They may hold fewer than half the minimum number of seats needed to qualify for recognized party status in the House of Commons, but the five MPs elected under the New Democrat banner, along with — or, as Rabble writer Karl Nerenberg sees it, “especially” — their newly installed leader Avi Lewis “appear to be having an impact on at least some of (the) policy choices” emerging from Prime Minister Mark Carney’s no-longer-minority government.

“Lewis’ first public act after becoming leader was to call for a halt to something called ‘surveillance pricing,’ (an) odd-sounding phrase (that) refers to the retail practice of snooping on a customer’s online presence to tailor a price to that person,” Nerenberg recalls.

Lewis’s proposal was initially met with “general silence and indifference, including from the Carney government,” although Ontario Premier Doug Ford “predictably answered that he was against such a ban because he believes in a ‘free market, capitalist society,’” he notes.

Fast-forward to June 15, however, and the federal government “broke its silence” by introducing the Protecting Privacy and Consumer Data Act, which was tabled by Artificial Intelligence Minister Evan Solomon just days before the chamber was slated to shut down for the summer.

“(The bill) has a number of goals, including protecting children’s personal information and allowing people to delete personal information,” Nerenberg notes.

“One of those goals is to discourage businesses and other organizations from ‘unfairly using personal information, such as inappropriate surveillance pricing,’” although it “will not prohibit surveillance pricing outright, (but) merely promises unspecified regulatory measures,” he points out.

“This is a Liberal government. And so, as is their wont, when they take on big business, they do so gingerly — and slowly. However, the mere fact that Evan Solomon felt it necessary to address the problem of what he called ‘algorithmic pricing and unfair data usage’ shows the NDP is influencing the national policy conversation – despite its tiny contingent of MPs.”

The Liberals have also “taken a leaf from the current NDP’s playbook” with its latest policy reveal on food prices, Nerenberg contends.

“The NDP leader has proposed that the federal government create local and regional ‘food infrastructure hubs’. Food could thus be processed, stored and sold ‘outside of corporate value chains.’ That idea, which has been in the public domain since Lewis first floated it in the fall of last year, sounds a lot like Carney’s just-announced food terminals and hubs proposal.”

His takeaway: “Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but New Democrats should not let it go to their head. Mark Carney still aspires to be seen as an enlightened leader, concerned with the environment and social justice, even if a good deal of what his government is doing betrays that ambition. With this in mind, it is one of an opposition party of the Left’s responsibilities to keep progressive policy options on the agenda.”

Elsewhere on the site, Lois Ross takes a closer look at the growing opposition to the proposed high-speed rail line between Quebec City and Toronto.

“It’s not that citizens opposed to the project are against high-speed rail, but more that they are concerned that the corporations involved are not accountable and not transparent, and that Canadians across the country will be left footing the bill for a high-speed rail system that is badly designed, environmentally unsustainable, and disruptive and economically damaging to agricultural communities and residents,” she points out.

“While most of us might have been thinking that a high-speed rail system is an environmentally sound idea, Alto does not appear to be that at all. As word spreads about the cost, lack of sustainability and accountability, it’s likely that other parts of the country will also begin to ask questions. After all, at least two generations of Canadians will be left holding the tab for Alto should it proceed.”

Over at Press Progress, labour reporter Emma Arkell explains why labour leaders are sounding the alarm over how Carney’s government “is rushing through major changes to Canada’s labour laws,” including — but not limited to — putting “limits on the right to strike,” she reveals.

“On April 16, representatives from the federal government contacted the major unions that represent federally-regulated workers to tell them that the very next day, a consultation process on the laws that regulate their work would open — for just 30 days. Stakeholders — unions, employers, First Nations, Inuit and Métis governments — initially had just four weeks to submit feedback on the entire Canada Labour Code, the law that governs work for over one million federally-regulated workers across the country.”

The consultation opened “just days” after the Liberals secured a narrow working majority, she points out.

“Tom Doran, president of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) Canada, told PressProgress he was surprised not only at the ‘very, very short window’ for submitting feedback, but that roundtable discussions with unions and employers were scheduled at the same time as the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) constitutional convention, the largest gathering of union leaders and members in Canada.”

Ultimately, “complaints from the CLC and several unions led to the government extending the submission window by one week, to May 25,” according to Doran.

“Even with the extension, labour leaders interviewed by PressProgress echoed a sentiment that showed up in the consultation submissions from multiple unions: that the short timeline and broad scope of the consultation are cause for alarm,” Arkell notes.

ACORN Canada president Alejandra Ruiz-Vargas provided Ricochet readers with a first-person account of a rally at Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Minister Gregor Robertson’s office in Ottawa earlier this month.

“More than 300 tenants from across the country filled the lobby of the Ministry of Housing, triggering a building shutdown. We continued to occupy the office for more than an hour, chanting and flooding MP phone lines,” she recalls.

“I was part of a small group that managed to reach the 11th floor to demand a meeting with the minister. (Robertson’s) office refused to listen to us. The department even threatened tenants with arrest.”

It was “an escalation that followed months of unanswered emails, letters and phone calls to the federal housing minister,” she explains.

“All we want is for the government to give tenants a seat at the table as they consult on the renewal of the National Housing Strategy — a process that seems to currently be done in secret. f the government wants to solve the housing crisis, they must stop ignoring the people living through it. That’s why we brought our demands directly to them.”

Meanwhile, Canadian Dimension writer Ted Snider makes the case that Carney is wrong when he says the “war against Iran” led by the United States and Israel was “worth it,” but is nevertheless right to support the memorandum of understanding that could end the ongoing hostilities.

“Diplomacy with Iran was worth it,” Snider contends.

“An MOU with Iran is worth it. The war with Iran was not. It was an illegal war that undermined Carney’s own vision of a world order of middle powers cooperating to stop the hegemon from selectively and self-servingly applying international law. It killed and wounded thousands of civilians and destroyed infrastructure, discredited international law and the NPT, devastated the environment, set back improving relations in the region, crippled the world economy, and cost billions. But it did not force Iran to affirm any promise on nuclear weapons that it had not already affirmed.”

Rounding out the progressive-left roster, Breach contributor Haniel Sorensen — who, according to his bio, is a junior fellow with the Canadian Institute for Far-Right Studies — explores how the “raft of right-wing policies” adopted by the Carney-led Liberals has sparked an “identity crisis” within Canada’s conservative movement.

“Following Carney’s swing to the right, Conservatives are searching for ways to distinguish themselves,” he explains.

“As many of their traditional policy priorities are adopted, or at least echoed, by the Liberal government, the movement increasingly appears to be defining itself through social and cultural issues instead.”

That move towards more radical, ethno-nationalist posturing” was in evidence during the annual Canada Strong and Free Conference (CSFN) in Ottawa earlier this spring, he observes.

“CSFN highlighted the horizons of the future of the movement — one that trades coded jargon and dog-whistles for more overt hate, with white supremacists already taking notice. As this conference underscored, its trajectory is increasingly favouring a far-right politics of creeping ethno-nationalism and intensifying appeals to anti-feminism and white supremacy. Whether that proves an electorally successful strategy remains to be seen, but conservatives may be hungrier than ever for something new.”

Trending on the right-of-centre side of the Canadian activist mediaverse:

• Rebel News commander Ezra Levant explains why the avowedly right-leaning outlet chose to publish the full text of the “104-page manifesto” allegedly written by the shooter responsible for last week’s “horrific” attack in Montreal, and accuses “mainstream media and law enforcement authorities” of having “withheld its full contents while steering the narrative to suit their preferred agenda.”
• Alberta-based Rebel Sheila Gunn Reid chronicles how “attempts to suppress a pro-Alberta float” at a rodeo parade “appeared to have the opposite effected, as what was supposed to be a cancelled parade became one of the largest displays of Alberta pride in Sundre’s history.”
• Juno News contributor Alex Dhaliwal digs into the fine print of a recent survey that “alleges that CBC still registers 71 per cent trust on paper,” and finds that the “broader picture is far more divided.”
• Counter Signal publisher Keean Bexte filed an extended version of a tweet he “fired off” while driving home from Banff that claimed the ‘Canada Strong Pass’ has “turned our national parks into free dumps for foreign tourists.”