Monday Afternoon Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Bill McGuire discusses why anybody with an understanding of climate science is terrified of a living environment that's careening out of control. Carbon Brief notes that there's plenty of public support for meaningful climate action. But Andre Mayer observes that while the wealthiest and most powerful people are using their outsized influence to make matters worse, they're also spending large amount of money trying to insulate themselves from the consequences of a disastrous future.  

- Ajit Niranjan reports on new research showing how the oil industry has been systematically undermining clean energy for over a half a century. And Aaron Regunberg and David Arkush write that there's a compelling case to prosecute fossil fuel companies for homicide as a result. 

- Meanwhile, Elizabeth Chuck reports on new research showing widespread harm caused by exposure to leaded gasoline. And Drew Anderson points out how fracking is a major contributor to Alberta's looming water crisis. 

- Gleb Tsipursky discusses how return-to-office mandates are all about employer control (with no consideration for anybody's well-being or even productivity). And Ashlie Stevens highlights how Kellogg's and other corporate food producers are rightly getting called out for greedflation to line their own pockets while consumers' expenses spiral out of control. 

- Taylor Noakes writes that Brian Mulroney's death should serve as reason to remember how he imposed corporate control at every turn - not to paper over the damage. And Michael Sainato reports on the growing push by U.S.' corporate overlords to outlaw any labour organizing and collective action which might create a check on their power.  

- Finally, David Moscrop discusses the growing movement for a global weath tax on billionaires. 

On double-edged swords

Don Martin seems to think the Cons are headed for a fall love-in between Stephen Harper and the previously-exiled Brian Mulroney. I'm not sure there's much reason to think that'll be the case - but as Murray Mandryk points out, that may carry at least as many costs as it does opportunities in terms of cementing a connection between the two:

(H)ow do old Reformers justify to themselves Harper's most recent Senate appointments? What do they say when they speak privately? How can they possibly disagree with Maclean's magazine columnist Andrew Coyne, who so aptly described these appointments as the "most obnoxiously partisan, disgustingly sycophantic choices" Harper could make?
...
These particularly partisan appointments jackhammer away at the the bedrock of old Reform principles that also demanded balanced budgets, prudent spending and an end to pandering to Quebec -- other issues from which Harper has parted ways.

It makes one wonder whether some old Reformers are now privately wondering: "Aren't we really right back to the days of Mulroney?"

A historical inquiry

For obvious reasons, it figures to remain true that Michael Ignatieff supporters and his critics from the left will have different interpretations of his entreaties to Brian Mulroney. But in the interest of looking for common ground, I'll invite Lib supporters (and any other interested readers) to fill in the historical picture in case I'm missing something.

Simply put, is there any historical precedent - from any country or level of government - which meets the following test which to me boils down the key elements of Ignatieff's call?

(1) the leader of one political party
(2) spontaneously calling the former leader/head of government of another political party
(3) in the absence of any prior relationship between the two
(4) solely for a social/personal conversation (rather than, say, for policy advice or in response to a public event)

If it's the case that such calls (or meetings or other forms of interaction) have been carried out in the past, I'd have to figure they'd be likely to find their way into memoirs, biographies, or the like as a matter of historical interest - much as Ignatieff's call to Mulroney was seen as worth reporting by CTV. So is there anything on record to suggest that similar calls are indeed a matter of common courtesy?

Shocking

Shorter L. Ian MacDonald:

It took longer than usual this time. But I've figured out how the Mulroney feud within the Cons is the fault of outside agitators rather than the Glorious Leader.

Burning question

Is it more problematic if Michael Ignatieff's latest love letter to Brian Mulroney is based on his agreeing with Mulroney's policies, or instead focused on their mutual agreement that all that counts is winning at all costs?

Mulronicons

As you'll see shortly, I'm in the early stages of using Photoshop to add a bit more visual punch to some of the ideas from this blog. Here's a first installment inspired by Michael Ignatieff's birthday greeting to Brian Mulroney.



As you may have guessed, I'm not entirely settled on a punchline. So additional suggestions are welcome.

On fast reactions

My post yesterday afternoon as to what Michael Ignatieff's entreaty to Brian Mulroney might say about his future plans has evidently struck a raw nerve with at least one top Lib blogger (while finding support elsewhere). But Impolitical's response seems to raise more questions than it answers.

First, there's the focus on who it was that reported Michael Ignatieff's unprompted call to Brian Mulroney, rather than the substance of the call.

Of course, it's fair enough if Bob Fife isn't exactly the Libs' favourite figure in the media. But that doesn't mean there's any apparent reason to think he'd go so far as to outright manufacture a story along the lines of Ignatieff's call to Mulroney. And absent some serious reason to doubt the integrity of the underlying story, an attempt to focus on who's doing the reporting rather than what's being reported seems like a sure signal that the latter isn't helpful to one's cause.

Second, Impolitical points to the previous agreement of the opposition parties of the need for a broad inquiry into Mulroney/Schreiber as evidence that the call to Mulroney should be ignored. But it's hard to see how an agreement which dates back to April 2008 and a previous Lib leader offers any response to the concern that Ignatieff has moved his party to the right, particularly when Ignatieff has obviously been eager to tear up what was once the most obvious example of opposition cooperation. Indeed, if anything the contrast between the stronger position under Dion and total silence under Ignatieff only amplifies the concern that Ignatieff is comparatively willing to overlook the problems surrounding Mulroney.

Advance warning

One can tell plenty about how a party intends to govern by who it chooses to reach out to. Which means that we can get a pretty good hint of what a Michael Ignatieff government would look like from his choice of targets for an entreaty across party lines: right-wing and scandal-ridden.

Hypothetically speaking

While Robert Benzie's article on Deceivin' Stephen doesn't contain too much news about how Harper governs, it's noteworthy in including multiple criticisms toward Harper from Brian Mulroney and some of his loyalists. And the connection raises what looks to be one of the more interesting questions about Harper's regime in the longer term.

From all indications, Mulroney looks to have been the lone individual who held enough of Harper's respect to be able to restrain his habit of constant partisan attacks. Which leads me to wonder: how different would Harper's stay in office look now if he hadn't cut Mulroney off from his party? Would Mulroney have been capable of talking Harper out of some of his less-canny gambits like slamming artists and bringing the opposition together with his financial update? And what does it say if the Cons' government has been ineffective enough that we're left wishing that the man who reduced the PCs to 2 seats had more of a say?

On political choices

I'll toss in my two cents in response to Steve's concerns about the NDP's stance on Cadscam. While I don't agree entirely with Pat Martin's public stances, it seems to me there's an awfully good reason for the Ethics Committee not to drop everything now in order to race to deal with Cadscam - not because it wouldn't be a plus to deal with the matter quickly, but because of what the committee would presumably leave behind in order to do so.

Remember that one of the major recent questions in the Mulroney/Schreiber scandal (remember that?) was when - if ever - Deceivin' Stephen would keep his promise to call a public inquiry. While the opposition may have reasonably expected the inquiry to start once the Ethics Committee's hearings ended, Con MP Russ Hiebert has made clear that Harper plans on waiting until after the committee completes its report into the matter. And if anybody thinks Heibert had anything but the full approval of Harper in putting that position forward, Doug Finley has a million-dollar life insurance policy he'd like to sell them.

So why not simply put Mulroney/Schreiber on hold while dealing with Cadscam, and finish off the report later? As I've pointed out earlier, without some kind of mandate to keep Schreiber in the country, there's every danger that the Cons could find some way to shuttle him off the continent and permanently bury any potential inquiry. Which would of course cost Canadians any hope of getting to the truth behind another major Con scandal, and equally cost the opposition the political gains that come with getting to the facts behind Harper's Godfather.

And even if Schreiber wasn't sent on the next available plane across the Atlantic, it's still entirely possible that Harper would declare that with the committee having lost interest, he wouldn't see any reason to follow through on the promised inquiry.

As a result, the choice isn't necessarily between dealing with Cadscam now and Mulroney later or vice versa. Instead, the choice may well be between dealing with Mulroney now to keep both issues live - or putting all the opposition's eggs in one basket and missing out on another prime opportunity to highlight the past the Cons would prefer to bury.

Of course, the Mulroney/Schreiber story doesn't necessarily reflect well on the Libs either...which is why it's understandable that they'd be looking for a narrative of all Cadscam, all the time. But if one's goal is to get all the Cons' shady dealings into the public eye, it's entirely reasonable to want to make sure the Ethics Committee finishes off its Mulroney report as the top current priority.

Time to cooperate

Last night, I noted that Deceivin' Stephen's delay tactics on the Mulroney/Schreiber inquiry were going to lead to some difficult decisions for the opposition parties. Not surprisingly, it now looks like there's some significant difference of opinion dealing with the remaining committee hearings - and the opposition may need to be able to find common ground in order to make either the hearings or the inquiry work:

The committee plans to hold hearings into late February, ending with new testimony from Mr. Schreiber and Mr. Mulroney. It would likely take months more for a yet-to-be-named inquiry commissioner to commence hearings.

"There are potentially embarrassing deadlines ahead. If they can punt this late into the spring, it opens up horizons [for them] in the event of confidence votes," New Democratic Party MP Thomas Mulcair said. "I'm not a seer, but I'm also not an ostrich."

The Bloc Québécois and NDP suggested yesterday that the committee might speed its work, but Liberals on the committee argued that the scope of the public inquiry was too narrow and therefore the committee might need to do more, not less.

It seems fairly clear that each opposition party's strategy is related at least somewhat to its preferred election timing. The NDP and the Bloc, which are eager to topple Harper ASAP, both want to see an inquiry underway in time for a spring election. In contrast, the Libs seem happy to keep the matter in committee for now in hopes that an inquiry will be in full swing by this fall.

The question based on the parties' initial reaction is then whether or not it'll be possible to agree on some common goals to make sure the committee hearings are as useful as possible.

It would seem to be in the interest of each opposition party both to make sure there's enough committee testimony to keep the Cons on their heels for the bulk of the upcoming Parliamentary session, and to make sure that the committee hearings end soon enough to force Harper to call the inquiry early this year (at a time when the opposition parties still have some kind of leverage over the Cons). And on the surface, it should be possible to do both while still gathering the evidence needed by both the committee and the inquiry.

But that will require enough cooperation between the opposition parties both to keep the hearings moving along, and to prevent the Cons from picking up any support for their efforts to derail the process. And if the committee is instead used more for grandstanding than for concerted evidence-gathering, then it's all too likely that neither the hearings nor any inquiry will get far either in further damaging the Cons, or in getting to the bottom of the Mulroney/Schreiber dealings.

Delays and denials

So far most of the criticism of Deceivin' Stephen's announcement about the impending inquiry into Mulroney/Schreiber has focused on the relatively narrow terms of reference. But I have to wonder whether the more dangerous part of Harper's announcement is the fact that the inquiry won't be convened until after the Commons ethics committee is done investigating.

The most obvious problem with linking the inquiry to the committee hearings is that it'll allow the Cons to put their dirty committee tricks handbook on full display. There's every reason to expect that the Cons will put every effort into manipulating the committee in order to ensure their preferred timing for any inquiry - and particularly if an election is looming, it wouldn't be the least bit surprising to see the Cons pull out every delay tactic they can in order to stop the inquiry from happening at all.

What's worse, though, Harper's announcement raises a serious risk that the Cons will find some way to shuffle Schreiber out of the country rather than facing the inquiry at all.

Remember that last year, Rob Nicholson refused either to amend the terms of Schreiber's extradition to allow him to testify, or to order Schreiber to appear before the committee. Indeed, despite public statements to the contrary from the legal counsel to the House of Commons, Nicholson claimed repeatedly that he had absolutely no authority to delay the extradition.

As a result, Schreiber had to be summoned before the ethics committee on a speaker's warrant. That had the effect of putting Schreiber in the "custody of Parliament" as long as his testimony is needed.

Schreiber then won a temporary reprieve from extradition last November. But if the Supreme Court of Canada rejects his appeal, he could well face extradition again as soon as this spring. And if that happens at a time when the speaker's warrant is no longer in effect (which it presumably wouldn't be once the committee hearings are over), then the decision whether or not to extradite Schreiber will once again fall solely into the hands of Rob Nicholson.

For those wondering, the Inquiries Act does provide for a warrant process - but only on the part of the actual commissioner. Which means that if the inquiry isn't convened until after the committee hearings end, there's bound to be at least some gap where Nicholson can decide to push Schreiber out of the country.

In effect, Harper's announcement suggests that no inquiry will be allowed to proceed as long as the speaker's warrant (or indeed any basis for a future warrant) exists. Which in turn removes the sole means for the opposition parties to ensure that Schreiber will be in the country to testify - leaving them at the Cons' mercy as to whether or not the most important witness will actually be available.

Of course, there is one solution to the time problem if the ethics committee hearings end before the court-ordered stay does. But the Cons would likely be entirely happy to minimize the damage Mulroney tends to to do their image within the committee. And even then, the opposition parties would have to rely on Harper's word that he'd actually call the inquiry rather than finding some excuse to do otherwise.

It remains to be seen how the hearings and inquiry will play out. But based on the Cons' track record, there's every reason for suspicion that they're looking for a way to get rid of Schreiber before he can fatally damage their godfather - and Harper's choice to delay the inquiry only makes that look all the more likely.

On responsibility

Shorter Jim Flaherty:
Canada's urban residents have nobody but themselves to blame for the causes of today's crumbling infrastructure. Take, for example, their choice not to flee the country when it was run by a Prime Minister who couldn't even keep his own head above water without taking back-room cash payments.

Perception first

Number of Con MPs who were eager to be seen supporting a former Prime Minister who acknowledges having taken $300,000 in cash from a man since charged with fraud and bribery as long as that little bit of unpleasantness was out of the public eye: 17.

Number of Con MPs who bailed on that same former Prime Minister once it became inevitable that Canadians would be reminded that he took $300,000 in cash from a man since charged with fraud and bribery: 17.

Once again, the Cons have sent a strong message that as far as they're concerned, anything can be overlooked just as long as nobody's paying too much public attention to it. Which should offer just one more reminder of both the need to keep the Cons under the microscope, and the likely rewards awaiting any effort to dig into what's currently being kept hidden.

On selective listening

There have been some reports suggesting that Deceivin' Stephen's actions surrounding the latest in the Mulroney/Schreiber scandal somehow represent a willingness to break with Mulroney and his ilk. But let's take a closer look at who and what Harper has actually listened to in deciding to allow for a public inquiry.

We can safely rule out any personal principle about actually keeping government clean, since Harper's office kept the facts under wraps for over seven months.

Opposition questioning on its own didn't lead to anything more than posturing from the Cons, as they sought to reach a mutual coverup agreement with the Libs.

How about public pressure? That was enough to force Harper to want to be seen doing something. But it wasn't enough for him to even hint at anything more than a third-party report (which may itself have been for Harper's eyes only).

But when the Godfather himself asks for a public inquiry? Suddenly, Harper feels the need to claim that his plan was to have one all along.

So don't take any pity on Mulroney in being "shunned" by the Cons; he can stay secure in the knowledge that he's still far more likely to have his concerns acted on by Harper's regime than almost anybody else in the country.

Plus ca change...

Remember back when the Cons' Reform base first crystallized backing the idea of empowered individual MPs as an alternative to the patronage and arm-twisting politics of Brian Mulroney?

Just wondering, since it looks like the ones who made it into office are once again in desperate need of a reminder.