Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Steven Chase notes that the Cons' promise to let Canadian know the details of the Trans-Pacific Partnership before they vote was broken with unusual speed and publicity. Michael Geist points out that we do know enough about the TPP to be sure it puts our privacy at risk, while Ryan Meili and Sarah Giles discuss how the TPP will tie the hands of our health care system. Andrew Jackson observes that the TPP may also lock Canada into the resource trap preferred by the Cons, rather than allowing us to develop a sustainable economy. And Armine Yalnizyan writes that it also figures to lock in an underclass of temporary workers who can be exploited personally, and used to drive down wages for everybody.

- Bruce Livesey reports that the Canada Revenue Agency is renting multiple offices from a landlord known for its own offshore tax evasion (who bought them during the Cons' earlier wave of public selloffs).

- Meanwhile, Dennis Howlett reviews where Canada's federal parties stand on tax fairness. And the Income Secury Advisory Centre offers a rundown of plenty more platform reviews on important issues.

- Nick Davies frames Stephen Harper as a master manipulator rather than somebody with the slightest interest in the public good. And Amira Elghawaby lists a few of Harper's more galling abuses while reviewing Les Whittington's new book.

- Mohammed Adam makes the case as to why he can't vote for Harper, while Pete McMartin doesn't see how the campaign can centre on any issue other than the imperative to change from continued Harper control. William Thorsell writes the editorial he thinks Canadians should be reading instead of the laughable corporate-ordered ones they're actually seeing. And Michael Harris sees the Cons as going down in flames.

- Karl Nerenberg writes that the Daniel Gagnier scandal - featuring one of Justin Trudeau's campaign co-chairs telling oil barons about how to manipulate a new government before one has even been elected - is only typical of the Libs' relationship to lobbyists. Michael den Tandt takes the view that the Libs' latest scandal signals their likely unwillingness to do much about democratic reform if they have any was to wriggle out of it. 

- Finally, Lana Payne writes that we should take the opportunity to push for a kinder and more caring Canada. And Robin Perelle argues that we should vote for the NDP's commitment to progressive values, rather than the Libs' compassion of convenience:

Though the Liberal and NDP platforms seem remarkably similar now, it’s the Liberal party that initiated cuts to transfer payments to the provinces in the mid-1990s, plunging health care and other pillars of Canada’s social infrastructure into a new era of underfunded decline.

In the Liberal party’s push to renew some of that funding now, it differs from the NDP on one key point: it cut the funding in the first place. The NDP, in contrast, has consistently put forth a vision of Canada that values social services and cares for the most vulnerable members of our society.

“The NDP knows that one of the most important ways to judge the conscience of our country is how we treat our most vulnerable citizens. Our government has to do more. Much more,” the NDP writes in its 2015 platform.

It’s language like this that’s absent from the Liberal platform.
...
This election, I’m ready to give the NDP its chance to form government and to redirect our country along more genuinely compassionate lines.

Who are you voting for?