "other business."

A government motion would have retroactively redefined C-377 as a government bill. This was the motion Speaker Housakos declared was against the rules and undermined the traditions of the Senate.

By overruling Housakos, government senators can now use tools intended for government bills to push forward a private member's bill that many have warned is unconstitutional.

In light of that background, what does Scheer have to say about anti-choice legislation?

Scheer’s efforts to clarify his views on abortion just made things murkier. “I will not re-open this debate and I will oppose any plan to re-open this debate,” he told reporters.

But he also said Conservative MPs would be allowed to introduce legislation limiting access to abortion. And to vote for restricting access, if that was their personal view. And while he would expect cabinet ministers to vote against limiting access, he wouldn’t demand they do.

So Scheer's supposed acceptance of the continued availability of abortion is limited to personally opposing a move to "re-open" debate. But that can be done by any MP introducing a private member's bill. And Scheer has signalled his willingness to permit that step within a party which exercises strict control over those bills in the first place - meaning that he'll be providing tacit approval even if he feigns public dismay.

And once that step has been taken? Scheer won't demand that any of his MPs vote to preserve the right to abortion access. And based on his own words, any step after the first one has been left open.

There's thus every reason for concern that Scheer will follow his predecessor's playbook. And any promise to leave the Cons' dirty work to private member's bills should only be taken as a reminder that they've used that mechanism to grease the skids for controversial legislation before.

Update: And Scheer's declaration that he'll use the Senate as a tool to exercise strict partisan control certainly doesn't help matters.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Mia Rabson reports on a new Climate Action Network report card showing that Canada's plans for greenhouse gas emissions are as bad as any in the G8, projecting to lead to the same 4 degree temperature increase which would result from from Donald Trump's outright denialism. And Marc Jaccard concludes that the Cons' excuse for a climate plan will actually result in increases in Canada's greenhouse gas emissions over the next crucial decade.

- Meanwhile, Eliane Brum highlights how humanity as a whole is facing severe risks from Brazil's deliberate destruction of the Amazon rain forest in the name of short-term profits.

- Alicia Bridges reports on new research showing how even conventional oil production in Saskatchewan may be resulting in serious risks to drinking water. And Stephanie Tobin examines the false promise of offshore oil spill cleanup - where even ideal conditions result in 90% of what's dumped into water being left there to contaminate marine areas.

- Olivia Tobin reports on Jeremy Corbyn's warnings about the generation of young people being left behind by the UK's Conservative government, while Jagmeet Singh comments on the similar problem with the increasing precarity facing young Canadians. And Heather Scoffield writes about the experience of poverty among people being told they should be grateful for stagnant gaps between the wealthy and the rest of us.

- Finally, Jill Filipovic discusses new research showing how "pro-life" positions are primarily about asserting male dominance over women.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Kurtis Alexander points out how climate change is exacerbating the gap between wealthy and poor countries. Megan Mayhew Bergman highlights the importance of discussing climate change even where it's all too often treated as a taboo topic, while Jeff Sparrow points out that politicians are largely lagging behind the public's interest in climate action. And Kyle Pope and Mark Hertsgaard note that we also need to see more and better coverage of the impact a collapsing climate has on our lives.

- Meanwhile, Zach Dubinsky reports on new research suggesting that the tar sands are producing even more carbon pollution than previously assumed.

- Peter Walker reports on new research from the UK showing how first-past-the-post politics may tend toward extreme positions and poor reflections of public values by forcing voters into one of two camps. And the Canadian Press reports on Prince Edward Island's election and referendum which may finally bring proportional representation to Canada.

- The Financial Post points out a new survey showing an increasing number of Canadians - now 48 per cent - saying they're $200 or less per month away from insolvency. And Melody Judilla writes about the need for the rich to start contributing their fair share to a functional society.

- Finally, Julian Borger reports on the U.S.' plans to block any resolution prohibiting the use of rape as a weapon of war if it's taken to include any access to support for victims.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Frances Ryan rightly calls out the anti-choice right for having no interest in the well-being of children once they're born:

(S)mall-state ideology can make it devastatingly difficult for a low-income parent to look after a child. Look at the controversial “two-child” limit to child tax credits under universal credit (UC). From its inception, it was predicted the policy would lead to hundreds of thousands of additional children living in poverty, but it’s now emerging that some women are even feeling forced to have abortions because they can’t afford to go ahead with the pregnancy. “It wasn’t planned but it was very much wanted. I was crying as they wheeled me in,” one woman told the Mirror this month about her abortion; without the safety net of tax credits, she had no way to afford another baby. Women in Northern Ireland in similar positions have an even more restricted choice: the rape-exemption clause that gives some women on UC a financial reprieve endangers women who haven’t reported their attack to the police (in Northern Ireland, failure to report a crime is an offence) and, as the renewed calls for reproductive rights in light of the Irish vote has highlighted, Northern Irish women have no legal access to abortion in their own country if they feel they can’t raise a child.

Recent years have in fact seen a determined removal of support from low-income mothers – everything from forcing single parents (90% of whom are women) to look for work once their child turns three or have their benefits sanctioned, to the benefit cap, a policy so regressive it was actually ruled to be unlawful when forced on single parents with toddlers.
...
In the post-crash austerity era, this sense of social solidarity towards children has noticeably lessened. Under each policy to remove state support from parents there’s a lurking narrative that working-class women are “breeding too much” or that low-income children are drains on the “hardworking taxpayer”. (“Why should I pay for someone else to have more kids?” is the rejoinder on most articles advocating child benefits). In the real world, pregnancy is rarely predictable – contraception fails, relationships end, and jobs are lost – and besides, even the most ardent individualist would admit low-income children have done nothing to “deserve” their own poverty.

We are at the point in which it is not rare to hear of infants living in B&Bs, sleeping on cardboard, or even scrambling for food in school bins. If the ongoing debate over abortion rights teaches us anything, it’s that there are no shortage of voices content to defend the “unborn”. It’s a shame few are willing to give the same care to those children who are already here.

- And Elizabeth Wall-Weiler points out the vicious cycle of separating children from teenage mothers in care - which tends only to ensure a lack of family security across generations.

- Edgardo Sepulveda examines the effect on inequality of the party platforms in Ontario's provincial election, showing the stark distinction between the increased fairness of the NDP's platform and the exacerbated inequality on offer from Doug Ford. And Michael Laxer's roundup contrasts the real Conservative scandals which have been downplayed by the media against the contrived attempts to manufacture controversy surrounding the NDP. 

- Andrew Jackson reviews Christo Aivailis' The Constant Liberal on Pierre Trudeau's consistent pattern of trying absorb progressive activity into centrist power structures to dilute its ultimate effect.

- Finally, Helene Laverdiere criticizes the Libs' insistence on enabling the sale of arms to human rights abusers.

New column day

Here, expanding on this post as to how the promises which won Scott Moe the Saskatchewan Party's leadership will leave him with some difficult decisions to make in a hurry.

For further reading...
- Tammy Robert's coverage of the leadership campaign features this gem about Moe's substance-free campaign:

Moe’s campaign is unbelievably thin gruel from a man who wants to lead Saskatchewan, and personally I find it even more unbelievable that 23 MLAs – or Moe’s “Team”, as he describes them – stand behind this pablum, nevermind endorse it as what’s best for Saskatchewan people.

A Moe win is not what’s best for us – it’s what’s best for them.

- Alex Brockman has followed up on the expectations surrounding Moe's promise to reverse his government's education cuts, as well as the labour movement's continued calls to stop the Saskatchewan Party's cuts generally.
- Finally, PressProgress points out the anti-abortion messaging which help Moe to win social conservative votes - but raises questions as to whether the right to choose may be under an immediate threat.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Agence France-Presse reports that even the IMF has reached the conclusion that higher taxes on wealthy citizens are a necessary part of competent economic management - even as the Harper Cons and other right-wing governments keep trying to peddle trickle-down economics to everybody's detriment.

- Susan Delacourt writes that political campaigns may have managed to jump ahead of corporate marketing in targeting messages to individual voters. But Stephen Maher is rightly concerned that both parties and governments alike are being run primarily based on a desire to create political fund-raising messages, rather than any coherent sense of achieving some common good.

- And speaking of parties who have completely lost the plot as to right and wrong, Mohammed Adam tears into the Cons for their callous disregard for war rape victims:

According to Save the Children, which has documented the atrocity across continents, the most vulnerable are adolescent girls, and pregnancy has become a leading cause of death among girls aged 15 to 19 because of unsafe abortions and complications from giving birth.

This is why safe abortions, which are recognized as a right by the Geneva Convention, are a necessary part of the range of services war rape victims need. It is not an ideological issue, but a life-and-death issue for many of the young girls, and clinics have been set up for those who need the service.

But this is what the Canadian government refuses to help fund.

- Colin Horgan worries that the unchecked spread of the security state will force Canadians to silence themselves for fear of having their personal opinions and preferences misused by the powers that be. But Tony Burman reminds us that there's already a watchdog in place to monitor CSEC's activities - and that the security state might not have spread unchecked if it had received the resources to do its job.

- Finally, Brendan Haley writes about Canada's "staples trap" as a severe restriction on policy choices - with the Cons' continued refusal to regulate greenhouse gas emissions (or even accept the reality of climate change) where environmental sustainability and the oil industry's immediate profits are at odds serving as a particularly stark example.

[Edit: fixed wording.]

Sunday Afternoon Links

This and that to end your weekend.

- Daniel Goleman writes about the role of wealth in undermining empathy:

(I)n general, we focus the most on those we value most. While the wealthy can hire help, those with few material assets are more likely to value their social assets: like the neighbor who will keep an eye on your child from the time she gets home from school until the time you get home from work. The financial difference ends up creating a behavioral difference. Poor people are better attuned to interpersonal relations — with those of the same strata, and the more powerful — than the rich are, because they have to be.

While Mr. Keltner’s research finds that the poor, compared with the wealthy, have keenly attuned interpersonal attention in all directions, in general, those with the most power in society seem to pay particularly little attention to those with the least power. To be sure, high-status people do attend to those of equal rank — but not as well as those low of status do.

This has profound implications for societal behavior and government policy. Tuning in to the needs and feelings of another person is a prerequisite to empathy, which in turn can lead to understanding, concern and, if the circumstances are right, compassionate action.
...
Since the 1970s, the gap between the rich and everyone else has skyrocketed. Income inequality is at its highest level in a century. This widening gulf between the haves and have-less troubles me, but not for the obvious reasons. Apart from the financial inequities, I fear the expansion of an entirely different gap, caused by the inability to see oneself in a less advantaged person’s shoes. Reducing the economic gap may be impossible without also addressing the gap in empathy.

- Stephen Maher writes about the Cons' continuing problems with Stephen Harper's first set of patronage Senate appointments - which look to have arisen largely about of the perception that anybody sufficiently well-connected to be appointed would be above answering to the mere general public. And there's an echo of that theme in Kate Heartfield's discussion of the Cons' battles with Elections Canada as well.

- But when it comes to kicking the powerless while they're down, it's hard to top the Cons' thumb in the eye of war rape victims and child brides who need access to abortion as a means of remedying the human rights violations they've suffered - or the denial of health care to refugee claimants.

- Finally, the CP reports that Alberta isn't done trying to shut non-oil baron voices out of any environmental assessment of the tar sands.

Parliament in Review - April 26, 2012

Thursday, April 26 saw ample discussion of private members' business - and if the Cons are now cracking down on such debate, the results of the day's proceedings might give us some clues as to why.

The Big Issue

While it didn't receive as much media attention as another issue which was debated for substantially less time, Irene Mathyssen's motion to reverse the Cons' attacks on OAS produced plenty of noteworthy discussion. Mathyssen pointed out how the move would increase poverty rates among senior women in particular. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe noted that private pension plans might not be designed to account for OAS not being available at age 65, while Mike Sullivan pointed to a similar issue with provincial benefit plans. Linda Duncan asked who if anybody the Cons had consulted. Stephane Dion observed that the OAS is already fairly stingy compared to other countries' programs, while Eve Peclet mused that a fairer tax system would allow for far better income security and Don Davies highlighted the fact that the Cons' frequent and frivolous tax slashing had created the budget deficit they now claim to want to fix on the backs of retirees. Paulina Ayala observed that it's younger Canadians who will suffer from the change, while Mylene Freeman both worried about the fact younger Canadians don't have spare money to put aside to make up for a destroyed social safety net (a point echoed by Alexandre Boulerice) and recognized that lower- to middle-class seniors will suffer most from an income perspective. Dan Harris quipped that "ample notice about getting hosed does not change the fact that we are getting hosed", while Wayne Easter described the cuts as "grand theft" from workers under 54. And a number of speakers including Judy Foote, Fin Donnelly and Davies pointed to the Cons' campaign promise not to cut individual benefits which was broken by the attack on OAS.

Meanwhile, Pierre Poilievre hearkened back to the good old days when the average senior would die before receiving a nickel in OAS. But perhaps the more interesting contribution from the Cons was Kellie Leitch's emphasis on the OAS changes not affecting CPP eligibility or benefits based on that program being "fully funded for the next 75 years at current contribution rates" - which might be worth filing away for future reference if that becomes the next form of retirement security to meet with the Cons' budgetary axe.

The Settled Issue

Meanwhile, Stephen Woodworth's abortion motion was the other main topic of discussion. But while Woodworth made a fool of himself by confirming that he wasn't prepared to accept the most likely outcome of exactly the study he claimed to want, plenty of speakers from all parties - including Francoise Boivin, Hedy Fry, Gordon O'Connor and Niki Ashton - made it clear that Woodworth's regressive stance wasn't going to get him anywhere. (Though contrary to what so many people said at the time, O'Connor's seems to have been one of the less impressive of the speeches.)

In Brief

In response to Malcolm Allen's order paper questions on a Crop Logistics Working Group, Gerry Ritz helpfully pointed out that the group hadn't accomplished anything and didn't plan to report back to anybody other than Ritz himself. Niki Ashton questioned the Cons' elimination of the Women's Health Contribution Program. Nathan Cullen's Thursday question included a request for an update on the Elections Canada motion the Cons reluctantly accepted a couple of months earlier. Guy Caron again asked for some explanation of the Cons' move to shift an EI processing site from Rimouski to Thetford Mines, and again received nothing approaching a meaningful answer. And Anne Minh-Thu Quach asked why the Cons are doing nothing about obesity as a public health issue.

Parliament in Review - April 23, 2012

Monday, April 23 was the first day back in the House of Commons following the Easter break. And it featured some of the most lively and telling discussion we've seen yet on the Cons' anti-refugee legislation as the second-reading debate reached its end.

The Big Issue

As part of the refugee bill debate, Craig Scott made his first speech as the NDP's MP for Toronto-Danforth. And he wasted no time in showing what he'll add to the NDP's caucus:

One huge difference is that the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act requires that a person be a permanent resident before the person is able to sponsor family members, such as the person's spouse, children, or parents, to immigrate to Canada. Thus, under Bill C-31 irregular refugees would have no hope of reuniting with family in Canada for at least five years.

 

Currently, family class applications in this country are often processed at a snail's pace. It is not uncommon for it to take three years for a child or a spouse to be admitted and sometimes up to six years for parents. It is no stretch to say that a refugee who started out as a designated foreign national may have to wait 10 years for family members to join him or her.

 

If that is not enough, a designated foreign national refugee will not even be able to travel outside Canada to spend time with family, for example, in a country other than the country of origin which the refugee fears going back to. Why is that? Bill C-31 decrees that such a refugee will not be given travel documents until he or she becomes a permanent resident, that is, until at least five years have passed, despite the fact that the refugee convention requires that travel documents be issued to refugees once they are “lawfully staying” in the host country. Fortress Canada thus becomes prison Canada for the designated foreign national refugee. If he were still alive, Kafka could not have written Bill C-31 better if he tried.

Other speakers including Kevin Lamoureux also questioned why the Cons are so determined to keep families apart for a period of up to a decade. Kirsty Duncan pointed out how quickly patterns of human rights abuse can emerge and render obsolete the "safe country" designations the Cons want to use to attack refugees' rights. Guy Caron and Andrew Cash criticized the Cons' pattern of placing large amounts of power over individual rights in the hands of unaccountable ministers. Caron also lamented the politicization of refugee claims. Libby Davies highlighted the fact that organizations familiar with refugee issues were lining up against C-31, then observed that the bill would allow the Cons to retroactively attack refugee status if circumstances changed in a new immigrant's country of origin. Elizabeth May asked about the cost of locking up refugees rather than allowing them to contribute to Canadian society. Jinny Sims queried how refugees would take the Cons' admonition to play by the rules seriously when the 300,000 who did so in the current skilled worker program queue are being arbitrarily deleted. Anne Minh-Thu Quach and Massimo Pacetti pointed out that there's plenty of reason why refugees can't be expected to meet the ridiculous requirements placed on them by the Cons.

Meanwhile, for the Cons, Jason Kenney took umbrage at any suggestion that his party wanted to get tough on refugees - only to admit that part of the bill's purpose is deterrence to keep them from coming to Canada. And while Patrick Brown offered a boilerplate defence of a plan to require biometric information from new immigrants, Dan Harris rightly criticized the fact that the Cons were refusing to hear from a committee already assessing the use of biometrics.

But as tends to be the case, the Cons simply decided to ignore every valid criticism of their legislation, and voted down the NDP's proposed amendment before forcing the bill through.
 Pop Quiz

Caron received a response to his order paper question (#489) as to the criteria used to decide to close a processing centre in Rimouski and set one up for the primary benefit of Christian Paradis in Thetford Mines and the reason why the change was made. Your challenge: spot anything in the answer that amounts to an explanation of the decision beyond "because we damn well said so, that's why".

In Brief

Merv Tweed spoke to his bill to prevent Canada Post from hiking rates on books delivered between rural libraries. And the idea received multi-party support - though it's worth asking how Tweed's initial can be reconciled with the Cons' constant demand that Crowns be run as revenue-maximizing businesses or sold off to be turned into just that.

Meanwhile, Malcolm Allen offered a statement on cuts to food inspections through both the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the Canada Border Services Agency, then followed up in question period. Francoise Boivin served notice that the NDP won't hesitate to defend a woman's right to choice. Megan Leslie wondered about the minders being sent to accompany civil servants to a conference and report on their activities. Irene Mathyssen's question about how much money was being cut out of OAS was met with Diane Finley's response that her government's attacks on seniors' standard of living have nothing to do with deficit reduction. Carolyn Bennett slammed Leona Aglukkaq for singling out aboriginal health for massive cuts. And Caron asked adjournment questions about the Cons' lack of a realistic plan to foster research and development in Canada, while Jack Harris wondered what exactly the Cons plan to do with the influx of prisoners created by their dumb-on-crime strategy (especially as they indicated they planned to close some facilities).

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Susan Delacourt notes that while the NDP's leadership convention points out some of the risks of online voting, the real problem lies in the people working to block democracy through any available means:

While those who use computers have become accustomed to the system-fail message about files being corrupted, we’re talking here about a different type of corruption.

The cyberattack on the NDP was apparently deliberate and orchestrated. As well, it’s looking like the ever-widening robo-calls investigation will reveal something a little larger than mere, one-off mischief.

The worry is that it isn’t the machinery that’s getting corrupted, but some of the people plying the political trade right now. If that’s the case, more than the system needs a reset — and smashing the machines won’t fix it.

And Dave reaches a similar conclusion while noting that the Cons' vote suppression looks to have been the result of an organizational push:

Perhaps it's decades of military training and my experience as a front-line "death technician" that routes my thinking, but I cannot think of any way to pull off a geographically massive, narrowly timed operation without at least four things in place: planning, coordination, deception and delegation1. In a criminal enterprise it is described with one word: conspiracy.
...
All the signs point to a planned, coordinated and specifically-timed national effort to suppress the opposition vote using illegal means. And to add to the elements required to pull off something as large as this appears to be, the direction of such an effort has to come from well up in the hierarchy of a group. In a disciplined, authoritarian-led organization, independent action over a wide scale usually fails.

Meanwhile, the Hill Times reports on Marc Mayrand's recommendations to improve the Canada Elections Act, while Sixth Estate suggests fully enforcing the one we have already.

- Julie MacArthur aptly sums up the Cons' idea of a message on the environment as being that of a "scorched earth hour".

- fern hill (X2, deBeauxOs, JJ and Alison are rightly asking for some progressive unity against Stephen Woodworth's attempts to reopen the abortion debate.

- Finally, John Geddes and Aaron Wherry look behind the scenes of the NDP leadership campaign, while Alice thoroughly dissects the final voting numbers.

On minority influence

John Ibbitson's report on the Cons' immigrant recruitment strategy is rightly getting plenty of attention this morning. But let's take a moment to point out the good news behind the Cons' attempts to manipulate the immigration system for their own gain.

First, there's the fact that even among the new immigrants who are seen as more receptive to socon values, there's reason to think that any party willing to defend progressive principles can compete for votes:

A survey of visible minorities and immigrants done by the Canadian Election Study shows both groups tend to be more conservative than the rest of Canada on bedrock Canadian issues. Both groups, for example, are more likely to say it should be possible to pay for medical treatment and that getting an abortion should be more difficult. Visible minorities, a category that’s 84 per cent immigrant, are more likely to support private hospitals, lower taxes and paying parents individually rather than funding daycare.

(I)t’s not all tilting to the right. On most other issues in the survey, such as cutting welfare spending, opposing the death penalty, having troops in Afghanistan or spending more on defence, both immigrants and visible minority groups are to the left of the Canadian population.

What's particularly striking is that a number of the issues where the survey classifies visible minorities and immigrants as falling to the right of the general population are exactly the ones where the Cons most fear to tread. It may be worth seeing what the Cons are telling minority communities about privatizing health care, restricting abortion or revisiting same-sex marriage, but they certainly aren't prepared to take those policies to the general public - and can expect to be torn to shreds if they're trying to sell different messages to immigrant communities.

In contrast, issues like defence spending and military deployment have been front and centre thanks in large part to the Cons' being consistently on the wrong side of both Canadians as a whole, and the minority groups who have even stronger views than the general public. So there's plenty of room to tap into the values of new Canadians to oppose the Cons.

And that's just in the first generation of new arrivals, as Ibbitson notes that subsequent generations don't seem to be taking long to abandon any vestiges of social conservatism:

(T)here is one demographic shift that should keep Mr. Kenney awake at night. However economically and socially conservative new arrivals may be, their children are almost invariably more liberal.

Subir Mann, a 22-year-old student, came to Canada from The Punjab as a child. He says he supports same-sex marriage, even though his more traditional father has trouble with it.

“For me I think it’s important that gay people are considered equal,” he said. “Part of the reason I’m anti-Conservative is that they often mix religious issues with politics. That can be very dangerous.”

And though Helen Poon is giving serious thought to voting Conservative, her 12-year-old son, a proud cadet, has a very different view.

He came home from school one day urging her not to vote Conservative, Ms. Poon said.

So the Cons' much-hyped immigration strategy looks to be little more than a one-off effort with nothing but diminishing returns to follow. After all, the few social issues where they have any hope of persuading new arrivals to join their camp are exactly the ones where second-generation immigrants are joining the younger population at large on the other side.

Of course, the Cons could still do plenty of damage even with a single majority followed by a demographic turn against them . But there's no indication that the Cons are anywhere near achieving that despite their efforts to buy off new arrivals with public money - and there's ample reason for optimism that both new arrivals and their children will see their values better reflected in other parties.

Surprise, surprise

Let's see how the first test of the Cons' New Era of Ministerial Accountability is working out:

Ms. Oda’s spokeswoman, Jessica Fletcher, said in a e-mail that the minister wouldn't comment on the contents of the briefing notes.

Requests for an interview with CIDA representatives went unanswered.

But don't worry: the Cons will surely find their commitment to ministerial responsibility again just in time for the next photo op.

Burning question

Stephen Harper considers the fact that one of his cabinet ministers is pro-choice to be a problem (on par with her being a poor communicator) when it comes to defending his party's principles on maternal health. So what does that say about what litmus tests Harper might plan to apply for cabinet assignments in the future?

(Edit: fixed wording.)

Burning questions

So can we take it as a given that the Rod Bruinooge (and by association the Harper Cons) see no need to deal with threats or coercion forcing women to do anything other than end a pregnancy? And does that include, say, coercing a woman not to have an abortion?

Update: Great minds, etc.

The reviews are in - Non-Lib Edition

Last night I pointed out the angry reaction from some Lib supporters to the fact that their own party's MPs torpedoed a motion supporting family planning. But just in case anybody thought the concern was only an internal Lib issue of caucus solidarity, let's see what other commentators have had to say about the train wreck.

Dr. Dawg:

Liberal nonentities John McKay, Paul Szabo and Dan McTeague don't care if Third World women die. Some don't give a damn one way or the other. And Liberal "leader" Michael Ignatieff couldn't do a thing about it.
...
Talk about the gang that couldn't shoot straight. What a toxic mixture of malevolence and incompetence.

Greg uses the incident to add to Canada's political vocabulary:

Iggy

Definition: Noun. A very dull fellow. A loser. Usage: "That fellow over there just lost a vote on his own party's motion because he couldn't even deliver his own caucus. What an Iggy."

And then adds this followup:

Harper is sharpening his teeth, getting ready to feast on more Liberal lamb. If you think I am being too harsh, take a look at this headline. When they start making jokes, comparing you to your failed, hopeless predecessor, you are in big, big, trouble.

Fern Hill:

Just when I was developing a smidge of respect for the Liberals...

Just when I was not quite so despairing of Opposition cooperation...

Well. That shows me, I guess. Women's rights, here as in the Excited States, are always negotiable. At least for Liberals.
...
You look like absolute, complete idiots, Liberals. You couldn't organize a piss-up in a brewery. And the Cons are crapping their pants laughing at you.

Devin Johnston:

Whatever the reason, the lesson learned today is that the Liberal Party of Canada remains fertile ground for socially conservative politicians. To the extent that the Liberal Party brands itself as socially progressive, its social conservative caucus will be a constant public relations nightmare.

And via Twitter, Kady O'Malley:

(M)ust agree with other observers: that was a stunning example of utter Liberal disorganization in the House.

Update:

More Kady:

Happy Weekly Caucus Day, everyone! Well, unless you happen to be a Liberal, of course, in which case today's outing will likely do little to boost your respective or collective morale. Let the festival of bitterness, recrimination, and inevitable leaking of the high- and low lights of today's meeting begin!

You also might want to take note of the scheduled vote after Question Period; as some of your MPs have apparently forgotten exactly how the seemingly uncomplicated process of standing up at the right time actually works, you might want to do a few practice runs to avoid future embarrassment.

And Alison:

Blue Dog Liberals: Banner day, assholes
...
1) You voted against stopping a $¼-million government subsidy to an asbestos lobby group.

2) You dogwhistled about abortion in your maternal health initiative for developing countries "wedge" motion but were too afraid to actually include the word.

3) You used the "wedge" motion - intended to smoke out the Cons - to give your own party a very public wedgie, losing the final vote: 144-138.

Update II:

catnip:

It should have been a simple thing: present a motion to force the Cons to take a formal stand on supporting maternal health initiatives (ie. contraception) in advance of the upcoming G8 meeting - a reaffirmation of Canada's foreign policy stance for the past 25 years.

But the Liberals, who introduced the motion, managed to defeat their own motion.

This, after catching the Cons in their own roller coaster of confusion over the policy last week and on the heels of Bev Oda laughingly calling the policy "anti-American". (Apparently, being against former and regressive Bush administration policies equals anti-Americanism to the spectacularly dull and ineffective Ms Oda).

And the Cons also believed that even talking about contraception was some sort of slippery slope to re-opening the debate about abortion - which wasn't even on the table.

Yet, the Liberals still managed to embarass themselves.

David Akin, featuring an unnamed Lib MP:

The motion was defeated 144-138. Had the absent Liberals showed up to vote in favour, it would have easily passed. Remarkably, there was, after the vote, much confusion about whether or not it was a whipped vote. Some said, yes, they'd been whipped. Others, like B.C. MP Keith Martin - he was there and voted in favour of the motion -- did not know it was a whipped vote until told it was by reporters this morning.

And so the Liberals ended up with some tremendous egg on their face.
...
Privately, Liberal MPs said that the 90-minute caucus meeting was not a happy place with MPs directing their frustration at Ignatieff, his staff, and party whip Rodger Cuzner. It would have been Cuzner's job to make sure all of his MPs knew it was a whipped vote and to make sure they were all in their seats and ready to vote "Aye". Ignatieff would not say what punishment would be in store for the Liberal MPs who did not vote the way they were supposed to, saying only that Cuzner would decide on that.

"We look like fools," one Liberal MP said privately.

The reviews are in - Liberal Supporters Edition

I'll post later to document the reaction from those of us who aren't in the Libs' camp. But to start with, let's take a look at what Libs themselves are saying about their self-sabotaged motion on family planning.

James Curran:

Today Liberals Failed Women

There's something I never thought I'd never hear myself write. To make matters worse, I had to hear our leader say -over and over again- "it's a 25 year policy". Point being, if we feel that strongly about it, why wasn't this causcus (sic) whipped to support our own motion which was non-binding????????????? What a slap in the face to women every where.

Steve V:

Not A Great Moment, Let's Just Say

This (train wreck) sums up today's motion on maternal health from the Liberal perspective. I know, I'm being to (sic) kind.

bigcitylib in response:

By the way, the exploding whale is also an excellent graphic for this kind of situation.

Scott Tribe:

(W)hen you have an important motion going forward in the house and you’re trying to make a point, it is not good planning or foresight to put the motion out there on the House of Commons voting schedule when you don’t have the votes or aren’t sure if you have the votes (consider that even if the 3 Liberals who had voted ‘no’ had abstained instead, we still would have lost the motion by 3 votes).

It may not mean much in the overall scheme of things since the government would have ignored this anyhow.. but it’s rather embarrassing optics.

More to come - at least, assuming the whole mess isn't quietly disappeared by other Lib supporters.

Update: The above may well be all for main posts - as the only other Lib supporter post on the subject looks to completely miss the point. (Yes, "if you want a government that doesn't play politics with such issues and that will unabashedly say yes to family planning support, we all know what we need to do": vote NDP, since one national party can actually be trusted to have some principles in the area.)

But CfSR does offer up another comment worth highlighting:

How the Hell does the Liberal caucus screw up an argument that basicly (sic) comes down to the Harper Tories being more eager to defend George Bush than poor women?

Really. How? And how do we fix the caucus?

Again, though, the better answer looks to be that the Libs are far beyond fixing.

Update II:

HarperBizarro doesn't want to name party names (framing the problem as being with the "opposition" rather than the Libs), but this much seems beyond doubt:

This is not an Ignatieff problem. It is far broader and deeper and older than his leadership.
...
It is time for those who cannot be 100% Liberals to go to another party. It would be preferable to face a majority Tory caucus and be able to stand for progress at all times, than to have to withstand the bullshit of yesterday.

And see also The Scott Ross:

Hours before the vote on a motion calling on the government to include "the full range of reproductive health options” in its international maternal and child health initiative, MP Lise Zarac said in response to the Conservative Party's planned opposition to it, "Once again, the government is putting its socially conservative ideology ahead of the best interests of women and girls."

However as votes were cast, and it was seen that three Liberal MPs opposed the motion as well leading to its defeat, Ms. Zarac must have realized just how social conservatives can be, as they haven't just stuck to their party, they've joined others.

Update III:

Life in Moderation:

How can we, as people of the Western industrialized world (especially as Canadians), continue to claim our progressive knowledge on issues such as health care when working with people in developing nations, when even our own government is stuck in a swamp of decades past. This makes me sick to my stomach.

Shame, especially on those Liberals who either didn't show up for the vote, or abstained from voting.

And an unnamed Lib MP:

Clown city.

Lowering the bar

Truly, I thought that Lib committee members' inexplicable vote along with the Cons and Bloc to keep using public money for asbestos promotion would at least be the party's most embarrassing example of useless opposition for the day.

I stand corrected.