Friday #skvotes Links

While advance voting continues to shatter Saskatchewan's previous records, there's plenty of new information for people still making their decision.

- Julia Peterson reports on Elections Saskatchewan's warning that the tens of thousands of mail-in ballots won't be counted until after election day - meaning that many results could remain up in the air for at least a few days after Monday. 

- Arthur White-Crummey offers a comparison of the track records of the most recent NDP and Saskatchewan Party governments - showing the latter relying on resource price- and debt-fuelled growth for its few advantages. And Murray Mandryk rightly recommends looking at the facts rather than partisan advertising to evaluate the competing claims.

- CTV has posted interviews with each of the party leaders, including Ryan Meili, Naomi Hunter, Scott Moe, Robert Rudachyk, Wade Sira and Ken Grey.

- CBC News examines how our climate breakdown has received far too little attention within the election campaign (particularly going beyond power generation), even as it's a regular topic of political discussion and debate.

- Zak Vescera reports that the Sask Party's failures to respond to the province's HIV crisis have been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, while also pointing out how poverty feeds into its spread. And Poverty Free Saskatchewan offers its recommendations to finally eliminate poverty in the province - with a needed first step being to reverse the cutbacks and clawbacks regularly imposed by the Sask Party.

- Finally, Juliet Bushi discusses the need for the next provincial government to recognize and address systemic racism and inequality.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Phillip Inman discusses how austerity has proven to be an all-pain, no-gain proposition for the general public which is facing stagnant wages and higher consumer debt.

- Pedro Nicolaci da Costa is duly skeptical of employer complaints about "skills gaps" which in fact arise out of their refusal to offer reasonable wages. And Daniel Tencer reports on a new BMO study suggesting that stagnant wages (particularly at the lower end of the income scale) are largely a production of automation.

- Mariana Mazzucato comments on the dangers of treating the concept of infrastructure as an economic cure-all, especially when it's designed to promote corporate profits rather than public interests. And Peter S. Goodman notes that there are plenty of cautionary tales about the dangers of turning public goods over to big business.

- Meanwhile, Katherine Tyler examines the possibility that corporations could be held accountable for facilitating human rights abuses under a proposal from the Joint Committee on Human Rights.

- Finally, Evan Wood discusses what a new British Columbia government can do to address that province's opioid crisis. And Alicia Bridges highlights how a lack of education and awareness is resulting in both the spread of HIV/AIDS in Saskatchewan, and far worse outcomes for the people who become infected.

Deep thought

Memo to those commentators perpetually seeking any available excuse to compare Brad Wall to historical leaders: now would be an ideal time to point out his government's turn toward the Reaganesque.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Michael Harris argues that it's long past time for the Trudeau Libs to start living up to their oft-repeated promise of real change - rather than merely slapping a friendlier face on the same old regressive Con policies.

- Tom Parkin notes that Canada's working class has been left out of the Libs' economic plans. And as an example of the spread of precarity, Laurie Monsebraaten reports on the increased Food Bank use by Toronto residents of working age and with advanced education.

- Matt O'Brien points out that a massive success in exposing financial-sector fraud isn't about to deter the Republicans from wanting to trash Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and any other form of regulation.

- Andre Picard argues that Saskatchewan should be declaring HIV/AIDS to be a provincial public health emergency. But instead, the primary focus of the province's health system seems to be on slashing workers rather than caring for anybody. And on that front, the Leader-Post makes the case that we need a real debate as to whether we should raise enough revenue to keep our health care system on its feet - rather than simply having the Saskatchewan Party decree that cuts are the only option.

- Doug Saunders highlights new research showing that schools with a higher proportion of immigrant populations have significantly less bullying (along with other superior outcomes).

- Finally, Eric Stoner interviews George Lakey about Scandinavia's path toward durable egalitarian policy - and the prospect of other countries following the same course.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Lucy Shaddock offers a response to the Institute for Fiscal Studies' report on poverty and inequality in the UK, while McKinsey finds that hundreds of millions of people in advanced economies are seeing their real incomes stagnate or decline. And Mariana Mazzucato and Michael Jacobs provide their take on what the UK needs to reduce inequality:

Can May succeed in building an economy of broadly shared prosperity? Only if she is willing to govern with the revolutionary zeal seen in that speech. To address the problems she identified will require a complete departure from Osborne’s failed plans. But more than that, it will require a departure the orthodox economics that shaped them.

Policymaking over the past half-century has relied on a narrow school of economic thought, dominated by a simplistic idea of “markets” and “market failures”, of “competition” and “shareholder value”. May’s new agenda will need to draw on a much richer palette.

...(M)arkets are not external forces that bind firms to inevitable choices. They are created by the decisions made inside private and public institutions, as well as pressures from civil society. So not only can policymakers fix “market failures”, but they can also actively reshape and create markets for better ends.

- Andre Picard rightly argues that global targets to reduce the spread of AIDS can't be met without a thorough effort to fight poverty and prejudice.
 
- Chris Hatch weighs in on the need to revamp how Canada evaluates and regulates pipelines and other environmental risks. Will Horter notes that there's no reason for optimism based on the Libs' attempt to paper over the National Energy Board's failings. And the Toronto Star criticizes the Libs' lack of follow-up on a loud announcement about removing and banning asbestos.

- Jim Bronskill reports on the Communications Security Establishmen's newfound refusal to provide even statistical data about the sharing of information which may lead to torture.

- Finally, Marc-André Miron, Marie-Claude Bertrand and Cym Gomery point out that the typical talking points against proportional representation lack any basis in reality.

Monday Morning Links

Assorted content to start your week.

- Susan Delacourt comments on what's often lacking from Canadian political coverage - and the challenge facing journalists looking to stop relying excessively on horse-race numbers which may miss what ultimately motivates voters:

Political journalists don’t have to stop covering the horse-race numbers or the big opinion trends — they’re still important, he said. But they have to stop pretending that the big picture is the only picture, that the campaign is being decided on the basis of what people see on television or on the artificial stage sets crafted by the politicians.

“Fundamentally, good political coverage needs to acknowledge that we cannot write with (any) sort of confidence about the entirety of the enterprise,” he said. “We need to be respectful enough of our readers to acknowledge how much of this is out of our reach and find a new knowledge of campaigns to engage that doubt.”

So there’s the challenge. If we want to repair the rift between polling and journalism, first we have to tell our audiences what we don’t know — what those horse-race numbers aren’t telling us. A five-point rise or fall in the polls may be far less important, in other words, than the data informing us what is motivating (or turning off) voters at the individual level.

Next we should start trying to find a way to know and report more on this micro-data.

We have nearly three years to go before the next federal election in Canada. That’s enough time, you’d think, to put journalism back in touch with the polling numbers that really count. 

 - Lawrence Martin and Andrew Coyne both use the last set of by-elections to try to push an electoral non-compete pact among opposition parties. Aaron Wherry responds to Coyne with just a few questions.

- Gerald Caplan weighs in on the Cons' inhumane and immoral choice to deprive developing countries of needed AIDS medication:

The Canadian government had the opportunity this week to help hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of AIDS sufferers in poor countries and deliberately chose not to do so. What should we think about such a decision? When are citizens allowed to ask the unthinkable: If a government knowingly allows hundreds of thousands of people to die unnecessarily, what is its responsibility? How much less culpable is indirect guilt, or guilt by omission, than direct guilt or guilt by commission?

These are fraught questions which many outraged Canadians are asking right now. They arise because a private member’s bill in Parliament has just been defeated by the Harper government by a mere 7 votes. Bill C-398 would have enabled Canada’s generic drug manufacturers to provide inexpensive life-saving medicines to Africans suffering from AIDS and other curable diseases who can’t afford brand-name medicines. Many believe the government has betrayed these people. African AIDS activists, with whom many Canadians have close contact, feel betrayed.

Can this really be the end of this story? Do the Africans who will die unnecessarily in these years – and there will be huge numbers – merely get forgotten? Too bad, so sad? Another day at the office?
...
What plausibly accounts for the government’s decision? Bill C-398 seemed like a win-win for all. It was a surefire way to save countless lives at no cost to ourselves. It had strong support from Canadians in every walk of life. Instead of being bystanders to needless death and suffering, Canadians could have been part of the solution. It was a perfect fit with the government’s vaunted maternal health initiative. Canadian generic manufacturers would do well by doing good. In more hard-bitten terms, Big Pharma, a major influence on Conservative decisions, seemed to be on board, while international legal experts found the bill consistent with Canada’s treaty obligations.

Some wonder if the government’s decision reflected its concern for the many trade and investment deals it’s negotiating, which routinely call for ever-greater patent protection for the giant brand name drug companies. The government may be wary of demonstrating the slightest sympathy for their generic rivals. There’s suspicion that, behind the scenes, Big Pharma was actually encouraging the (government) to deep-six the bill.

 - But as Tim Harper points out, we shouldn't expect the Cons to answer for any of their choices, as they continue to view accountability as a punishment to be inflicted solely on their enemies rather than a value to be pursued as a matter of good governance.

- Finally, Murray Dobbin rightly notes that the progressive side can easily win an argument on the need for sufficient tax revenue to fund a viable social democracy - but that we can't afford to shy away from the conversation.

#skndpldr Roundup

Once again, Saskatchewan's NDP leadership campaign has focused largely on recent debates and other candidate forums (and I'll be discussing those individually as I get a chance to view them). And for those interested in immediate coverage of those, Tracey Mitchell has been offering just that. But here are a few other recent developments which I haven't yet discussed...

- Having already written that few endorsements figure to change the direction of the leadership campaign, I'll note that one recent statement of support at least looks to distinguish the current campaign from 2009: UFCW 1400's endorsement of Ryan Meili offers a level of organized labour support beyond that which Meili won in the previous campaign. And while Trent Wotherspoon still looks to a slight edge in labour support so far, the key takeway looks to be that no one candidate will be able to lay claim to an overwhelming edge in trade union backing (as was the case for Dwain Lingenfelter in 2009).

- Erin Weir wrote to the Southwest Booster to point out how the Sask Party's privatization schemes stand to lose the province millions of dollars every year, while also earning a writeup in the Moose Jaw Times Herald on the need for fiscal plans to accompany social policies. But I do wonder whether Weir is missing a chance to group those issues together under a general campaign theme along the lines of "returns on public resources" (or even the familiar "common wealth" philosophy) - whether the resources in question consist of oil, minerals or Crown investments.

- Finally, after playing a key role in the Saskatchewan Party's grudging choice to reverse course on funding refugee health benefit, Cam Broten is now pushing the Wall government to similarly recognize its underfunding of HIV/AIDS awareness. 

Parliament in Review: November 25, 2011

Friday, November 25 saw the House of Commons debate two NDP ideas: one to allow for meaningful debate and consideration of legislation in Parliament, the other to give effect to a principle the Cons are looking to punt to a committee in the apparent hope that it'll never surface again. And not surprisingly, the combination gave rise to some rather jaw-dropping contradictions.

The Big Issue

Just guess which MP had this to say at one point in the day's proceedings:

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed to hear the (member opposite) talk about wasting time. Taking a close look at an issue before making a decision is not wasting parliamentarians' time.

That would of course be...Maxime Bernier, telling NDP MP Pierre Nantel why the Cons are setting up a committee on what I'm sure is a never-before-studied question of language matters in Quebec (rather than supporting the NDP's bill to harmonize language requirements between the provincially- and federally-regulated sectors in Quebec). And yes, Jonathan Tremblay picked up on the Cons' sudden interest in delay as soon as anybody else's ideas were at stake.

But let's move back to the first motion of the day: Joe Comartin's proposal to amend or delete the time allocation rules being so merrily abused by the Cons:

That, in the opinion of the House, the thorough examination and debate of proposed legislation on behalf of Canadians is an essential duty of Members of Parliament, and that the curtailment of such debate limits the ability of Members to carry out this duty and constitutes an affront to Canadian democracy; and, therefore,

that the Speaker undertake a study and make recommendations to amend the Standing Orders with respect to closure and time allocation, such that: (i) a Minister would be required to provide justification for the request for such a curtailment of debate; (ii) the Speaker would be required to refuse such a request in the interest of protecting the duty of Members to examine legislation thoroughly, unless the government’s justification sufficiently outweighs the said duty; (iii) criteria would be set out for assessing the government’s justification, which would provide the Speaker with the basis for a decision to allow for the curtailment of debate;

that the Speaker report to the House no later than February 6, 2012;

that a motion to concur in the said report may be moved during Routine Proceedings, and that only when no Member rises to debate the motion, the Speaker shall interrupt any proceedings then before the House and put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment, every question necessary to dispose of the motion; and

if no motion to concur in the report has been previously moved and disposed of on the 20th sitting day following the presentation of the report, Standing Orders 57 and 78 shall be deemed to have been deleted.

Comartin also made clear that unlike the Cons, the NDP will be prepared to stand by its principles once it forms government. Charlie Angus and Jinny Sims commented on the contrast between a Westminster system based on the supremacy of Parliament and the Cons' message box politics, with Sims then setting Lois Brown straight as to what was actually decided in the May 2011 federal election. Sean Casey agreed with the NDP's concerns by pointing to Jay Hill's once-firm belief in the problems with closure, but Massimo Pacetti waffled as to his party's position on the actual motion.

Meanwhile, Colin Mayes tried to do math. Hilarity would have ensued if it hadn't been so painful - or been followed by Harold Albrecht claiming in short order that the use of accurate numbers was "manipulation".

Language Barriers

The other topic of debate was the NDP's private member's bill on French in federally-regulated Quebec workplaces. Robert Aubin described the bill as a concrete action based on the recognition of a Quebecois nation within a united Canada. Yvon Godin pointed out that the steps required to comply with the bill wouldn't be the least bit onerous for the businesses which fall under federal jurisdiction. And Matthew Dube noted that the result would simply be the type of harmonization between requirements from different levels of government that the Cons normally push at every opportunity.

Finally, Aubin wondered in question period whether there was any substance to the Cons' promise of a committee to deal with the subject - only to receive nothing but laugh lines from Bernier. And here's another one for the road:

As regards the legislation, our government always passes laws that are based on facts.

Once again, one could hardly ask for a more galling juxtaposition with the insistence that Canada be forced to accept dumb-on-crime legislation without debate or amendments.

In Brief

Isabelle Morin saluted Global Buy Nothing Day. Peter Julian lamented the Cons' push toward lower-quality jobs. Comartin wondered whether we'd ever see any accountability under the existing health care accord. Christine Moore and Matthew Kellway challenged the latest dodgy math on F-35s, this time wondering how plausible it was to suggest (as the Cons did) that we'll pay half what Norway does for the same planes. Jinny Sims asked why CIDA seemed more interested in photo ops than actual assistance under the Cons, only to be told by Brown that it's simply more focused in its efforts. Randall Garrison questioned the Cons' efforts to gum up the works when it comes to HIV/AIDS funding. Kennedy Stewart asked Joe Oliver to commit to government-to-government talks with First Nations on the Gateway pipeline, only to be told that Stephen Harper will be the decider once he's determined that he's tired of hearing from dissenting voices. And Irwin Cotler introduced a private member's bill to ensure all Canadian citizens receive their country's support abroad.

On exceptional outcomes

It's great news that the NDP's efforts to make AIDS drugs more accessible in Africa have received a surprising reprieve in the House of Commons, as federal MPs granted unanimous consent to allow Paul Dewar to assume sponsorship of a bill introduced by Judy Wasylycia-Leis.

But it's also worth noting how the obvious pluses to such a simple exception make the usual rules of Ottawa look even more pointless and petty than they might otherwise. And I'd be curious to know when the last time was that anything with the potential to produce substantive policy results was agreed to by all parties as a matter of comity (rather than, say, the political posturing involved in the legislation to override the regulatory decision to shut down the Chalk River reactor).

Today in worthless freeloaders who don't deserve our help

African AIDS victims.

But have no fear: the Cons know who it is that really needs some government assistance. And they're doing their utmost to make sure that a bill to benefit actual people - and halfway around the world no less! - faces the toughest path possible through Parliament.

On dereliction of duty

While I tend toward the view that the high-profile portions of question period are covered to death, there's still sometimes room for some highly noteworthy questions and answers to slip through the cracks. Take for example what this exchange between NDP MP Carol Hughes and Con Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq says about the Cons' view of their federal responsibility for Canada's First Nations:

Mrs. Carol Hughes (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, last week's throne speech indicated that we will improve the conditions of aboriginal women in Canada.

When it comes to HIV-AIDS, the infection rate for aboriginal women is running ahead of Canadian averages and is increasing. Aboriginal women are overrepresented in the Canadian epidemic. To bring this number down requires money and political will.

Will the government commit necessary funding to bring the HIV-AIDS infection rate down among aboriginal women?

Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of Health, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, we continue to increase the transfers of funding to provinces and territories. Again this year we are increasing the transfers by six per cent. We will continue to work with the provinces and the territories to deal with health issues.

Now, if one wants to be generous, one could note that it's possible that working with provinces and territories could conceivably have some impact on the spread of AIDS. But the fact that Aglukkaq doesn't even mention the word herself seems to speak volumes about the Cons' actual lack of interest in having anything to do with the issue. Indeed, Aglukkaq says nothing more than that the other levels of government will have money to work with when it comes to general health spending which they can choose to apply to the problem.

More importantly, though, there's still a gaping hole in Aglukkaq's response. After all, it's the federal government alone which is directly responsible for health and other government issues on First Nations reserves. So money sent to the provinces wouldn't have any conceivable effect on programs for hundreds of thousands of First Nations people.

Of course, one can simply view Aglukkaq's answer as a default response to all issues dealing with health - and I'm sure the Cons would come with additional spin if the issue gets pressed. But it's still striking that the Harper government's first line of talking points is to both ignore AIDS as a separate issue, and to feign ignorance of its responsibility for the well-being of on-reserve First Nations.

One-upped

I'll stand by the argument that the best way for Canada's opposition parties to deal with distraction tactics like Stephen Harper's NAC performance is to avoid letting him change the subject. But this isn't a bad response either:

Jack Layton, leader of Canada’s New Democrats, will be doing two of his favorite things in his dare: playing guitar and hanging out on Toronto's Danforth Ave. It is just rare for him to do them both at the same time! Jack’s challenge will be busking in his riding, guitar in hand, from 3-5 pm at the corner of Danforth and Logan on Saturday, October 24.

In addition to donating to help reach Jack’s goal for the Stephen Lewis Foundation, Jack is inviting you join him and make some street music!

It's of particular note that rather than limiting himself to a single song for a closed audience with the element of surprise on his side, Layton will be opening his performance up to public observation and participation. And as an added bonus, it's also for a great charitable cause - which should hopefully help keep away the astroturfers, though we'll have to wait and see on that point.

On chopping blocks

The Cons' stay in office has been marked by a combination of dubious cuts to valuable programs, and irresponsible funding practices which make it tougher for programs to keep running. Now, the Canadian Press reports that the Cons are offering the worst of both worlds when it comes to funding for HIV/AIDS support initiatives - as they've not only declared an intention to cut existing programs, but also can't be bothered to at least give reasonable notice of what they plan on continuing to fund:

Community organizations that support people with HIV or AIDS say they're being kept in the dark about federal government plans to cut millions of dollars in funding.

Groups worried about having to lay off staff and ditch programs have been asking the government for months to provide a firm amount — province by province — on how much will be cut, said Susan Cress, chairwoman of the Alberta Community Council on HIV.

The government has announced that a total of $26-million will be redirected from HIV-AIDS initiatives to efforts at developing an HIV vaccine, but support groups don't know when those cuts are coming or how much may be taken from them...

Ontario's funding was slashed by 30 per cent last year, while Quebec organizations stand to lose 24 per cent of their funding this year, he said. Alberta's money has only been extended for six months and support groups have been told that some type of cut will follow when it runs out...

While front-line AIDS workers are dismayed at the thought of cutting important prevention programs, they say they're more shocked at how the government has handled the matter.

“I have been in this field, doing this work, for 23 years. And we have never been handled this way, or managed this way, or treated this way,” said Michael Sobota, who has been executive director of AIDS Thunder Bay since it was created in 1985.

“The continued delays in decision-making make us all very, very worried about the existing grants that we have — that the clock is ticking on them.”

Needless to say, it's as true for social programs as it is for infrastructure development that the Cons' strategy is only ensuring that programs are less efficiently delivered in the end. Instead of being able to either plan to try to replace funding, or at least transfer responsibilities from programs losing federal support, Canada's AIDS workers are instead left under a general cloud of uncertainty. And that can only make it tougher for every group affected to plan past any existing funding agreement, or to hold onto staff who have any option to move to a more secure position.

Which means that the Cons have found a way to make matters worse even beyond their already callous decision to slash funding for HIV/AIDS programs. And both community organizations and anybody else who might have to rely on the Cons' ability to provide predictable support have every reason to see a more responsible government in power at the earliest opportunity.