The Trans-Pacific Partnership talks are taking place right now, with the possibility that a deal could be struck with Canada while we’re in a writ period. The optics of this are a bit fraught, because if the government gets the deal signed, then they can crow about their prowess on the campaign trail, and how they’re signing deals to boost our economy. But the flip side of that coin is that a really big deal may be a kind of violation of the Caretaker Conventions that govern how an incumbent government operates during a writ period. Remember that we can never be without a government even when Parliament is dissolved – they just need to exercise restraint, and can’t implement major policy changes or make appointments during that period. This time around, however, the government released the Convention guidelines publicly while adding specific exemptions about negotiating trade deals. On the one hand, there is a certain amount of sense – do we really want to hold up the eleven other countries while we are in an extra-long election period? (Note that there seems to be a desire to conclude the deal before the American election gears up to full-on insanity mode). One of the arguments is that there should at least be some kind of consultation with opposition leaders if the negotiations continue during the writ period, and there are complaints that the TPP negotiations are unprecedented in their secrecy. What is not mentioned is that secrecy is deliberate considering how game changing this pact could be, particularly when it comes to weakening some of the tough subsidized markets in several member countries. And if you look at the reactions that rumours of deals around weakening Supply Management or auto parts content rules, and promises by other party leaders to maintain those protectionist policies, it’s hard not to see why they want to keep a lid on things until they’re finalised – particularly if the goal is actual trade liberalisation rather than just lip-service. It’s a delicate balance, and arguments can be made on both sides of the propriety of the government’s negotiations under the Caretaker Conventions. For example, Susan Delacourt argues the government is going beyond the Conventions. I’m not sure I have any answers, but I guess we’ll see what gets decided, and let the chips fall where they may.

On the campaign:

• Stephen Harper held a rally then went to shoot some election ads.
• Thomas Mulcair promised some small-scale hydro projects for the North.
• Justin Trudeau promised $3 billion for seniors home care, and a renegotiated health accord with the provinces.
• Here’s your Wednesday campaign roundup.

Good reads:

• The government is looking to strip the citizenship of a Canadian-born dual citizen convicted of terrorism, despite his never having been to his parents’ native Pakistan.
• Kady O’Malley writes more about the politics of stripping citizenship, predicated on this interesting interview Harper had with Metro.
• The government’s argument for the niqab ban before the Supreme Court will be that it “enhances the integrity” of the citizenship ceremony.
• Some Liberal candidates in Quebec have joined with NDP candidates in Quebec opposing the niqab writ large.
• CRA continues to have a problem with privacy breaches.
• Parts two and three of the Radical Reality series look at anti-terrorism surveillance and how everyday Canadians radicalize.
• Scott Gilmore castigates us for not paying attention to what matters in this election – the plight of First Nations.
• Jen Gerson takes you through a tour of the marginal parties if you can’t stand any of the three main ones.
• Paul Wells writes about Trudeau’s campaign to date.
• My column looks at how things will likely be different post-election than they were in 2008, particularly the options open to the Governor General.

Odds and ends:

NDP “star candidate” Noah Richler has apologised for Facebook posts calling Harper a psychopath who wanted a terror attack on our soil.

Another Liberal candidate resigned for Facebook comments about Jews and Muslims, but she’s past the cut-off so her name will be on the ballot.

A Federal Court judge expressed concern about the new security screening process for public servants, but said it failed to meet the test to grant an injunction.