Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Naomi Klein highlights how capital and power combine to turn disasters into profit-making opportunities - while noting that the Trump presidency is just such a disaster. And Linda McQuaig discusses why we should see the income tax and other collective funding mechanisms as an important step in nation-building.

- Don Pittis writes that a focus on raw job numbers misses the important question as to whether any particular job is actually livable. And Jason Moyer-Lee points out that many of the attempts to avoid employment regulations through "gig" arrangements or other contractual contortions should be expected to fail as soon as governments enforce the laws already on the books.

- Meanwhile, BlueGreen Canada points out that plenty of desirable jobs are at stake based on the federal government's choice as to whether to enforce methane regulations - but it's a failure to properly regulate dangerous greenhouse gases that would leave thousands out of work. 

- Bill Curry takes note of the Australian model which forms the basis for the Libs' privatized infrastructure plan - as well as the fact that Australia itself is backtracking after realizing the dangers of putting profits ahead of public service.

- Finally, Stephanie Taylor and Jacques Marcoux report that the City of Regina's idea of "revitalization" involves putting housing ten times closer to operational railway tracks than is recommended.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Paul Buchheit comments on the continued spread of global inequality - as a combination of top-heavy gains and lost wealth among all but the privileged few has reduced to 6 the number of billionaires with as much wealth as half of humanity.

- Bill Curry reports on Justin Trudeau's cynical pitch for the type of personal security for workers which he's doing nothing to implement in Canada. And Rick Salutin highlights the problem with politicians prioritizing the desire to look smart over the inclination to do good, while Mike Colledge theorizes that public trust in government is declining in no small part due to its withdrawal from areas where it should be helping people.

- Lewis Perkins discusses the prospect of developing a more sustainable economy by encouraging the development of products designed for reuse and repair, rather than quick replacement. (Though it's worth noting that in light of the large number of people currently lacking access to many of the comforts we take for granted, the wider results could also include broader distribution as well as a reduced environmental footprint.)

- And Hassan Yussuff, Robert Walker and Steven Fish point out the need for a transition toward a cleaner economy which accounts for the circumstances of workers who currently depend on the resource sector.

- Jared Bernstein comments on the importance of a labour regulator which understands the needs of workers generally.

- Finally, Andre Picard writes that the real problem facing Canada's health care system isn't wait times in narrow areas, but the lack of a cohesive primary care structure to avoid pushing problems into sickness care. And Hasan Sheikh notes how a lack of access to primary dental care feeds into the overuse of emergency rooms.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Paul Krugman laments how faith-based economics which value unmeasurable market confidence over any meaningful outcome continue to form the basis for disastrous austerity policies around the world.

- Bill Curry reports on the PBO's latest study showing that the only reason the Cons are in a position to brag about a nominally balanced budget is their continued siphoning off of EI premiums which are supposed to be for the benefit of the many workers who have lost their jobs. And Andrew Jackson puts the Cons' miserable jobs record in context.

- Meanwhile, Eliza Anyangwe points out that we shouldn't expect the fortunate few who profit from policies designed to destroy working classes to accept a change in direction without a fight. And Jon Queally discusses the prospects of building a U.S. progressive populist movement.

- Finally, Daniel Tseghay comments on the connection between C-51, security certificates and race-based fearmongering. And Craig Forcese and Kent Roach discuss the real purpose of the Cons' terror bill - being to create an open-ended permission for CSIS to disrupt the private activities of Canadians without any meaningful oversight:

In recent weeks, we have been speaking to counterparts in comparable nations—notably the United Kingdom, Australia, and the United States. None of these countries appear to issue their CSIS equivalents with an open-ended, indefinite power to break the law. In Australia, for instance, the CSIS equivalent may disrupt a computer system, but it can do so only pursuant to a detailed warrant issued under the provisions of a tightly administered legal framework that itself is subject to review by an inspector general, as well as potential scrutiny from a special security committee of the Australian parliament.

The United Kingdom, meanwhile, has just witnessed a vigorous debate about what steps its agencies may take to limit re-entry of UK nationals who have become foreign paramilitary fighters. It has not given its security services—either MI5 or its foreign service, MI6 (of James Bond fame)—special new powers to break the law or violate human rights.

None of that informed debate is occurring (or, it seems, will occur) in Canada, because our government has chosen simply to provide a virtual carte blanche to CSIS, allowing it to pick from a long menu of surveillance and “disruption” techniques. These new powers are subject to judicial approval processes only when they would violate Canadian law or the Charter, in a proceeding in which the government is the only party, there is no possibility of appeal, and no public disclosure of any warrant issued.

We consider ourselves to be moderate-minded academics, not activists. We aren’t conspiracy theorists, and we generally believe that CSIS officials do not have malign intentions. Indeed, we don’t think CSIS really wants to be in the rendition game. We don’t think CSIS has any interest in running a detention facility, either at home or abroad. We don’t think CSIS wants to perform a political function by steering foreign environmental foundations away from funding local protest groups. But this is a law that may persist for a long time, and as with any government agency, the intentions of CSIS may well change as internal cultures evolve and, even in good faith, the service tests the bounds of its new powers.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Paul Kershaw highlights what's most needed to support Canada's younger generations:

Even with all this personal adaptation, most in Gen X and Y can’t work their way out of the time and income squeeze when they start families. Since two earners bring home little more today than what one breadwinner often did in the 1970s, we’ve gone from 40 hour work weeks to closer to 80 hours. The result? Generations raising young kids are squeezed for time at home. They are squeezed for income because housing prices are nearly double, even though young people often live in condos, or trade yards for time-consuming commutes. And they are squeezed for services like child care, which are essential for many parents to deal with rising costs, but are in short supply, and often cost more than university.
...
What all should ask, however, is why does the Fraser Institute dismiss the reality that younger generations are more squeezed now than in the past? Many will know the think tank is skeptical about the value of government investment. But Gens X and Y and their kids are not the primary beneficiary of social spending. Governments spend around $45,000 a year per retiree in Canada, mostly on health care, pensions and retirement income subsidies. This spending is nearly four times larger than government spending per younger Canadian. Grade school, post-secondary, health care, child care, parental leave, EI and workers compensation all combine for a total of around $12,000 annually per person under age 45.

Younger Canadians already face a generational imbalance in government spending on top of their worsening wages relative to housing costs. By discounting the time, income and service squeeze on younger generations, the Fraser Institute distracts attention away from this imbalance. Fortunately, there are Canadians of all ages across the country who believe younger generations deserve a better deal.

- And Tim Adams interviews Robert Skidelsky about the difference between maximizing wealth and living a good life.

- Robert Fife's story on the coordination between Con senators and multiple members of Stephen Harper's PMO is certainly worth a read. But it's doubly interesting when compared to Greg Weston's access-to-information requests finding absolutely no record of the scandal in the PMO - even as Mike Duffy and others were assembling a written narrative. And it's well worth asking what other scandals have been managed on a nothing-in-writing basis out of Harper's central command.

- Meanwhile, Glen McGregor and Stephen Maher report that Elections Canada has drawn a few more links between the 2011 election fraud and the Cons.

 - Finally, in a sure sign that there's no social progress that the corporate sector won't eventually try to roll back, Bill Curry reports that the U.S. is trying to rewrite the Trans-Pacific Partnership to allow attacks against anti-smoking policies.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Bill Curry reports on what looks like a thoroughly warped view of the role of the Minister of Justice and Parliament in assessing the constitutionality of legislation (h/t to bigcitylib):

Ottawa is crafting legislation that risks running afoul of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms without informing Parliament, a federal lawyer charges.

In a highly unusual case, Department of Justice lawyer Edgar Schmidt is challenging his own department in Federal Court and revealing details about the internal guidelines used by federal lawyers. The department accuses Mr. Schmidt of violating his duties as a lawyer and public servant and has suspended him without pay.
...
Both sides agree that the Minister of Justice has a duty to report to the House of Commons if proposed legislation or regulations are inconsistent with the Charter. Where Mr. Schmidt and his superiors disagree is over how that requirement should be interpreted.

Mr. Schmidt argues that Parliament originally expected the test for this would be whether, on balance, a measure is likely not in compliance. However Mr. Schmidt says that since as far back as 1993, government lawyers have been directed to approve all measures as long as they can imagine an argument in favour of compliance that would have a 5 per cent chance of success. The government does not confirm this, arguing any internal instructions must be kept secret as solicitor client privilege and cabinet confidences. 

- Meanwhile, Jeremy Nuttall reports that the Cons are choosing to serve as puppets for HD Mining in arguing that nobody has any right to question the assertions of an applicant for a temporary foreign worker permit - including the department responsible to evaluate an application.
 
- Kady O'Malley and Sixth Estate both discuss Julian Fantino's gross misuse of public resources for partisan attacks - with the latter post also raising this rather noteworthy point about Fantino's general competence:

Here’s the first one, written to the NDP. Notice that in the final paragraph Julian Fantino singles out Canada’s aid program in Haiti as a particularly successful one, worthy of attention. A few days ago, Fantino announced that he was not satisfied with the Haiti program and that Canada should eliminate its aid to that country. How you want to square these remarks is up to you.

- Lest anybody think Canada's Senate is the only obvious example of a non-elected actor which can interfere in legislative processes, Robert Booth reports on the stunningly regular exercise of veto power by the Queen over bills passed in the UK.

- And finally, speaking of unaccountable interference by privileged political actors, David Climenhaga discusses the continued links between the Koch brothers and the Fraser Institute - which of course hasn't come under the same scrutiny as analogous charities who aren't such regular cheerleaders for the Cons or right-wing causes.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- David Macdonald takes a closer look at a Fraser Institute study on income mobility, and finds strong evidence that there's a significant lack of mobility at both the bottom and the top of Canada's income distribution:

What should be very shocking to people is that in the shorter term panels, 50% of the poorest people in 2002 were still in the poorest category five years later (table 3).  That’s a pretty stunning conclusion.  For the second poorest category, a shocking 69% either ended up in the second poorest category or the poorest category (making even less).  So about 60% of the people in the bottom poorest categories were stuck there between 2002 and 2007.  That’s a lot of people living on very little income.  They are a bit mobile, but they are mobile between very poor and poor.  That’s not really the kind of mobility we should be looking for.

While the study focuses on the low end, there are some very interesting things going on at the upper end.  Take a look at table 6 for the top 20%.  The table does a “where are they now?” analysis over 19 years from 1990 to 2009.  For people that were in the top 20% in 1990, how many are still in the top 20% in 2009?  The answer is a whopping 64%.  Six out of 10 people that were in the top 20% in 1990 are still there today, two decades later.  Over a 10 year period between 1990 and 2000, almost 80% of the wealthy stayed at the top.

This is the opposite of income mobility, if you manage to slip into the exclusive club of wealthy Canadians it looks like you get a 10, if not a 20-year membership.  None of the other income groups are anywhere near that level of exclusivity.

- Meanwhile, Allison Jones reports on a Campaign 2000 study pointing out that it's possible to end child poverty in Canada by redirecting assorted tax credits. But I'd note that the contrast between universal benefits and the most narrow focus possible only serves as a means of pitting the currently-poor against the nearly-poor who are likely to lean heavily on the universal benefits - meaning that the real takeaway should be that it's possible to muster enough resources to end poverty in one form or another.

- Anne McGrath suggests applying a seven-generation test to Canada's international agreements, and finds the Cons' planned investor privilege pact with China to be sorely wanting by that standard:

The Iroquois had a rule: when making a major decision, consider its effects on the next seven generations.

It’s a good rule, one the Conservatives would do well to adopt. The reluctance of this government to submit the Canada-China FIPA (Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement) to parliamentary analysis and oversight deepens the apprehension many Canadians feel about the way we are pursuing trade and investment with China. Despite the government’s assurances, many remain unconvinced that the FIPA will be good for Canada in the long-term. Even its supporters acknowledge that further study and debate would be beneficial.
...
Given that under the current government Canada has gone from a $26 billion trade surplus to a $50 billion trade deficit, we cannot simply take it as gospel that a trade deal exempt from parliamentary scrutiny is in this country’s best interest.

Critics argue that FIPA promotes corporate rights at the expense of Canada’s democratic, environmental and social rights and may have negative consequences for this country for years to come. In the agreed terms, FIPA cannot be terminated for 15 years. What’s more, any investments made prior to the date of termination will stand for a further 15 years.

The North American Free Trade Agreement, in contrast, can be cancelled with six months’ notice. The impact of FIPA will be felt well beyond its 31-year duration and Canadians deserve to know it in detail.

 - But unfortunately, the Cons look to be applying a rather different lens to their dealings with the world.

- Finally, Bill Curry reports that the Senate is determined to remind people of its existence (and make a wrong-headed claim to relevance) by trashing a bill passed by Canada's actual elected representatives.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Ed Broadbent and the Broadbent Institute are putting together a strong public push on the problem of growing inequality - featuring a video, op-ed and research paper (PDF). For more, see coverage from Rachel Mendleson, Natalie Stechyson, and CBC News.

- Today's handy reporting tip from Bill Curry: when corporate profits rise at the same time as rates are reduced, that's irrefutable evidence of causation. But when corporate profits were previously higher under a higher rate, that's a "blip" to be ignored.

- Jill Lepore offers a history of the political lie factory intended to reduce voters to mere consumers. And Allen Gregg follows up on the importance of reason in politics with a simple suggestion as to how to turn the tide:

What’s disconcerting about all of this is not just the substance of these bills, but why a government would want to disguise that substance. Maybe dismantling the Wheat Board or sending more potheads to jail is a good thing. But before we make those decisions, let’s look at all the facts; have a full and rational debate; and make a reasoned decision on what is best for all the parties involved. For voters to determine whether they support these measures requires that they know what is at stake and what the government is actually doing.

Moreover, for the rule of law to work, the public must have respect for the law. By obfuscating the true purpose of laws under the gobbledygook of double speak, governments are admitting their intentions probably lack both support and respect. This too explains this government’s obsession with secrecy, message control and misdirection.
...
History has also shown that tyrants can have a truncated shelf life if the citizenry enters the public forum and, armed with facts, reasoned arguments, and thoughtful ideas, engages in a loud debate. In the case of those who would stand against reason, our silence will be perceived as consent. There’s too much at stake to be silent.

If it feels lame to suggest that the solution about what to do next is to talk to each other more, I invite you to review history and ask yourselves what role public discourse has had in the toppling of dictators and despots. Right now, there seems to be a very one-sided conversation going on and the powers that be are leading it. We have our hands on the easiest levers the world has ever known by which to spread an idea and lead our own conversation. Let’s use them. 

 - Finally, Mike Sandler proposes a citizen's dividend as a means of addressing both inequality and economic stagnation.

Thursday Afternoon Links

This and that for your Thursday.

- Obviously missing from Ted Menzies' excuses for the Cons' decision to do nothing about the Canada Pension Plan: a single word of explanation as to how anybody is better off setting up new funds for private profit rather than actually expanding the CPP to include more people. This might be a point worth pressing, no?

- Maude Barlow weighs in on some of the issues with the proposed Canada-Europe free trade agreement.

- Bill Curry points out one significant drain on Canada's federal coffers that would serve as an obvious means to increase revenues if the Cons were the least bit serious about dealing with the deficit:

Billions of dollars worth of credits and tax writeoffs for everything from construction tools to textbooks and kids’ sports fees have been piling up for years. Their expansion ramped up under the Conservatives before the recession hit. Now in leaner times, they continue to eat up cash.

Billed as tax “cuts” when they are announced by politicians, they live on in the federal books as “tax expenditures.” The semantic debate between politicians and academics continues as the number of credits rise.

The annual report detailing their cost runs for 24 pages.

- Finally, Jamies Bowie may give far too much credit to the Libs' earlier lack of accomplishment. But it would certainly be worth taking his suggestion to start compiling a list of Con programs that did nothing toward their nominal ends - so stop by and add your suggestions.