Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Dayne Patterson discusses the continued recognition among doctors that the COVID-19 pandemic is far from over (and indeed approaching another particularly dangerous phase). Sumathi Reddy reports on new research showing a starkly more severe risk of diabetes following infection. Nathaniel Dove reports on the spread among Saskatchewan children, while Reuters highlights how Italy has been able to reduce transmission in schools by 82% with proper ventilation. And Nicola Davis reports on Danny Altmann's warning that the prevalence of long COVID (and lack of any meaningful effort to address it) stands to create a generation of people with avoidable disabilities. 

- Armine Yalnizyan discusses why temporary inflation is likely to resolve itself with time, rather than serving as a basis for attacks on wages and social supports. Stephen Wentzell takes note of new CCPA research showing that provincial deficits during the pandemic have been a matter of choice rather than structural concern. And John Nichols discusses how the richest few have been the beneficiaries of a massive pandemic windfall. 

- Aaron Wherry examines how the supply and confidence agreement between the NDP and Liberals will allow the current Parliament to function - much to the apparent chagrin of other parties and pundits eager to posture over the constant threat of an election. But Adam King notes that there's plenty of work to be done in holding the Libs to their commitments, including to finally implement anti-scab legislation. 

- Dan Calverley and Kevin Anderson find that an equitable transition will need to include a rapid phaseout of fossil fuels by wealthier countries, while George Monbiot writes that UK Con spin about a just transition being unaffordable is being proven wrong by successes across Europe. David Wethe points out that oil sector workers aren't seeing their wages keep pace with windfall profits, and are increasingly eager to find better career opportunities.  And Sara Hastings-Simon notes (PDF) that electric vehicle adoption is happening at a faster pace than was previously assumed to be possible. 

- Finally, Adam Morton reports on Andrew Macintosh's warning that Australia's carbon credit scheme is an utter failure in actually reducing carbon emissions. And Rosa Lee and Carla Ellern report on the risks of gas infrastructure both a threat to cause explosions, and as a constant source of greenhouse gas emissions. 

Sunday Afternoon Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Vanmala Subramaniam reports on the move by real estate developers to push tenants out of desperately-needed housing in Canada's largest cities to chase after short-term profits.

- David Wallace Wells asks how the rapidly-materializing worst-case climate change scenarios are being met with shrugs rather than recognition of the urgent need for action. And Denise Balkissoon comments on the connection between a heating planet and the increased threat of wildfires, while Yanis Varoufakis points out that both climate change and austerity have severely exacerbated Greece's outbreak of fires in particular.

- Meanwhile, Emma Davie reports on the risks to a Nova Scotia tidal power project after its private-sector participant pulled out - with no government apparently willing to invest in the development of stable renewable energy even as the federal government pumps billions into subsidizing oil infrastructure.

- Tom Parkin argues that Canada can be far safer if it minimizes the presence of handguns which are available to be put to malicious purposes.

- Finally, Jerry Dias makes the case for long-overdue anti-scab legislation to ensure that workers and unions are able to effectively exercise their right to strike for improved workplace fairness.

Choosing the wrong side

It's definitely worth pointing out that the Libs have once again undermined an effort to pass anti-scab legislation in Parliament. But perhaps more noteworthy is the list of Lib MPs who made an individual choice to do so.

As with the vote which torpedoed a bill at third reading in the last Parliament, there were Libs on both sides of the issue. And the list of Libs who voted down the bill included the likes of Siobhan Coady, Bonnie Crombie, Martha Hall Findlay, John McCallum, David McGuinty and Dan McTeague. (Oddly enough the list didn't include Stephane Dion, who made the choice to fight against the previous legislation after supporting it at second reading.)

As evidenced by yesterday's EI vote, the Libs had the ability to work with the opposition parties to get progressive legislation passed over the Cons' protests. And the fact that they've once again chosen not to should offer plenty of reason for skepticism that a Lib government would do much to improve the lot of Canadian workers.

On the record

Judging from yesterday's news headlines, I'd figured it must have been a fairly quiet day in the House of Commons. But surprisingly, the are a few seemingly significant news items which managed to go unreported - so let's take a few minutes to see what escaped public notice:

- The NDP's motion to have the amended C-30 brought back before the House of Commons was voted on and passed. While that's well and good, I have to wonder why neither the media nor the opposition parties seem to be putting much focus on what should be an important source of pressure on the Cons to move C-30 forward.

- It's a plus to see that at least one Lib MP - in this case Bonnie Brown - is questioning where the Security and Prosperity Partnership figures to lead Canada. That said, it might be a nice touch to at least recognize the Libs' primary role in inflicting the SPP on the country.

- To his relative credit, Mario Silva has indeed put forward a new anti-scab bill to replace the one the Libs undermined earlier this year. But can anybody explain why the bill missed its chance to receive second reading yesterday for lack of a needed report?

Still delaying

As noted elsewhere, the Libs unfortunately followed through with their plan to reject Bill C-257 (the anti-scab bill).

But what about their claim that they'd "come back with a better bill"? Not surprisingly, despite the fact that Bill C-257 and its amendments could have been put into a new bill without any difficulty, they haven't yet bothered.

Mind you, there's one anti-scab bill still in the pipeline if anybody wants to test whether the Libs have shifted positions again. And if the Libs don't get their act together, it shouldn't be the least bit surprising if another party beats them to the punch in bringing a new bill forward.

Update: Or maybe it's already happened.

Update II: Or maybe not, as Mario Silva did put forward a bill yesterday (while Duceppe oddly enough didn't). But will it manage to make any progress before the writ drops?

On refusing to act

Uncorrected Proofs points out a particularly glaring example of the Libs' strategy of refusing to act on progressive issues now in order to run on those same issues later - in this case dealing with the anti-scab bill, C-257, which the Libs supported until recently.

In fairness to Dion, he does appear to allow for some possibility that a new bill could be introduced in the current Parliament. But it's hard to see much commitment to following through:

Results will have to wait until the next election, Dion said.

The Liberal leader said the definition and protection of essential services needs to be "clarified" in any new legislation.

"We'll come back with a better bill. If there's an election before that, we'll put that commitment in our platform," he said.

So, let's keep an eye out over the next little while to see if the Libs do in fact introduce a bill along the lines of the amendments that were ruled out of order.

Which isn't to say that the Libs will be blameless even if they do: it'll still be problematic that they've delayed any passage of anti-scab legislation, and risked the possibility that nothing will be done if the current Parliament is dissolved. But if the Libs really are so crass as to fail to follow through on introducing a new bill - or to make that bill anything but a top priority going forward in light of the time lost already - then there will be all the more reason to conclude that the Libs' commitment to progressive values ends where implementation of those values begins.