Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Robert Reich suggests that government should respond to corporations who engage in anti-social activity such as moving their earnings offshore by making sure they can't simultaneously take advantage of laws torqued in their favour. And Daniel Tencer reports on the $12.5 billion bonus pool being doled out by Canada's financial sector even as it cuts front-line jobs.

- Patrick Maze discusses the importance of investing in education as preventative medicine as well as a form of economic development:

If we agree that preventing an ailment is easier than curing it, and that being proactive is better than being reactive, then we should insist that our governments also apply this in policy development. At some point we need to flip our thinking, and our actions, from responding reactively to social needs and challenges, to working toward a vision of what we want for our future society. We should commit resources to support that vision appropriately, and faithfully.

Education is a key factor in the health of both individuals and communities. Many researchers have studied the causal relationships between the level of our citizens' education, and their requirements for societal supports like health care, social services and justice. They've found that as the education levels of a society increases, access to those supports all decrease.
...
When we combine these savings in health care and justice, and consider that more educated populations are also less reliant on social supports, it seems like such an easy decision to prioritize education as an investment in the health of our citizens, communities and our economy. The funding trends we have now are simply unsustainable, and at some point we'll be forced to look to sustainable alternatives. Shouldn't we want our government to be proactive, rather than reactive, when we try to take that approach with our own lives?

Let's consider a collective vision for our future. Let's plan proactively to prevent problems, instead of just reacting to new ones as they arise. Let's challenge our leaders to develop policy that addresses root-causes of the issues we care about, instead of relying on expensive treatment options like justice, social services and health care. If we flip our thinking, priorities and actions, we'll recognize that investing in the education of our children is far more cost-effective and sustainable.

- Meanwhile, Lawrence Carter and Maeve McClenaghan expose how climate denialists for hire are using their academic credentials to produce reports to fit the requests of secret corporate sponsors.

- Charles Mandel talks to Stephen Lewis about the need for Canada's new climate change talk to b backed by policy.

- Finally, Adam Dodek points out that there's reason for concern that the Trudeau Libs will back away from their promises on democratic reform. And Dave Meslin makes the case for a proportional electoral system - with particular emphasis on why the ranking and runoff systems which may be appropriate in non-partisan contexts are ill-suited to federal politics.

On political placement

While others have already commented on Adam Dodek's argument that judges should never enter politics after leaving the bench, I'll offer a couple of observations of my own having to do largely with our perceptions of politics (and the need not to let them override democratic principles).

Dodek's concerns arise largely out of attacks launched by the Cons against Carol Baird Ellan based on some of her past decisions. But it's worth asking whether the problem lies primarily with Baird Ellan's candidacy or the Cons' standard in evaluating it - and how best to address that problem once it's identified.

Let's start by noting that it's absolutely true that judges occupying that role must decide - and must be seen to decide - each case based on the law rather than based on any external consideration, including future political implications. (In this respect, I fully agree with Dodek.)

That said, I'd attach the duty at its highest to the judicial role alone - not indefinitely to the person who occupies it, but who may come to find other priorities worth pursuing.

On that front, I'd hope nobody would look at the career path of, say, Louise Arbour and argue that her experience on the bench should have limited her ability to later work on human rights or international conflict resolution - being the areas where she found an opportunity to apply her skills and experience in the service of the greater public good.

Indeed, to the extent we value a judicial temperament, it's a trait we should be looking for in other areas of society as well - including the political arena, where a sense of fairness or objectivity is all too often lacking.

In Baird Ellan's case, there's of course more of a clash between talking points and the realities of judicial experience - which include decisions which can be manipulated for political gain by a sufficiently unscrupulous opponent. Such is the system as it stands now, and so it will remain until we set a higher standard in politics.

But while Dodek's answer is to keep lowest-common-denominator politics away from anybody associated with the bench, I don't see the value in shutting out well-informed citizens who could go a long way toward setting that higher standard. And if the goal of ensuring better decision-making in multiple branches of government requires a bit more work to defend the judiciary in the meantime, then we should be prepared to put in the effort. 

More reviews are in

Adam Dodek:

We are now in the midst if (sic) Prorogation 2.0. This time, Prime Minister Harper decided not to visit Rideau Hall in person, but instead, telephoned the Governor-General. To the Facebook generation, the use of the telephone seems archaic; to their parents' generation, it seems disrespectful. But hardly as disrespectful as the manner by which this government has treated Parliament and its officers.

In Prorogation 2.0, Prime Minister Harper's winner-take-all vision of Canadian democracy is losing...This year, (people) are angry with the government for preventing MPs from working. Canadians want their representatives to be productive, and they want the opposition to hold the government to account.

Edit: fixed label.