Posts from our progressive community

So a carbon tax it is then. Ten dollars a ton for the first year, stepping up by an additional ten dollars a ton over the span of five years. End point, 50 dollars per ton of emitted carbon dioxide.

Do you have any idea what that means? I'm going to filch a few ideas I left in a comment to Owen Gray's (Northern Reflections) post this morning.

I began with memories of your high school math teacher, the one who was never content with a correct answer but demanded to see your "work," your calculations, just how you came to that correct answer, step by step. I hated that guy. Still do.

In Justin's case with this carbon tax proposal, it's even worse. He's pulled out a number but we can't tell whether it's even the correct answer much less how he reached it. It might be a political number, something pulled out of his backside for all we know.

We don't even know what the government's target is or how these taxes will achieve it.

If there's no clear and meaningful link between the carbon tax levels and emission reductions then it's purely gestural, a nice collection of political numbers with little connection to scientific purpose.

Other than pissing off Saskatchewan's Poindexter, Brad Wall, of itself always a worthwhile pursuit, the government's purpose is incomprehensible. Trudeau needs to clear the air. He needs to get up to the blackboard and show us his math.

Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and the Northwest Territories walked out of the room  when Justin Trudeau announced a couple of days ago that he was putting a price on carbon. Chantal Hebert writes that the tax is no cash grab. What Trudeau is doing is filling a vacuum:

For this is not about replenishing the coffers of an impoverished federal government. Trudeau’s planned introduction of a national floor price for carbon in 2018 marks the belated end of a federal vacuum that has seen successive prime ministers — from Jean Chrétien onward — make climate-change commitments on the international scene and then do little to ensure Canada meets them.
And most of the provinces already have schemes in place that will meet the $10 a ton threshold:
For example, B.C. started off with a carbon tax at the $10 level … almost a decade ago. That provincial tax now stands at $30. Under the plan announced by Trudeau on Monday, the federal floor would be raised by $10 a year for five years to reach $50 a tonne by 2022.
(As an aside, by the time Ontario, Quebec, Alberta and B.C. have to up their game to keep up with the national escalator clause, the 2019 federal election will be over.)
Moreover, despite the caterwauling, the the program is not a top down creation:
Provided they meet or exceed the federal floor price on carbon emissions, the provinces will also continue to be free to pursue climate-change mitigation schemes of their own choosing. At some point, though, the onus will be on them to demonstrate that they are meeting or exceeding the federal floor price. Quebec and Ontario, for instance, have opted for a cap-and-trade system. Over the summer, the provinces and the federal government failed to reach a consensus on equivalencies between carbon taxes and cap-and-trade pricing. The two will eventually have to be reconciled. 
But "if the federal government does tax emissions in their place, it will return the proceeds to the provincial treasuries, presumably leaving them free to use the revenues to offset the cost of carbon pricing with tax breaks."
The tax on carbon is a classic Canadian conundrum. It's never been easy to make the confederation work.

Image: theguardian.pe.ca

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Dani Rodrik suggests that instead of engaging in extended hand-wringing over the collapse of public interest in corporate trade deals, we should instead be working on strengthening domestic social contracts:
The frustrations of the middle and lower classes today are rooted in the perception that political elites have placed the priorities of the global economy ahead of domestic needs. Addressing the discontent will require that this perception is reversed.

If progressive tax policies to reduce inequality are impeded by the mobility of corporations around the world, it should be the latter that gives way, not the former. If countercyclical fiscal and monetary policies are precluded by short-term capital flows, it is finance that should be regulated.

If industrial policies to diversify developing economies are precluded by World Trade Organisation rules, it is trade rules that should be reformed. If domestic labour standards are eroded due to international competition with countries where workers have few rights, it is trade that should bear the brunt.

If foreign investors ask for special protections that shield them from the domestic legal system, the answer should be no. Above all, politicians should stop hiding behind globalisation. The case for structural reforms and other policies should be made on their own merits, rather than because of some putative need to “compete” in global markets. - Matt Elliott points out the obvious problems in relying on magical assumptions that the private sector can alter the costs of providing necessary public services. And Robert Reich notes that Donald Trump's tax avoidance should offer an important lesson about a tax system designed to further enrich people who already have access to giant pools of money.

- Bill McKibben writes that a charm offensive won't do anything to change the inexorable math of climate change. And David Roberts rightly argues that governments around the globe are falling far short of the level of urgency needed to keep their climate commitments.

- Finally, Thomas Walkom offers his take on the similarities between the Trudeau Libs and the Harper Cons. And Tom Parkin points out how Justin Trudeau is betraying the progressive voters who helped him take power.

In my continuing coverage of the Con leadership race, I haven't written much about Maxime Bernier's candidacy, for obvious reasons.

I didn't think the Bobo from the Beauce, as we call him in Quebec, had a snowflake's chance in hell of winning.

Unless he recruited his former girlfriend's biker friends, rode through the convention hall, and scared the delegates into voting for him. Or else.

But believe it or not that may be his strategy, because Bernier has just kicked up the Fear Factor a notch.
Read more »

Well that was then. 
Today some sixteen months later, having attended exactly zero electoral reform committee road meetings or community-based townhalls these past few weeks, our legacy media is jointly suggesting Trudeau throw in the towel.


Susan Delacourt : Time for Trudeau to cut his losses on electoral reform
"Mayrand just gave the Liberals a face-saving excuse. They should take it."
Ms Delacourt manages to interpret Elections Canada CEO Marc Mayrand's caution that :any new electoral system should enjoy broad support beyond a simple majority of MPs (Liberal MPs, in this case) in the House of Commons.“I believe that changes to the Elections Act should reflect a broad consensus, that’s for sure. And I believe that a single party, whatever the majority of that party is, should not be entitled to change the act unilaterally,” Mayrand said.into an 'out' for Trudeau, as if somehow the NDP, Bloc, and Elizabeth May, not to mention the wildly cheering Canadian public who voted for reform above, do not count. 
Having hung this on something Mayrand didn't say, she goes on to speculate about "what Mayrand didn’t say (but could have)" and it goes downhill from there, although I give her points for not mentioning a referendum until several paras in - perhaps because Mayrand says it's unnecessary. 
"I don’t think electoral reform is a top-of-mind issue for Canadians," she says, apparently oblivious to the irony that, aside from Kady O'Malley, a media boycott might be having some bearing on that.

Toronto Star : Mayrand is right – give the people a voice on election reform: Editorial
The Star editorial board first plumps for a national referendum but settles for kicking reform down the road aways:"Trudeau’s best move would be put election reform to a national vote and let Canadians chose the system they want, even if it means breaking a promise to do away with first-past-the-post during his first term in office."
Ditto the Ottawa Citizen : It's more important to do electoral reform right than to do it quickly
"First, the Liberals need to break the promise that 2015 will be the last first-past-the-post election. Second, they must replace that promise with a new one to pass enabling legislation for a voting system change prior to the 2019 election, but give up on the idea of implementation by that date."
So did you all get the same phone call from Butts?

Who have I missed here? The Sun papers are sticking with their slogan No Referendum, No Reform.  Oh, and the Globe and Mail - nothing from them. I guess their entire interest in electoral reform was exhausted in their Minister Monsef birther scoop.

Not really much use to us alive, are you, legacy media?


The truth is though there is a problem with the ERRE committee. 
Electoral reform advocates and activists remain resolutely positive and, in the spirit of the multi-party nature of the committee, open to whatever form of proportional representation is leading despite individual preferences for one system or another.
But underneath that there is concern.

Despite a mandate to come to a consensus about implementing a new electoral system, at least three of the four Liberals on the committee appear unconvinced electoral reform is even necessary and one is still making up his mind about a referendum. They've had 36 meetings and over a hundred witnesses, yet still take turns repeating bs rightwing Keep It Simple talking points about ballots the size of bedsheets and how complicated it would be for voters to rank several candidates/parties on a ballot instead of just one. 

Committee Liberals also complain that the members of the public who show up to public ERRE meetings are biased in favour of electoral reform. As if people unconcerned about being represented in government are going to make a special trip in to say 'I don't care about this'.

Last word goes to Conservative MP and ERRE member Gérard Deltell, speaking on electoral reform at the Quebec National Assembly on Sept. 27, 2011:
"We have almost 30 months before the next election. We have time to do what all the parties have always urged, that is, a proportional system.'.

Supported cats.

That seems to be what Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party presidential candidate, seems to be arguing in yet another interview in which he makes Dondald Trump, by contrast, look like Mensa material:
...the former New Mexico governor appears to have stumbled into yet another gaffe by suggesting that somehow his ignorance of foreign policy is actually an advantage. After all, Johnson argued, you can't engage in war with a country you can't accurately locate. He also claimed that the geographical knowledge of our leaders puts "our military in harm's way."


Recommend this Post

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- David Boyle discusses how the principle of free trade - once intended to empower consumers against monopolies - is instead being used to lock in corporate control:
(T)he original idea of free trade was not a simple licence to do whatever you wanted, if you were rich and powerful enough. It was designed as a means of liberation – so that the small could challenge the big, the poor could challenge the rich with the power of a new approach, an alternative provider, an imaginative, liberating shift. It was an antidote to the old pattern that employers could control not just what you were paid, but also what you paid for the things you needed to live.

But recent decades have seen this central liberal economic doctrine become its own opposite – permission for the rich to ride roughshod over the poor, an apologia for monopoly and an extractive discipline that prevents the all-important challenge from below. It became instead a potential tool of enslavement.
...
Friedman argued that intellectual property was a kind of property, and must be defended as such, rather than – as it actually is – a temporary suspension of free trade to encourage innovation. That is why draft agreements such as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), which purport to be about free trade, are actually about defending investments and trademarks.

Even more seriously, Friedman argued that monopoly didn’t matter, and – if it did happen – it was the fault of the government for over-regulating.

The first error led to the great heresy of neoliberalism, that corporations should be treated like human beings in legal terms. The second was a rejection of the most fundamental element in liberal economics, a defence against the over-concentration of market power. It was the very opposite of liberal free trade.

It explains why the dead hand of neoliberal orthodoxy has ignored monopolies as a problem as they grow in power over our lives, as we fall into the tyrannical clutches of companies we are virtually forced to buy from... - Dylan Matthews writes about the state of poverty around the world - including the observation that poverty levels are essentially a matter of choice in the developed world where it can readily be ended through redistribution. Owen Jones highlights why the UK has every reason to be embarrassed about the needless obstacles it's putting in the way of children, while David Tran comments on the difficulties of trying to build a life in the absence of any margin for error. And Gil McGowan points out how an increased minimum wage results in real benefits for people getting by on low incomes.

- Meanwhile, Kristy Kirkup reports that the Libs' idea of complying with an order to stop discriminating against First Nations children has been to add precisely nothing to a budgeting process started when the Cons were still in power.

- Wendy Levinson comments on the growing recognition that parts of our health care system are biased toward unnecessary testing and treatment.

- Michael Vonn points out that C-51's draconian anti-speech provisions may make it far more difficult to carry out any meaningful work against radicalization. And Andrew Mitrovica talks to Paul Cavalluzzo about the glaring flaws in both C-51 and C-22.

- Finally, Gerry Caplan recognizes that Justin Trudeau's media honeymoon is coming to an end. And Steve Paikin points out that Ontario's NDP may soon have its best opportunity in ages in a provincial election campaign.

As temperatures continue their worldwide inexorable climb, Think Progress has published some graphics showing the effects of climate change on health. You can read the details and see more readable versions of the graphics here.







Recommend this Post

Tom Walkom gives the Trudeau government some credit for reversing the direction of the previous government:

The new Liberal government negotiated a deal with the provinces to expand the Canada Pension Plan, something the Harper Conservatives were dead-set against. It also replaced Harper’s universal baby bonus with one targeted to income.
It established the inquiry into murdered and missing indigenous women that Harper refused to set up. It reduced the eligibility age for full old-age security back down to 65.
But in many ways, the new government is very much like the one it replaced:
The country got a taste of that last week when Ottawa approved a liquefied natural gas plant on British Columbia’s Pacific coast, as well as a pipeline to that plant.
It was the same decision Harper would have made. And it angered the same critics.Environmentalists pointed to the massive increase in carbon emissions that will result from the decision. Some First Nations said it will destroy the local fish habitat.
It was a reminder that Trudeau, like Harper, sees energy exports as crucial for the Canadian economy.
And like Harper, the new prime minister is willing to sacrifice environmental and aboriginal concerns in order to get things done.
 On terrorism and national security, it's more of the same:
The Liberals promised to roll back elements of Bill C-51, Harper’s addition to anti-terror laws. But so far they have done no such thing.
In fact, as Canada’s privacy commissioner has noted, under the Liberals, police and the security services are using some of these new powers apace.
Militarily, the Trudeau government kept its promise to remove Canada’s fighter planes from the war in Iraq. But it compensated by tripling the number of Canadian military advisers who are on the ground in that war.
The means may differ from those employed by Harper. But the aim — to militarily support the U.S. in the war against Islamic radicals — is unchanged.
 And, on healthcare, it also appears to be more of the same:
Health spending? The Harper government had unilaterally decided to cut the annual increase in health care transfers to the provinces by roughly 50 per cent next year. The Liberals seem prepared to go ahead with this, although they say they do have some additional money on hand for home care.
Could we have been had?

Image:  globalnews.ca

Well now that we know that Donald Trump enjoys the good things in life, but doesn't like to pay for them.

Or pay taxes.

Now that we've seen how he intends to fix that problem.
Read more »

There’s not much going on here these days but if you’re still following this feed, make sure to check out my new project: PolitiCoast – a Canadian politics podcast.

Our marketing’s so good we’ve already been accused of hiding our funding.

Is this new podcast funded by someone? Its timing and apparent marketing budget are suspicious. https://t.co/CmdX3Vui5u

— Max Fawcett (@maxfawcett) 3 October 2016

Subscribe to us on iTunes, Google Play, Stitcher, etc. Or just follow the blog for updates.

We’re going to be recording every Thursday night with a goal of releasing by Friday morning. Plus there will be some bonus episodes scattered throughout (like our teaser following the US presidential debate).

That said, the focus is mostly on looking at politics from a BC lens, since almost no one else is (especially now that The Strategists are reportedly calling it quits).

And like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

Just thought you should know. Russian president (and Trump admirer) Vlad Putin today suspended tore up a deal between Russia and the U.S. on cleaning up weapons grade plutonium.

The Russian explanation? Boil it all down and it's American hostility to Russia and Russia's distrust of America's willingness to keep its part of the treaty.

"The Obama administration has done everything in its power to destroy the atmosphere of trust which could have encouraged cooperation," the Russian foreign ministry said in a statement on the treaty's suspension.

"The step Russia has been forced to take is not intended to worsen relations with the United States. We want Washington to understand that you cannot, with one hand, introduce sanctions against us where it can be done fairly painlessly for the Americans, and with the other hand continue selective cooperation in areas where it suits them."
When then Secretary of State Clinton signed the deal in 2010 she said that there was enough weapons grade plutonium in Russia and China for 17,000 nuclear weapons.
Speaking of the Cold War, anyone remember the name of this asshole?

This is one of those blog posts that was almost spiked. I wrote it last week but put it on hold. Another study on climate change. Seems we got it wrong again. The end is nigher than we thought. Sort of like standing with a megaphone on the bridge of the Titanic calling out each time the stern list worsened by a degree.

Then, this morning, I came across a fluff piece in the enviro section of The Guardian. It was a real "feel good" report about an MIT study showing how clean energy is making inroads as wind and especially solar costs plummet. And it's true. The devil, however, is in the details.

Here are some of the highlights. In the UK, electric vehicle charging stations will outnumber gas stations by 2020. Since 2008, LED costs in the US have plummeted as much as 94%.  In the US the unit cost of commercial solar energy has dropped by about 2/3rds. Wind power costs are likewise dropping and wind could generate 35% of US electricity by 2050. It's all great stuff, encouraging and to be encouraged.

The devil is what's unsaid. Not mentioned is how much US energy demand is going to increase by 2050 and what that means for overall consumption of fossil fuels. 35% by 2050 sounds great but it's simply not enough and not nearly soon enough. If this is the best we can expect from the world's most affluent economy what are we to expect from the poorer and more heavily populated countries, especially those in Africa and Asia that will be going through a baby boom of unprecedented scale?

So much for the good news.

The bad news? Most of us will be around to see global warming break through the 1.5 degree Celsius mark. The good news? Many of us won't be around to see it hit 2.0 degrees Celsius by mid-century. The other side of that coin is that our children probably will see 2C and our grandkids will see temperatures much higher yet.

You can find all the details in a report released Thursday, "The Truth About Climate Change." Lead author is Sir Robert Watson, former chair of the IPCC.

Here's the thing. The report is pretty clear except for what it leaves out. It focuses on man-made emissions, anthropogenic global warming. That's like exploring the apple and ignoring the entire bag of oranges. The oranges are non-anthropogenic global warming, what are known as natural feedback loops. That element consists of things such as the loss of Arctic sea ice, the release of seabed methane deposits thawed by warming waters, the release of methane from thawing permafrost, those sorts of things. That's what the 2 C limit, now revised to 1.5 C, was intended to avert, back when, only it's already underway.

We also learned this week that we've now driven atmospheric CO2 levels permanently past the 400 ppm mark. No one expects it to return to sub-400 levels in our lifetimes.

Here's another thing. Civilization is somewhere between 11 to 12,000 years old. Our civilization began when Earth entered the Holocene geological epoch. We had a great, albeit brief, run.

Today, however, Earth is the warmest it has been in 100,000 years, way back before human civilization. We are already there. But there's more to come. Our existing atmospheric greenhouse gas emissions ensure that Earth will hit levels not experienced for 2,000,000 years. Our species, homo sapiens, date back just 200,000 years.

We, mankind, have achieved most of this in just 200 years, two centuries. That's how powerful the impact we have had on this planet Earth. Today we're more than 7-billion bulls loose in the same planetary china shop.

So, yes, by all means get an electric car and load up on those now affordable LEDs. Gaze in adoring awe whenever you see a wind farm. Just don't let them blow smoke up your - well, you know.

In the age we live in, many things are taken for granted: the power that lights up our house, the Internet that facilitates our communications and satiates our curiosity, and the water that comes from our taps, to name but three. The fragility of these resources is only appreciated when they fail us through storms, cable problems, and boil-water alerts. Suddenly, the things that we take for granted aren't as secure as we like to think.

Much public attention, at least in Ontario, has recently and rightly been focused on water-taking permits that allow companies like Nestlé to take millions of litres of water daily for a mere pittance. Indeed, few would argue with opposition parties calling for public input into the whole issue of the commercialization of our groundwater. However, the problems confronting our most precious resource go well beyond a single issue, and they pose grave challenges for the entire world.

A new study offers some troubling news. One of the main impediments to clean drinking water comes from agriculture:
Agriculture is a huge contributor to water pollution, from fertilizers used for row crops to the manure created by large-scale animal agriculture. In Washington state, a 2015 lawsuit found that a huge dairy operation had been polluting groundwater in a nearby community, causing the level of nitrates in residents’ drinking water to spike to unsafe levels. Nitrates, when found in high levels, can cause serious health problems for both infants and adults with compromised immune systems.

Elsewhere, industrial production of crops like corn and soy, which rely heavily on fertilizers to increase yields, can lead to dangerous algal blooms which, when toxic, can shut down drinking water for entire cities. Fossil fuel production is another source of pollution:
With fracking — also known as hydraulic fracturing, when high pressure water, sand, and chemicals are used to break open subsurface shale in order to liberate the natural gas trapped therein — water is a massive component of the entire process. Each fracked well requires somewhere between 1 million and 6 million gallons of water per well, which can place strain on surface water resources.But in addition to massive water wastage,
fracking can also impact water quality well after the actual fracking itself has finished, when waste fluids are injected back underground for disposal. In some cases, that cocktail of wastewater and chemicals can leach into aquifers, polluting the groundwater near fracking operations. That’s what happened in Dimock, Pennsylvania in 2009, when two families sued Cabot Oil & Gas Corp. for polluting their wells with methane. That’s also what happened in 2008, in Pavillion, Wyoming.Development is another villain in this story:
Development is a massive driver of that pollution — when urbanization or agriculture comes into a watershed, land that was previously covered with native vegetation is cleared. That means that the soil that was once bound by root systems is free to run into waterways when a storm comes along, choking waterways with sediments and damaging both drinking water quality and ecosystems that depend on clean water.

Deforestation — which often occurs to make way for agriculture or development — is also a huge contributor to sediment pollution. Wildfires can also increase sediment pollution, by burning away vegetation that kept soil intact.A myriad of other contributing factors also pose grave threats to our water, including climate change, pharmaceuticals and sewage, all of which you can read about in detail in the source article.

The conclusion drawn is that although bleak, the situation does not have to be dire. A rapid switching to more green energy would
not only ... keep ... fracking wastewater out of groundwater, but it would slow the impacts of climate change on other parts of the water system, as well.
The ball is now squarely in our collective court.Recommend this Post

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Larry Elliott writes that the public is rightly frustrated with an economic model designed to shift money to those who already have the most - and that progressive parties in particular need to offer a meaningful alternative:
The belief on the left was that 2008 sounded the death knell for the model of capitalism that dominated the last quarter of the 20th century and the first decade of the 21st; one based around privatisation, trickle-down economics, and a shift in the balance of power away from organised labour and towards international banks. Lehman’s bankruptcy would prove to be the equivalent of the Opec oil shock of 1973, the moment the pendulum swung, only this time from right to left.

It didn’t work out like that. There was no social democratic moment because social democratic parties had largely bought into the idea that markets knew best. They had no critique of what had gone wrong so they lacked a strategy to put things right. What’s more, they still don’t, which is why challenges to Jeremy Corbyn from his Labour party rivals have been so feeble.
...
Hence the appetite among voters for controls. Ask them whether they support a financial transactions tax and they answer yes. Ask them whether they support curbs on the dumping of cheap Chinese steel that is threatening jobs in Port Talbot and they answer yes. Ask them if they want controls on immigration and they answer yes.

In this, the public shows more consistency than the politicians. Conservative Brexiters are in favour of free movement of capital and goods, but not of people. The Labour party is up for controls on money and goods but supports free movement of labour. The freedoms integral to globalisation are increasingly at odds with democracy. Something has to give.

In the introduction to a recently published book of essays*, Michael Jacobs and Mariana Mazzucato say that the state has a crucial role to play in making economies more prosperous and successful, not least through the role the state can play in nurturing and supporting innovation. This runs counter to the idea that governments should limit themselves to correcting occasional and short-lived market failure, but as Jacobs and Mazzucato rightly note markets are the result of political decisions.- Meanwhile, Nicolas Yan highlights the need to ensure that the gains from automation in particular don't get captured by a lucky few. And Mazzucato offers a list of suggestions as to how to put the power of the state to use in building shared wealth.

- Lana Payne rightly argues that anybody wanting to see a progressive trade agenda should be fighting against the entrenchment of corporate power through the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

- George Wehby, Dhaval Dave and Robert Kaestner examine the effect of the minimum wage on infant health, and find a substantive improvement where wages are more livable. And Daniel Boffey points out that increased reliance on student loans rather than direct funding for post-secondary education results in worsened inequality.

- Finally, Aaron Wherry points out that Canada's federal government has long had estimates available as to the social cost of greenhouse gas emissions; it's just done nothing to ensure those costs are internalized. And Naomi Klein discusses how the "othering" of the people bearing the largest burden of climate change is producing disastrous environmental and social consequences.

The Conservatives started a fire when they accused Gerald Butts and Katie Telford of sticking taxpayers with exorbitant costs for moving from Toronto to Ottawa. Now they're caught in their own backdraft. Michael Harris writes:

The Conservative Opposition had fun with the PMO expense scandal until the issue bit them in the ass. Tory MP and leadership candidate, Brad Trost, led the charge against his own party’s hypocrisy. Trost went on Twitter to demand that Guy Giorno, one of former PM Harper’s chiefs of staff, follow the lead of Butts and Telford by repaying part of his estimated $93,000 move from Toronto to Ottawa. Again, it was not because Giorno had done anything unethical or illegal; it was just that Trost thought Canadians were being sucked dry by people, well, who believed that they were entitled their entitlements.
And then Rona Ambrose came under scrutiny:

Ambrose charged the public $8,000 in condo rent and a further $869 for a three-night stay in an Ottawa hotel, a bill made necessary because Stornoway was apparently not ready for her to occupy. The Huffington Post reported that the bulk of these expenses were incurred from January to March 2016 — after she had moved into her official residence.

The CPC and Ambrose have since insisted that the interim leader did not claim expenses for accommodation while living rent-free at Stornoway. The Tory damage control line was that all of the expenses claimed by Ambrose were incurred before she moved to the official residence and were therefore admissible under the rules.

But they miss the point that Trost seems to have grasped: the issue for Canadians is not only a question of regulatory compliance, but of fairness. Why should the public have to pay for breaking the lease on her $2000 a month condo when Ambrose is making a quarter of a million dollars a year in publicly financed salary and moving into a taxpayer-funded mansion? What possible difference does it make to the average Joe and Jane whether Ambrose — the interim leader of the opposition — is resident in a Rockcliffe mansion or living out her condo lease that was perfectly fine when she was a cabinet minister? 
The solution is to have the Auditor General look at MPs' expenses -- as he examined Senators' expenses.

But, once again, the Conservatives have been hogtied by their own hypocrisy.

Image: jashow.org

You might think that Rona Ambrose's main concern would be the way her allegedly new/nouveau party is turning into a collection of bigots and right-wing religious extremists. 

What with Kellie Leitch trying to scapegoat refugees and immigrants for their "anti-Canadian values."

While Brad Trost stands up for those anti-Canadian values by taking aim at women and gay Canadians.

And the religious fanatic Andrew Scheer threatens to take the Harper Party even further to the right.

But no, the ghastly Ambrose has only one thing on her mind.
Read more »

Apparently half of NDP voter respondents are either very or somewhat satisfied with our current First Past the Post electoral system - really? - but 71% of them are definitely or probably in favour of a referendum. Does this seem at all likely to you?

On Sept 28 I attended the travelling public Electoral Reform Committee in Vancouver. One of the witnesses was Mario Canseco, VP of InsightsWest, who presented the results of his company's Sept 14-16 weighted online survey of 1029 Canadians on electoral reform. The committee was given his brief but since then the questions and data behind the brief have been published online. It is not mentioned who commissioned the poll.This was the big news at the time to the committee : Overall, nearly two-thirds of poll respondents are very or somewhat satisfied with keeping our electoral system the way it is and 68% definitely/probably want a referendum.
As there was no media present *yet again* at the committee, it's unlikely anyone will take a look at the survey, now being quoted online by referendum and FPtP fans with names like XXX the Deplorable. Here's the data info on the First-Past-the-Post question :Let's leave aside for the moment whether First-Past-the-Post is accurately described here.If I understand this data correctly, half of respondents who voted NDP in the 2015 election are very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with First-Past-the-Post. How likely is that? Or that 72% of Liberals are? Or that only 9% of Canadians overall are very dissatisfied with a system in which just over half of their votes - 9,106,936 of them - were wasted.
Moving on to what electoral system should replace FPtP for the apparently only 22% of Canadians with any interest in doing so : It seems twice as many Conservatives (26% based on their vote in the 2015 election) are strongly in favour of Party-List PR than are their NDP (11%) and Liberal (12%) counterparts. Who knew? Notable that between 20% and 38% in the different categories were unable to give any opinion either positive or negative on the three alternative voting systems presented to them.Meanwhile a whopping 71% of NDP respondents and 65% of Liberal respondents told the pollsters they are in favour of holding a nationwide referendum :
So how does Insights West recruit these respondents? According to their website, you sign up with their survey panel by email : 
"You can earn between $0.50 to $5 for some surveys, for others you will be entered into sweepstakes draws with chances to win gift cards from a variety of Canadian retailers."
At the ERRE meeting on Wednesday, Mr Canseco said the respondents are not advised ahead of time what survey they will be taking but that after it starts the different voting systems are explained to them. Mr Canseco is tweeting his survey online. I have tweeted my questions as to what I interpret as anomalies in his survey back at him but he has yet to respond. If any poll nerds out there can explain them to me, I'll enter your name in the Creekside sweepstakes draw.
The Electoral Reform Committee is running its own e-consultation with Canadians until this Friday at midnight EST. They put a background paper online if you want to brush up first. The survey takes 15 to 30 minutes and can be completed over several sessions if you prefer.  .

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Mary O'Hara notes that even a relatively modest and incomplete set of progressive policies has created some important movement toward reducing poverty. And conversely, Caroline Mortimer writes that child poverty is exploding under the Conservative majority government in the UK.

- Dean Beeby reports on the cause of delays and cost overruns in federally-funding First Nations projects - with the federal government's own neglect serving as the main culprit. And David Akin points out that aboriginal leaders are justifiably losing patience with a Liberal government which talks about reconciliation while acting to dismiss or silence First Nations' voices.

- Meanwhile, Julia Lurie discusses the consistent pattern of U.S. minority populations being forced to lived with toxic air and water.

- Melanie Evans highlights how doctors are increasingly tracking social factors in order to offer better care to patients. And Barb Pacholik points out Sean Tucker's research showing that existing data is plenty to demonstrate that Saskatchewan stands out for its unsafe workplaces.

- Carly Weeks reports on a new study showing the connection between drug regulators and the pharmaceutical industry. And Michael Butler asks why big pharma is being granted a prominent place in shaping the future of health care in Canada.

- The BBC reports on a hedge fund's bribery in multiple African countries to take over mining and investment rights. 

- Finally, Kathleen O'Connor makes her case for proportional electoral reform and more as part of a more citizen-centred democracy.