Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Joseph Heath discusses how the Volkswagen emission cheating scandal fits into a particular type of corporate culture:

(W)hen the Deepwater Horizon tragedy occurred, or now the VW scandal, it was hardly surprising to people who follow these things. Certain industries essentially harbour and reproducing deviant subcultures. This is one of the reasons that much of the best work on white collar crime has been inspired by, and draws upon, work in juvenile delinquency. Whereas delinquents tend to exist in subcultures that reproduce deviant attitudes toward authority, many corporations reproduce subcultures that promote organized resistance to regulation.

This is a well-known feature of the automobile industry, and apparently this is what was happening at VW as well. One executive, speaking anonymously, blamed “the company’s isolation, its clannish board and a deep-rooted hostility to environmental regulations among its engineers. “
...
What can be said about this? Perhaps a few lessons: First, it serves as a helpful reminder that white collar crime remains a very serious social problem, one that attracts far too little public concern. This is partly because of an almost entirely supine business press – it remains that case that while the “news” section of newspapers focuses very heavily on criticizing the government, the “business” section almost never criticizes business, and does almost no investigative reporting or muckracking. (Notice that while political scandals are almost always uncovered by political reporters, the VW story was not broken by an “automotive” reporter.) Second, it is important to be aware that these criminogenic business subcultures, once developed, can be extremely difficult to eliminate. Thus it is a very important responsibility of management to set the right tone, to keep a careful eye on the corporate culture, and to take hard line when things start to get out of hand. Finally, there are many people who, for reasons of political ideology, are strongly critical of environmental law, health and safety regulation, financial regulation, the FDA, etc. These political ideologies are often appealed to by corporate criminals, as a way of legitimating their law-breaking activities. It seems to me, therefore, that those who express an ideological hostility to regulation bear a special responsibility for ensuring that their views are not misused in this way. This can be achieved, in part, by emphasizing the very significant difference between claiming that a law should be repealed and claiming that a law need not be obeyed.

- And on the subject of cultures where lawbreaking is seen as normal if not outright desirable, Andrew Nikiforuk reminds us of the multiple scandals surrounding Bruce Carson - involving both illegal lobbying and publicly-funded shilling for the oil industry.

- Meanwhile, Joseph Stiglitz sees the Trans-Pacific Partnership as nothing more than a means of entrenching corporate abuses into law around the globe. But Michael Harris notes that plenty of voters and activist groups will be fighting that choice in Canada. 

- Edward Keenan makes clear that the Cons' campaign of discrimination is intended to foment hatred against Muslims in general, while Sean Fine reports that the Cons' target voters are taking up the invitation to do violence against fellow Canadians. And Paula Simons highlights the arrogance involved in claiming to tell women what they may and may not wear.

- Finally, Haroon Siddiqui discusses the domestic damage being done by the Cons' politically-obsessed foreign policy.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Jim Stanford discusses how the Trans-Pacific Partnership is renegotiating NAFTA - and taking away what little Canada salvaged in that deal. And Jared Bernstein highlights the TPP's impact on prescription drug costs.

- Rick Smith rightly challenges the effort some people have made to minimize the difference between Canada's political parties:

Though the constant spinning of basically unchanging polling results is annoying, I’m not sure it’s corrosive to the democratic process.  On the other hand, the notion that it doesn’t matter who we elect is not only factually inaccurate, it does Canadians a disservice.

Over the past nine years an important part of the Conservative project has been to reduce participation in elections: restricting Election Canada’s ability to do outreach and education; making it harder for students and others to vote; and an outright disenfranchising of entire groups like Canadian expats. Diminishing the importance of voting just feeds this trend.  In fact, the only people who benefit from electoral nihilism are Conservatives, who have a vested interest in turning people off politics thereby keeping them home on election night.

Pretending that all politicians and party platforms are the same or shades of gray is also unfair to the many progressive community leaders running in this – and other elections — who are trying their damndest to actually make a difference. 

- But sadly, Kelly McParland only adds to Smith's list of commentators glossing over the real differences to create a narrative of voters tuning out the election.

- David Keith writes that the most scandalous element of Bruce Carson's involvement with the Cons is the role he and his oil industry cronies have played in exacerbating climate change. And Charles Mandel reports on yet another research library the Cons set out to destroy - though the good news is that in this case, PIPSC managed to step in before the damage was complete.

- Finally, Jeremy Nuttall reports that the Cons are also putting a price on previously-available information about temporary foreign workers. PressProgress finds a Con candidate telling young workers they should work for free rather than thinking paid employment is an option. And Sid Ryan offers his take on what the labour movement needs to do to improving working and living conditions for everybody.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Paul Weinberg discusses the need to focus on inequality in Canada's federal election, while Scott Deveau and Jeremy Van Loon take note of the fact that increased tax revenue is on the table. The Star's editorial board weighs in on the NDP's sound and progressive fiscal plan. And Matthew Yglesias includes the rise of the NDP as part of the growth of a new, international progressive movement.

- Rank and File interviews Michael Butler about the privatization of health care in Saskatchewan, as well as the role of the federal government in ensuring a viable public system. Thomas Walkom comments on Thomas Mulcair's health care promises - and the stark contrast between the NDP's efforts to build our health care system and the deafening silence from the Cons and the Libs. And the Wellesley Institute finds a similar lack of anything useful from the NDP's major-party opponent in analyzing prescription drug policies.

- Bruce Campbell compares the respective benefits Canada and Norway have managed to achieve from oil exploitation - with the result looking downright ugly due to what we've given away.

- Jorge Barrera reports on the latest revelations about the Harper Cons coming out of Bruce Carson's influence-peddling trial.

- Laura Payton reports on a deal the Cons struck with a gun lobby group - then reneged on - in order to silence opposition to Bill C-51. But Haydn Watters points out that the Cons are at least being quite helpful in branding themselves as the party of 24-hour surveillance. 

- Finally, Keith Boag writes that while we should demand more from our leaders, we won't get it unless people are also more engaged in how we're governed.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Jim Armitage discusses how the privatization of public services in the UK is being mashed up with the principles behind subprime lending and debt bundling - leading to a bubble which promises to take down investors and the public alike.

- Dylan Matthews offers what would seem to be a natural conclusion about the simplest, most effective answer to poverty:

As solutions to global poverty go, "just give poor people money" is pretty rock solid. A recent randomized trial found that Kenyans who received no-strings attached cash from the charity GiveDirectly built more assets, bought more goods, were less hungry, and were all-around happier than those who didn't get cash.

But voters and politicians generally prefer giving people specific goods — like housing, food, or health care — rather than plain old cash, for fear that the cash might get misused by unscrupulous poor people. Maybe the recipients will just blow the cash drinking! This particular concern comes up both in domestic and global poverty conversations; Fox News is obsessed with the possibility of people using federal government benefits like food stamps to buy fancy seafood or hang out at strip clubs, but mainstream global development experts often express these concerns too. As Paul Niehaus, the founder of GiveDirectly, once put it, "It is pretty ironic the number of conversations I have had with development people about the poor and their drinking—over drinks."
...
"We have investigated evidence from around the developing world, including Latin America, Africa, and Asia," Evans and Popova conclude. "There is clear evidence that transfers are not consistently used for alcohol or tobacco in any of these environments. This is particularly true when relying on randomized trials."

- Ellen Lawton and Megan Sandel discuss the value of dealing with poverty and other social determinants of health at the outset, rather than placing undue demands on our health care system:

We're starting to understand that poverty causes illness, not just for individuals, but for whole communities. Yet we talk about the effects of substandard housing, poor nutrition, and violence in a vacuum separate from the laws and policies that create and perpetuate these problems in the first place. And then we ask health care to clean up the mess.

Health care has long been in the business of treating the negative health effects of bad social policy. When there isn't enough safe affordable housing, when sanitary codes are unenforced and when cuts are made to housing voucher programs, doctors treat people for the injuries and asthma that ensue. When people live in food deserts without access to healthy food, or their SNAP applications are wrongfully denied, nurses help patients manage the low blood sugar episodes for diabetics who are hungry. And health care spends a lot of money doing it.

Now more than ever, with the prevention mandates of health reform, we are asking health care to be in the business of preventing illness. That's a tall order when so much of what makes people sick are underenforced laws and policies, underfunded public programs and ill-conceived public policies way outside the scope of what health care professionals are trained to do. Indeed research shows that only about fifteen percent of preventable illness can be improved with access to better medical care alone.

Health care providers should screen patients regularly for "social vital signs" -- problems with housing, hunger and domestic violence -- all of which are equal predictors of poor health as any vital sign taken for blood pressure or heartbeat. But we cannot ask nurses and doctors to write prescriptions for healthy housing or food when those "pharmacies" are empty.

- Meanwhile, Kelsey Johnson reports on the NDP's national food strategy - which should serve as a reminder of what could be accomplished by a government which actually saw the public good as something worth pursuing.

- Stephen Maher and Glen McGregor have been reporting on Michael Sona's trial - featuring the revelation that Con highers-up including Andrew Prescott saw Robocon as a national scheme. And Karl Nerenberg highlights some of what remains to be answered about Robocon, while Alison takes a look for herself.

- Finally, speaking of the Cons' standards for public service, Bruce Carson - he of the open door to the Prime Minister's office - is headed to trial for influence peddling. And Tim Naumetz reports on Benjamin Perrin's curious departure from the PMO just a day after Mike Duffy received his hush money from Nigel Wright.

Monday Morning Links

Assorted content to start your week.

- Jim Stanford looks into the fine print of the Hudak PCs' assumptions about corporate tax slashing and finds that even their own numbers show that most of the money gifted to corporations would be thrown away (emphasis added):

On second reading there are other interesting aspects to the Conference Board simulation of corporate tax reductions.  The one that jumped out at me was their estimate of increased business capital spending after the tax cut (reported in Table 5, and the main driver of economic benefits in the simulation), reported in the fifth line of Table 4.  They see an additional $133 million of business investment in the first year, rising to $227 million in the third year.  In other words, by their estimates, less than one dollar in three of the CIT cut is reinvested by business in new fixed capital investments.  This highlights the problem that has been experienced with CIT reductions as a stimulative tool.  They translate only weakly into new business spending.  That’s why the final gain in GDP (even counting indirect and induced multiplier effects) is always smaller than the initial cost of the tax cut.  Even in the Conference Board study, one big lasting legacy of CIT cuts will be an additional increment to corporate cash hoarding, worth over $600 million per year by the 10th year (comparing the value of the CIT reduction in that year to the modest increase in capital spending).  That sounds like a good reason not to do it at all.

Remember also that the Conference Board report did not incorporate (at the PCs’ request) the negative effects on GDP of employment from any offsetting reduction in other government programs (which the PCs have promised they would do, making the CIT cut supposedly “revenue neutral”).  They make this clear on p.5.  It is thus not a reasonable simulation of what the party is actually proposing.

- Meanwhile, Bill Curry reports on the Cons' choice to allow employers to import thousands of temporary foreign workers for the minimum wage rather than making effort to recruit local workers. And Julia Smith writes that the real issue with the TFWP lies in its development of jobs intended to be exploitative - no matter who ends up filling them:

(T)he jobs TFWP are filling do not come with the same rights that Canadian workers enjoy. TFWP visas for low wage jobs are tied to a specific employer and location, meaning TFWs can't leave one job for another if there's a problem. In many cases they're required to live in accommodation provided by their employer -- so if they lose their job they also lose their home.

Caregivers and agricultural workers, who make up the majority of TFWs, are not allowed to unionize. Instead, in cases of exploitation, they must submit individual grievances. As is well documented, when TFWs do complain, they risk unemployment, homelessness and deportation. One recruitment company emailed businesses with strategies to prevent TFWs from becoming 'Canadianized.' In others words, seeking Canadian labor standards.

Helena Sanchez, from the Temporary Foreign Workers Association of Quebec, notes, "We are paying taxes as Canadian citizens, but are not treated as citizens. We do not have the same rights as Canadians."
...
Sanchez says she hopes that instead of seeing TFW as competition, Canadian workers will stand with TFW and demand better conditions for all. "If Canadians protect TFW rights, they are also protecting their rights," she says, pointing out that if employers have to offer the same working conditions, then competition for jobs also becomes impartial.

- Michael Harris looks at the latest Bruce Carson influence peddling scandal - and the judgment of the prime minister who's repeatedly allowed a convicted fraudster into his inner circle:

Since [Carson] himself was not yet five years out from the date that his own government employment ended, it was illegal for him to be dealing with public office holders over the development or amendment of any government policy; the awarding of any grant; or the arranging of a meeting between a public office holder and any other person.

Why was he able to do that? Carson’s passport to the highest offices in the land bears Stephen Harper’s face.

So do tell us Mr. Prime Minister, besides a criminal record, a taste for young escorts, and an alleged yen for unregistered lobbying, how did Bruce Carson come to sit by your side – and why did you give him so much power and so much of the people’s money?

An explanation and an apology would be appropriate right about now.

- Matthew Millar reports that two Con MPs are using their time and public resources to develop a partisan election application - and figuring to gain personally in the process. And Sophia Harris finds yet another example of the Cons refusing to collect evidence which would show their choices are wrong-headed - this time dropping the survey questions which have shown their publicly-funded propaganda campaigns to serve no useful purpose.

- Finally, Susan Lunn reports on a belated federal attempt to look into growing shortages of prescription medications. But while Lunn rightly notes the futility of trying to address that problem with a list of which drugs are lacking, it's worth noting the obvious remedy: rather than merely setting up a slightly more organized system to beg big pharma to meet public health needs, it's entirely possible to set up a public manufacturer to actually end the shortages.

Parliament in Review: December 12, 2011

Monday, December 12 saw two main topics of debate. But perhaps most striking was the introduction of the Cons' newest tactic to dictate the terms of discussion in the House of Commons.

The Big Issue

Much of the day's discussion focused on the Cons' copyright bill. And Paul Calandra started proceedings by moving that question be put in order to prevent any amendments to the legislation at the last stage where the bill could be amended in substance; naturally Scott Simms among other lamented the fact that the Cons had started using yet another means to shut down discussion of any alternatives.

Calandra also grandstanded about how our corporate overlords would never be anything less than benevolent in deciding what rights consumers should hold, only to be met with Charlie Angus' example of Sony CDs containing spyware (which the Cons want to give precedence over any consumer rights). Jean Rousseau discussed the history of fair dealing. Philip Toone noted that the Cons' scheme could only be explained as an example of trickle-down theory run amok, while Andrew Cash highlighted the Cons' propensity for listening only to corporate interests. Cash then criticized the destruction of existing revenue streams for artists and noted that blanket licenses - unlike an undue focus on digital locks - would actually allow for more income for creators. Angus commented on the value of the digital commons which the Cons are attempting to make subject to corporate interests. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet and Matthew Dube discussed the value of the course notes the Cons want to make subject to involuntary self-destruction. And with the Cons unwilling to debate or answer questions about their own bill, Kevin Lamoureux and Jose Nunez Melo could only muse as to how nice it would be to get some assurance that consumers won't find that they've bought much less than they've bargained for due to digital locks.

No Such Thing as a Free Trade Agreement

The other bill debated was legislation on a free trade agreement with Panama - with Lisa Raitt likewise moving that the question be put to prevent the opposition from being able to offer any amendments to the bill as foisted on the country. Mathieu Ravignat, Wayne Easter, Robert Chisholm and Brian Masse pointed out Panama's status as a tax haven and money-laundering centre. Masse reasonably suggested that we shouldn't be seeking trade deals that would force Canada to try to compete with child labour. Elizabeth May pointed out some of the (possibly) unintended consequences of NAFTA in limiting governmental action. John McKay pointed to the Cons' consistent pattern of proclaiming themselves "surprised and disappointed" at international events that would have been known to anybody paying the slightest bit of attention. Simms asked whether Panama was similarly eager to avoid debate on the treaty, with Raitt's answer serving only to confirm that the Cons' steps to limit debate have nothing to do with any timeline to implement the treaty. And in a question that particularly resonates this weekend, Chisholm wondered whether we should actually know what's in a treaty and its implementing legislation before ramming them through.

Choose Your Side

As an added bonus, the House of Commons voted on the Cons' seat redistribution bill and related motions. And while the Libs lined up with the Cons to provide a larger cushion than usual for the complete lack of change to the government's wording, it's noteworthy that Elizabeth May joined the Bloc in support of the NDP's motions.

In Brief

Joy Smith's bill on human trafficking received all-party agreement at second reading. Pat Martin warmed the crowd up for question period by pointing to Bruce Carson's sordid history as a Con adviser and beneficiary. Nycole Turmel and Peter Julian questioned the Cons on their suppression of economic and trade data. Matthew Kellway helpfully provided Julian Fantino with his talking points on F-35s after having heard them a few dozen times already; Fantino apparently didn't have enough self-control to avoid sticking with them even after being rightly mocked in advance. Helene Laverdiere pointed out the Cons' continued secrecy about the terms of a new Afghan transfer agreement. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe questioned why the Cons have handed billions of free dollars to banks rather than helping the many Canadians living in poverty. May asked whether Parliament would at least have the chance to debate withdrawal from Kyoto that it had in acceding to the treaty in the first place. Mylene Freeman commented on a committee report on violence against aboriginal women by noting that the Cons had refused to either acknowledge the problem or take responsibility for any solutions. And in adjournment questions Irene Mathyssen followed up on the Cons' mismanagement of Service Canada which has led to the point where most callers can't even get through to a machine, while Jean Crowder asked whether the Cons will support the NDP's bill for a national anti-poverty strategy if they can't be bothered to deal with the problem of their own volition.

Wednesday Afternoon Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Frances Russell comments on how the Cons' war mentality is leading them to shut down any inconvenient opposition using unprecedented procedural tricks:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper won his coveted majority by convincing Canadians his radical days were behind him. So what are Canadians to make of the Conservatives' recent conduct?

They are using their majority on parliamentary committees to block investigations of politically embarrassing issues by going in camera, where MPs are bound by secrecy and can be found in contempt of Parliament if they talk.
...
University of Manitoba political scientist Paul Thomas says going behind closed doors in parliamentary committees is part of the standing orders. Traditionally, however, it is restricted to personnel or national-security issues.

He notes, however, that "even when they were in minority, the Conservatives produced a 100-page instruction manual for their MPs on how to frustrate the committee process." He laments the injection of fierce partisanship into committees. Historically, committees were the one venue where parties could cross party lines and do bi-partisan inquiry.

"The Conservatives seem prepared to frustrate the standing committees from doing any serious work probing into government performance," Thomas continued in an interview. Value for money investigations "have become a joke. It's depressing, really."

If the issue before the committee is sufficiently serious, opposition MPs might consider risking the consequences, taking off their gags and alerting the public, Thomas says. What would the consequences be? Likely sanction by the Speaker and suspension from Parliament.

Asked if this smacks of authoritarianism, Thomas replied "Yes, there's a real aura about it."

- Tim Harper muses about some reasons for reduced voter turnout:

While it is too much to expect that more inspiring politicians and more inspiring campaigns would spark a stampede to the polls, votes that do not promise change are votes that do not create excitement.

The year of the incumbent also means the year of voter suppression — not in the sinister, underhanded way the term implies — but a year of governing parties happy to keep turnout low because, historically, low turnout means advantage to the incumbent.

It also explains why any radical overhaul of the voting system is met with such indifference by incumbent governments, which have just benefited from an existing system that lets the sleeping voter lie.

These factors ride shotgun with a lack of anger in this country in 2011.

Whether this contentment is misplaced or not is certainly a matter for debate, but a lack of anger plays to the collective shrug we are seeing during successive campaigns this year.

- Greg Weston digs into how Harper insider Bruce Carson used (and misused) federal green energy funding after being hired to head the Canada School of Energy and Environment.

- Finally, the Sask Party spent years citing SaskTel's subsidiary Navigata as their poster case as to why Crowns shouldn't do any business outside the province. Now, SOS Crowns makes it clear exactly how responsible they were in disposing of the province's investment:

Following the adoption of the Sask First policy, the Brad Wall government began the process to divest of a number of Crown Corporation subsidiaries including Navigata in 2009...(T)he organization including their physical assets was sold for only $1.25 million. At that time, the purchase price was minuscule compared to the estimated value for all of the physical assets and infrastructure.

Even though Ken Cheveldayoff, former Minister of Crown Corporations, insisted at the time that subsidiaries would not be sold off at fire sale prices, the truth is now being revealed.

Recently, SOS Crowns learned that the new owner of Navigata has chosen to redirect the core focus of the company, resulting in the sale of their microwave communication towers for $18 million.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Henry Farrell points out why supposedly progressive ideas which don't do anything to counter corporate power are doomed to failure:

Neo-liberals tend to favor a combination of market mechanisms and technocratic solutions to solve social problems. But these kinds of solutions tend to discount politics – and in particular political collective action, which requires strong collective actors such as trade unions. This means that vaguely-leftish versions of neo-liberalism often have weak theories of politics, and in particular of the politics of collective action. I see Doug and others as arguing that successful political change requires large scale organized collective action, and that this in turn requires the correction of major power imbalances (e.g. between labor and capital). They’re also arguing that neo-liberal policies at best tend not to help correct these imbalances, and they seem to me to have a pretty good case. Even if left-leaning neo-liberals are right to claim that technocratic solutions and market mechanisms can work to relieve disparities etc, it’s hard for me to see how left-leaning neo-liberalism can generate any self-sustaining politics. I’m sure that critics can point to political blind spots among lefties (e.g. the difficulties in figuring out what is a necessary compromise, and what is a blatant sell-out), but these don’t seem to me to be potentially crippling, in the way that the absence of a neo-liberal theory of politics (who are the organized interest groups and collective actors who will push consistently for technocratic efficiency?) is.

- Yes, the Cons have been told that environmental protection is important, including for economic reasons. No, they don't care in the slightest. Yes, this is a scandal.

- But then, maybe the Cons are just too busy looking for corporate money-making opportunities to act on what they know about the environment. And who won't feel better knowing that search-and-rescue operations are being carried out by the lowest bidder?

- Finally, it's great news that SaskTel will be connecting 28 First Nations communities with high-speed Internet and wireless coverage. But to fully appreciate the importance of the step, it's also worth highlighting how long the same connections would likely have taken if the private sector were left to its own devices.

Monday Afternoon Links

Content goes here.

- Let's start with a couple of slightly older pieces which I didn't post originally. First, the CCPA's This or That graphic nicely contrasts the costs of Con priorities compared to what the same amount of money could accomplish if directed toward social spending.

- And second, Dennis Gruending's list of organizations defunded by the Cons speaks volumes about the Canada they've been working to destroy.

- Following up on yesterday's post, Saskboy and Dr. Dawg have more on Stephen Harper's willingness to add a repeatedly-convicted fraudster to his inner circle.

- What thwap said, especially this paragraph on the long-term damage done by the Harper Cons:

What's really depressing though is that a lot of the damage has already been done. Our national political culture has been infected with harper's contempt for our fragile and limited democracy. The view that Parliament is a "kangaroo court" where everything is all stupid, self-interested partisanship all the time, is more ingrained in our minds than ever. The view that all politicians are all crooks, the view that our political process is a joke, and will always be a joke, and that this joke is told by a completely inferior grade of people, and is therefore of no account, is more firmly entrenched than ever. Furthermore, the extremes of executive arrogance, secrecy, and abuse of power that harper has tested pushed the envelope for subsequent governments. Will it be the case that just like Obama has in many ways gone beyond the abuses of the bush II regime, that later Canadian governments will use harper's extremism as the new normal and further denigrate our system's democratic restraints on the powers of the executive branch?

- And finally, deBeauxOs catches Lib candidate Scott Bradley in a lie that likely makes him a prime candidate for Stephen Harper's inner circle in terms of both honesty and ethics.

On key qualifications

It's now obvious that repeated convictions for fraud - spread out over a period of decades - weren't considered an obstacle to Bruce Carson becoming one of Stephen Harper's most trusted political operatives. But can we say for sure that his track record of brazen deception wasn't seen as an outright plus?

Wednesday Morning Links

Assorted content for your mid-week reading.

- Gregory Lang makes the case for targeted tax breaks designed to encourage the types of corporate activity we most want to see, rather than constant slashing of general corporate tax rates in hopes that it will produce the desired results:

The variance between corporate income tax rates and the actual tax corporations pay represents the tool kit of social policy and the means to support every corporation in becoming a better corporate citizen. Low corporate income tax rates necessarily mean that tax-benefit incentives are less valuable to the corporation. For example, capital equipment investment tax write-offs are more attractive the higher the corporate income tax rate.

Tax credits and other tax accounting “loopholes” simultaneously provide a government with mechanisms to influence the competitive conditions in our economy and may also be the least expensive and most effective regulatory tools available. Environmental policy and carbon emission regulations, for example, while now seeming “so last recess,” can be more effectively implemented when the incentive for the corporation is lower actual taxes instead of increased regulations. Corporations are already keenly aware of their bottom line, and an available tax policy that serves to improve it will be pursued when it makes economic sense for them to do so.

High corporate income tax rates, along with aggressive social policy-driven tax accounting benefits, can create the conditions for the lowest effective corporate tax burden and the most efficient social policy mechanisms in the world.

Zero corporate income tax has merit only where every citizen is employed and paying personal income and sales taxes. The tax burden must fall somewhere. High corporate income tax rates, along with social policy-based tax credits, can create the conditions for zero corporate taxes payable – when corporations cause zero unemployment.
...
Low corporate income tax rates are both an unsustainable “cost” advantage globally and a disincentive to innovation for other competitive advantages. Low corporate income tax rates empty the proverbial social policy tool box and make our economy less flexible. And with less flexibility, we inherently increase our risk of succumbing to catastrophic failure: an economic recession.

- Which leads nicely to the NDP's proposal to target tax breaks toward businesses who actually create jobs:

If the NDP formed the government, Mr. Layton said he would cut the small business tax rate to 9 per cent from 11 per cent. But he would also boost the corporate tax rate to the 2008 level of 19.5 per cent from its current 16.5 per cent.
...
“I’ll ensure that Canada’s corporate tax rate contributes to our competitive edge,” Mr. Layton said. But the Conservative “money for nothing” scheme has led to the disappearance of 600,000 “family-supporting, highly skilled” jobs, “many of them in communities like Oshawa.”

The New Democrats would also bring in a job creation tax credit for employers of $4,500 for every new hire. And they would extend the capital cost allowances for the next four years.

- Sure, the fact that it's sex-scandal-ridden Bruce Carson makes for a nice addition to the story. But shouldn't it be enough of an embarrassment for the Cons that a member of Stephen Harper's inner circle specifically worked to turn an environmental research group funded by millions of public dollars into a PR front for the tar sands?

- Finally, I'm not sure that shaming and scolding the public is quite the best way to go. But David Akin's appeal to Canadians to vote is nonetheless worth a read.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- I'm sympathetic to Greenpeace's argument that Bruce Carson should be seen as having lobbied the Cons on the tar sands as well as on water. But I'm not sure it entirely holds up based on another of the most obvious loopholes in the Cons' lobbying scheme.

Based on the regulations designed by the Cons, if the government asks for input from a person or group, the resulting discussion doesn't count as lobbying. Which means that the Cons' lobbying rules serve mostly to impose additional obligations on anybody presenting a message they don't want to hear, while ensuring that their cronies can pitch and develop self-interested schemes at the Cons' invitation without having to disclose a word of it.

- In case there was any doubt, even the Cons' numbers confirm that corporate tax measures have been by far the least effective form of stimulus over the past several years - to the point where they feel obliged to include a vague footnote about their having "among the higher multiplier effects in the long run" to justify the obvious lack of near-term benefit. Notably missing, of course, is any actual comparison of the multiplier for any other type of investment.

- While I still take the view that a real defence of a coalition stands to benefit all opposition parties, John Geddes is right in noting that more talk of cooperative politics is ultimately a plus for the NDP:

The coalition issue remains so novel in Canada that how it might play out over a full campaign is impossible to predict. Public opinion turned against the concept in the fall of 2008, but a senior NDP campaign strategist says debate surrounding it could actually help them in an election. The NDP has long struggled against the reluctance of many voters to cast a ballot for a party that doesn’t stand much chance of winning. If the possibility of a coalition with the Liberals gains wider acceptance, the strategist says, then Layton’s platform will be have to be viewed more seriously as a potential part of that government policy. Winning outright won’t be everything anymore. Some NDP organizers hope that realization will force the media, and the public, to pay closer attention to Layton’s positions on the issues.

- Finally, Linda McQuaig highlights the glaring gap between the supposed need to give the wealthy everything they could think to ask for and more, and the expectation that everybody else will pitch in to make up the difference:

(W)hy is greed and love of money considered good in the case of a wealthy investor, while the wider desire for simply a decent living standard is increasingly considered an expectation that may have to be curbed in ordinary citizens?

As deficits pile up, we are soon to be inundated with the message that we are living beyond our means and must learn to do with less.

Certainly, our small wealthy super-elite seems determined to ensure that nothing gets in the way of its right to fully indulge its greed, and that the burden of deficit-reduction is imposed on others.
...
(T)here’s nothing “realistic” about the conclusion that the middle class — either here or in the U.S. — must learn to do with less, that we must accept a world where parents are forced to choose between affording their retirement and sending their kids to college.

Both Canada and the U.S. were deficit-free not long ago. Indeed, Canada was running major surpluses until the 2008 Wall Street crash sent the world economy reeling.

What is unsustainable is society’s willingness to accommodate the greed of the super-rich.
...
The solution isn’t to censor (Kevin O'Leary) and his billionaire friends, simply give them less air time and tell them, sweethearts, we’re just going to have to raise your taxes.

On irregularities

Sure, it may not be the most salacious of the details from the Cons' First Nations water scandal discussed by Stephen Maher. But it's well worth noting that Bruce Carson's sales pitch looks to have received a positive response from the Cons' government, even while the First Nations involved were highly suspicious of the scheme:

Rules brought in by Harper restrict public office holders like Carson from lobbying government officials on behalf of clients for five years, but he met officials in the Indian Affairs department four times between September 2010 and January 2011, The Canadian Press has reported.

And emails obtained by The Chronicle Herald show Carson made a direct sales pitch to Lysane Bolduc, senior infrastructure engineer in the infrastructure operations directorate at Indian and Northern Affairs Canada in Ottawa.

Carson called Bolduc early on the morning of Feb. 17 to discuss the proposal.

She emailed him at 6:39 a.m.: "Items discussed this morning include your raising of H20 Pro’s desire to install between 50 and 100 point-of-entry drinking water systems in the Mohawk Bay of Quinte community."

She sent copies of the email to four officials directly involved with funding decisions.

He replied to all the officials: "As set out in this email, one method to move forward on this matter could be for the Mohawks of Bay of Quinte to pass a band council resolution."

The Mohawk band near Bellville, Ont., is under a permanent boil order, so they were receptive to the pitch from H20, which would have placed water purification units, costing $3,600 each, in homes with bad water.

In an Oct. 14 letter to the band council, Hill said that if the Mohawks passed a resolution, the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs would pay.

"Should you decide to participate in our water treatment and purification program, you and your community will benefit from this project, which will be completely funded by (the department)," he said.

The council, which found the pitch irregular, checked with the department last week, before the story broke.

"I was very concerned that there was name dropping to get the council to buy into it," said Chief Donald Maracle.

Now, it remains an open question as to how much of the willingness to put Carson in touch with civil servants responsible for funding decisions was simply a matter of DIAND generally cooperating with proposals received from outside actors, and how much was based on Carson's connections to Harper's inner circle. But it seems rather striking that a government which is supposed to be concerned with accountability and propriety seems to have been far more lax than the First Nations on the opposite end of Carson's plans - and the question of how that came to pass looks likely to keep the story live for some time to come.

Truly scandalous

Paul Wells is right to note where the more fundamental scandal lies in the Cons' handling of the desperate need to make clean water available to Canada's First Nations. But it's well worth noting that there's a more recent set of equally problematic developments, as hinted at by the Globe and Mail's coverage:

First nations leaders were allegedly being warned by the promoters of the H2O Pro system that new legislation before the Senate will require them to meet stringent drinking water standards but will provide no resources to do so.

Lest there be any doubt, that message wasn't simply a matter of the system's promoters making something up that wasn't already known to the First Nations involved. In fact, Shawn Atleo raised exactly the same criticism of the bill at the time - so it's only the failings of the Harper Cons to back up new rules with matching resources that made the pitch even remotely plausible.

Which leads to this...

The communities were allegedly told that government connections could be used to find money for the equipment and training if they purchased the systems.

And that's where the Carson scandal most clearly highlights the ultimate problem with the Harper government.

If the party in charge of allocating funding hadn't spent the last five years looking for more and more blatant ways to direct public funds for political benefit, or if anybody bought that the Cons would deal with anybody honestly or transparently, then a sales pitch based solely on political connections rather than merit would have been laughed out of the communities involved and immediately exposed. But given the Cons' actions while in office, the concept looks to have been taken fairly seriously - and until APTN broke the story nationally, the communities themselves seem to have been scared enough of reprisals to avoid saying anything publicly.

So the real problem underlying the Carson story is that the Harper Cons have been so thoroughly unresponsive to First Nation needs as to create the opportunity for Carson - and so thoroughly motivated by politics in doling out benefits that nobody seems to have entirely doubted the claim that privileged access to public money might be available if the right people were able to take a cut. And the fact that this particular scheme was eventually sniffed out (with no substantial help from the Harper government) doesn't mean anybody else has reason to think otherwise.

Speak no evil

Just so we're clear, Bruce Carson, as a prominent former member of Stephen Harper's inner circle, lobbied Harper government officials well within the period in which he was prohibited from doing so. And the Harper Cons reported and did absolutely nothing until the media broke the story months later.

We'll have to see whether more cases turn up, particularly now that someone as prominent as Carson has turned up in a reported incident. But for all the Cons' tough talk on lobbying, Carson's case strongly suggests that their attitude toward lobbying (as with any other way of skirting the rules for the benefit of their friends and cronies) is to encourage it until somebody else stops them.