Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Dana Brown and Thomas Hanna discuss the possibility of a public option for access to medication in the U.S. And while the Winnipeg Free Press warns that Brian Pallister might want to stand in the way of a national pharmacare program, that hardly seems a reasonable excuse to discard the possibility.

- Elaine Povich reports on the unexpectedly high revenue from Seattle's soda tax.

- Michael Geist is duly skeptical of the latest attempt to excuse the gouging of Canadian consumers by the telecommunications sector, while Bill Curry reports on Jim Balsillie's warnings about the spread of surveillance capitalism. And Yves Engler reminds us that rather than reining in the excesses of Stephen Harper's surveillance state, the Trudeau Libs are pouring more money and power into extending it.

- Ivan Ascher points out why corporate thinking patterns won't lead to the action we need to combat climate change, while Chantelle Bellrichard reports on Kinder Morgan's willingness to accommodate Nestle and other business interests even as it ignores the needs of people who stand to be affected by any Trans Mountain expansion. And Tom Embury-Dennis notes that Costa Rica's government leadership has led it toward becoming the world's first decarbonized society.

- Finally, Drew Brown rightly slams the plans of Jason Kenney and Alberta's UCP to forcibly out LGBT children to their parents.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Tom Parkin writes that greed is the only reason why we haven't yet completed a full health care system with a pharmacare program:

If we had a universal pharmacare plan — one that saves lives and relieves suffering — it would cost $4.6 billion less than the current hodge podge of private plans and government assistance, which leaves millions uninsured. That’s $4.6 billion wasted to get a bad result.

Raising the $5.9 billion isn’t the tough part. Two steps. First, reverse some of the massive tax cuts our politicians have given to businesses. The trickle down theory never worked anyway. And with universal pharmacare, businesses are going to save billions in payroll costs.
...

No, the tough part is finding politicians with the courage to squeeze $4.6 billion out of big pharma and insurance companies. Because when you squeeze $4.6 billion out of a wasteful, inefficient industry that doesn’t deliver the goods, they have 4.6 billion reasons to fight back.

The morality won’t matter. Not the suffering and dying. Not the inefficiency. When big money is at risk, killing is just part of the process. Look at tobacco. Or guns. Or opioids.

Canadians need to support those politicians who are willing to win this fight. Because if we don’t, they can’t. And the unnecessary and immoral dying, suffering and waste will continue.

- Meanwhile, the Star's editorial board calls for greater transparency in the money funneled by pharmaceutical manufacturers toward Canadian doctors.

- Daniel Dutton and Jennifer Zwicker point out that some of the most effective investments in health are aimed at socioeconomic improvements, while the Press Association reports on the UK's alarming increase in child poverty as an example of the consequences of ignoring the social determinants of health. And the Chronicle Herald's editorial board weighs in on the value of early childhood education as a long-term investment.

- Henry Farber, Daniel Herbst, Ilyana Kuziemko and Suresh Naidu study (PDF) the connection between improved union organization rates and reduced inequality. And conversely, Anelyse Weiler and Amy Cohen discuss how the precarious legal status of seasonal farm workers leaves them ripe for abuse and exploitation.

- Finally, Vicky Mochama comments on the dangers of law enforcement treating journalism and activism as excuses for surveillance and disruption.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Kady O'Malley writes that after years of delays on their promise to reassess Bill C-51, civil rights are just one more area where the Libs' proclamations about "open government" have given way to a closed-door process where only their plans are being given any meaningful consideration.

- Meagan Day makes the case for clinical pharmaceutical trials to be publicly funded (and their full results disclosed). But Jordan Press reports that rather than ensuring that matters of public interest are under public control, the Libs are bargaing ahead with to turn social services into opportunities for corporate profit extraction.

- David Climenhaga highlights the underreporting of workplace injuries in Alberta - and the importance of correcting that problem in order to ensure that safety rules can be effective:

Alberta government statistics for 2016 show that more than 45,500 workers suffered disabling injuries on the job. But because of underreporting, the researchers concluded, the real number was closer to 170,000, and that more than 400,000 experienced one workplace injury in 2016.

"The data suggest a breakdown in the internal responsibility system that is at the heart of the workplace health and safety system in the province," said Matsunaga-Turnbull, executive director of the Alberta Workers Health Centre.

Barnetson, an Athabasca University labour studies professor, acknowledged that Alberta's NDP Government legislated real improvements in worker health and safety when Labour Minister Christina Gray last year brought in the first major changes in occupation health and safety legislation in Alberta in more than 40 years.

However, Barnetson and Matsunaga-Turnbull suggested, the improvements legislated by the NDP won’t mean much without meaningful enforcement.

Accordingly, they called for more, and more vigorous, workplace inspections -- which, of course, would require the hiring of more inspectors. Other recommendations included publication of workplace safety orders, mandatory penalties that escalate for repeat offenders, public shaming of violators, prosecution of employers who retaliate against workers, and an end to the Tory blame-the-worker tactic of ticketing employees.

- Carl Meyer reports on the announcement of federal regulations addressing methane emissions - albeit only on the oil industry's preferred timetable. And Kate Lyons looks at some geoengineering possibilities to counter the effects of climate change.

- Finally, Tom Parkin writes that the Trans Mountain expansion may soon be going the same way as the Northern Gateway - and for the same reasons as the Trudeau Libs' neglect of Indigenous rights has become clear. 

[Edit: added link.]

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Thomas Walkom discusses Canada's likely NAFTA decision between an even worse deal than exists now, and no deal at all - though it's worth recognizing that the latter choice shouldn't be seen as a problem. And Alex Panetta points out the Libs' total lack of transparency as to the effects of the options currently on the table.

- Trevor Hancock argues that the Canada Pension Plan should join other large public funds in making a move away from dependence on fossil fuel development.

- Meanwhile, Carl Meyer reports on a new study suggesting that Canada's primary tar sands operators may be sitting on $2 trillion in liability from carbon pollution alone. And Marco Chown Oved exposes half a billion dollars in tax avoidance by a single copper mining firm by claiming billions of dollars in profits through a Luxembourg subsidiary with one part-time employee.

- Tom Parkin discusses the need for improved protections against sexual harassment in federal workplaces. And Sabrina Nanji reports on the growing calls for effective anti-harassment rules in legislatures in particular, while Tim Harper points out the need for cultural change beyond legislation alone.

- Finally, Daniel Brown and Michael Lacy write that the Trudeau Libs are falling far short of what voters expected when it comes to justice reform. And Alex Boutilier points out that rather than fixing the abusive elements of Bill C-51, the Libs have actually expanded the unaccountable disruption of Canadians' activities without any meaningful oversight.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Rachel Bunker writes that Equifax represents the worst of an out-of-control capitalist system, as a poorly-regulated and unreliable credit reporting operation is making profits for itself by reinforcing existing discrimination among other businesses.

- Naomi Klein discusses this summer's spate of wildfires and widespread smoke as showing how climate change is literally causing key parts of our planet to burn. 

- Mario Canseco argues that confusion as to the meaning of a child care program shouldn't serve as an obstacle to implementing a system which offers parents much-needed options in British Columbia.

- Jorge Barrera reports that even as the Libs have pleaded poverty in refusing to provide equal funding for on-reserve education and child welfare services, they've handed out nearly half a million dollars to a party-friendly consultant to reiterate the obvious. 

- Beatrice Britneff and Kyle Duggan report on Apotex' attempt to stifle an investigation into its lobbying of the Libs. And Murray Mandryk comments on the latest revelations of Sask Party wrongdoing from the Global Transportation Hub, while Sean Holman highlights how governments are still suppressing far too much information from Canadians. 

- Finally, Jim Bronskill reports on the Libs' absolute failure to fix the most important problems with Bill C-51.

On discriminatory treatment

Following up on this post, let's take a look at Tom Parkin's other recent post which offers plenty of food for thought. Parkin's view broadly matches Guy Caron's position on Quebec's treatment of people who wear niqabs - but seems to me to fall short of making the case for deferring to Quebec's politicians when it comes to basic principles of inclusion and nondiscrimination.

At the outset, Parkin and Caron both disagree on the merits with legislation such as Bill 62 denying service to women based on what they wear. So the argument boils down to whether there's a particular reason to hold back in discussing harmful legislation - or offer artificial "respect" to a view which is both wrong in policy, and based in part on discriminatory intent - because of the nature of the body which has passed it.

And the NDP hasn't established a strict standard along similar lines before. For example, it worked on banning the mining and sale of asbestos in the face of a unanimous resolution of the National Assembly to continue the industry, and before any Quebec politician spoke out on the same side of the issue.

In addition to being on the right side of history on the merits, that action wasn't apparently seen as problematic based on the application of the Sherbrooke Declaration (PDF) - and certainly doesn't seem to have affected Jack Layton's strategy for building bridges in Quebec.

But is there something different in the combination of political and public views about the niqab? There, one has to ask whether any position is likely to hold up in the face of scrutiny. 

Needless to say, the prime example on that front is the federal Bill C-51 - which was viewed as a political slam-dunk for the Harper Cons until they ran into principled opposition from the NDP. Within months, Canadians had turned against the bill and the government which introduced it, while rewarding the party which had the backbone to speak up.

To be sure, there's no guarantee that public opinion would similarly change on Bill C-62. But it's dangerous to assume that public opinion is set in stone, particularly when one side of an issue hasn't been given a full hearing on the merits. And there's plenty of reason to doubt that the politics of exclusion in Quebec are as much a winner as they're assumed to be.

Key precedents include both the Parti Quebecois' fall from power as it tried to run on its Charter of Values, and the fact that the top two vote shares in 2015 federally (covering 62% of the popular vote) went to parties which opposed the Cons' attempt to discriminate against people who wear a niqab.

Moreover, there's an obvious opening to introduce new policies based on NDP values to Quebec's political scene.

It's undoubtedly for members of the new Quebec-based party to decide what their priorities are, and the federal party should pay close attention one way or the other. But I'd suggest some of the most important opportunities for the NPD-Quebec involve areas where it's possible to stand apart from the existing parties - and Bill 62 is one example where unanimity among current politicians may not match the public mood, particularly if there's a distinct choice on offer.

And that could lay the groundwork for what I'd hope will be the NDP's long-term plans to retake progressive terrain from the Libs.

In 2015, the difference in the effect of the niqab issue between the Libs and the NDP arose from the fact that the former was never challenged as the loudest voice on the side of opposing discrimination, while the latter hadn't yet spoken up on similar cultural issues. But that effect could be reversed if there's a link between a federal NDP and a Quebec counterpart which both take a forceful position against discrimination, while the Liberal brand is split from one level to the other. 

To conclude, there's always reason for skepticism about the political choice to stay silent in the face of false conventional wisdom. And even from the standpoint of political calculation, the NDP is likely better served confirming that voters who care about minority rights can count on it, rather than answering fundamental questions with an awkward silence or a jurisdictional dodge.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Lana Payne writes that austerity bears much of the blame for the Grenfell Tower inferno - as well as for the increased dangers facing all but the wealthiest of people:

Grenfell Tower was not an accident. It is what happens when austerity becomes entrenched government ideology.

Grenfell Tower is the tragic consequence of an economic system that no longer works for most people, but instead fuels inequality and greed.

Grenfell Tower is the tragic consequence of government indifference and arrogance and, yes, even contempt for those struggling to make ends meet every single day, working multiple jobs and still unable to move up the so-called mobility ladder.

It has nothing to do with how hard they work, because for the most part they work too much and too hard, and yet the system is stacked against them. And then governments, acting on behalf of the few rather than the many, make those circumstances worse. They push a university or college education out of reach. They slash and burn and cut back on all the programs that allow people to have a chance at a better life. And they do it while slashing taxes for the rich and global corporations.

And then they cave to the lobbies that complain that health and safety regulations are red tape.

- And Oolong argues that austerity is best viewed as today's form of human sacrifice in the name of a false religion.

- Erika Shaker examines the spread of precarious work in Ontario's education sector (as well as in the broader economy).

- Nora Loreto points out how Canada's big banks are raking in billions in profits while slashing jobs - and wonders why reporting on one of those facts seldom mentions the other. And Tom Murphy discusses how multinational corporations are lobbying to sneak implicit approval for tax evasion into the UN's sustainable development goals.

- Meanwhile, Noah Smith observes that decades of corporate giveaways have been rewarded with a decline in business investment in the U.S.

- Finally, Thomas Walkom highlights how Justin Trudeau is following in Stephen Harper's footsteps by expanding an unaccountable security state at the expense of Canadians' privacy. Jeremy Nuttall points out how the Libs have broken their promises on access to information. And Kelly McParland writes that broken promises and sudden reversals represent the main theme of Trudeau's stay in power.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Richard Seymour follows up on Jeremy Corbyn's electoral success by highlighting the importance of a grassroots progressive movement which stays active and vibrant between election cycles:

Labour needs only a small swing to win a majority if there were to be another election, and current polling suggests they would get it. On top of this, the government’s appalling handling of the Grenfell fire, in contrast to Corbyn’s widely welcomed intervention, has blown apart May’s already shaken personal authority. It has also exposed a wider crisis of legitimacy for the growth model that has dominated British society since the 1980s – neoliberalism, wherein markets and competition are sacrosanct. There is a moment of radicalisation taking place, such as we have not seen in years, and it could propel to office the most radical, reforming government since 1945. So, the ‘eyes on the prize’ mentality makes sense. 

But proximity to government raises urgent strategic problems, unique in Labour’s history. The current Labour leadership is, for the first time, systematically trying to drive British politics to the Left. Its method of doing so has been to lever into political activity and electoral engagement large groups of people long abandoned by the political system, by making them a political offer they haven’t heard in years. It relies on people being excited enough by the alternative to fight for it. And it is how Labour turned Tory seats red, marginals into safe seats, and safe seats into towering majorities, with thousands of activists ignoring the defensive campaign run by Labour HQ and campaigning through Momentum.

...

Labour’s manifesto is a compromise between a traditional Labour agenda, and that of the radical left. It is rather that the compromises Corbyn would be forced to make would be determined, largely, by the political momentum within the country. 

 

A Corbyn-led Labour government would, quite unusually, need an activist, critical base to hold its feet to the fire. Activists, of course, are always free to go further than their leaders, to build support for ideas going further than ministers are able to go. But in the event of a Labour government, paradoxically, as Corbyn and his allies negotiate with far more powerful institutions, activists may need to build public pressure and even protest in support of government policy.

Corbyn is right to call for permanent campaign mode. But if he is to lead the most reforming government since 1945, the campaigning must not end after election day.

- In one area where there's room for public protest to make a significant difference in government policy, Kathleen Harris offers a look at the Libs' security state legislation - which among other things goes beyond even the spread of state authority under C-51 by extending disruption powers to the Communications Security Establishment. And Ryan Maloney reports on the Libs' broken promises on access to information - as well as Thomas Mulcair's pointed critique in response.

- Karl Nerenberg writes that disrespect for Parliament is just one more area where it's impossible to tell the Trudeau Libs apart from their predecessors.

- Finally, Bill Tieleman writes that the Clark Libs are standing in the way of desperately-needed governance by clinging to power as temporary placeholders. And Mike Harcourt argues that B.C. needs to put an end to the Site C debacle for once and for all.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- John Harris discusses the appeal of Jeremy Corbyn's tendency toward genuine conversation rather than soundbites. And Gary Younge notes that the pundit class' dismissal of Corbyn has proven to say a lot more about their faulty assumptions than about the prospects of progressive politics:

The economic crash and the austerity that followed caused a tectonic shift in our political culture; what people wanted from a centre-left party changed. But the received wisdom about electability did not. Its high priests kept insisting elections are won in the centre, without any apparent understanding that the centre can move and, in times of extreme polarisation, disappear. The pragmatists turned dogmatic; the modernisers became conservative.

But the principal problem with the notion of electability is that it is promoted on the premise that what has not been tried cannot possibly succeed. It suggests the way people see the world at any given moment cannot be changed through argument and activism and instead erects borders for what is permissible discussion and polices them determinedly. Those who dream outside those borders are utopian; those who speak outside them are fools.

The trouble is that in times of crisis, like this, the cost of thinking outside those borders becomes lower for many than the price of living within them. While received wisdom comes with no receipt, it’s always the same people who pick up the tab. A candidate who has connected domestic terrorism and foreign wars and argued for the redistribution of wealth to shore up public services has been surging. This, we were told, was not possible. It’s why, for the first time in a long time, a significant number of people are excited about an election.

We don’t know if his party will win. We will find that out on Thursday. The only way to truly know if something is electable is to fight for it and vote for it.

- Meanwhile, Steve Thrasher argues that if we face any real threat to free speech, it's the violent reaction of reactionary elements against the prospect that women and people of colour could seek to exercise it. And CBC reports on how Regina Mayor Michael Fougere and two City Councillors are seeking to stifle civil disobedience. 

- Crawford Kilian makes the case to put terrorism in perspective as an extremely small factor compared to many other causes of avoidable harm. Which makes for a needed contrast against John Ivison, who seems outraged that anybody would look behind "but terrorism!" as an excuse for an expansive and unaccountable security state.

- Finally, Jordan Press reveals how the Libs' infrastructure bank plan is intended to include having the public bear the risk of projects even as private financiers take any profits.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Armine Yalnizyan writes that a $15 minimum wage is ultimately good for businesses as well as for people:

When higher income households see wage gains, some of it goes to savings. Additional consumption also often flows to vacations and luxury goods, often imported. In other words a non-trivial part leaks out of the local economy.

When lower income households see a sustained rise in incomes, they spend virtually all of it. Most goes to food (more nutritious food or eating out), better health care and more education. Sometimes it also goes to rent (moving to a better neighbourhood). Almost all of this spending stays in the local economy.

So boost the minimum wage and you boost the economy from the bottom up.

- Jessica Carpinone highlights how an employer can thrive while paying employees a reasonable minimum wage. And Geoff Dembicki discusses how extreme high-end retailers are raking in money compared to other businesses due to the growth of income inequality in Canada.

- Cindy Blackstock asks rhetorically why the Libs continue to discriminate against Indigenous children rather than making any effort to comply with their human rights obligations. And Kristy Kirkup reports on Charlie Angus' justified criticism of a government which is happy to spend money to deny equality, but unwilling to direct resources toward achieving it.

- Kelly Toughill exposes how the same Trudeau Lib government which is still dragging its heels on even looking at meaningful amendments to Bill C-51 wasted no time at all imposing a new and information-sharing program to make personal information about Canadians available to other countries.

- Finally, Aaron Wherry writes that while the Libs may have tried to leave any talk of electoral reform in the past, plenty of Canadians still want to see a more fair voting system - and provinces and municipalities may soon be leading the way.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Nick Saul reminds us of the need for strong and consistent public pressure to end poverty. And the Economist points out how punitive criminal justice policies coupled with a lack of rehabilitation strand people in poverty rather than allowing for a path toward contributing to society.

- Thomas Walkom comments on Ontario's relatively unambitious workplace review - and worries that even its modest suggestions won't end up becoming (or being enforced as) law. And Angella MacEwen examines the state of federally-regulated workplaces and finds plenty of precarity which needs to be addressed.

- Meanwhile, Lana Payne highlights the need to keep counting gender iniquities as long as they persist.

- Laurie Monsebraaten reports on the role a basic income can play in encouraging social entrepreneurship.

- Finally, Justin Ling writes that the Libs' attempt to normalize a less-accountable and more-disruptive surveillance state was met with ample public pushback - though it remains to be seen whether they'll bother to make good on their promise of any change whatsoever to the Cons' C-51.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Josh Bivens notes that U.S. corporations are already paying a lower share of taxes than has historically been the case - meaning that there's no air of reality to the claim that handing them more money will produce any positive economic results. And Noah Smith writes that public infrastructure spending would do far more than tax cuts to improve economic outcomes.

- Angella MacEwen discusses how NAFTA (like other trade agreements) has served largely to drive down labour and employment standards among all participants. And Michal Rozworski counters some of the corporatist myths being peddled in opposition to a fair minimum wage.

- Trevor Hancock reminds us of the outrageous levels of child poverty in Canada. Kings' College Investigative Workshop examines the woeful lack of mental health services in Nova Scotia.

- CBC reports on the Saskatchewan Environmental Society's push for the province to do its part in fighting climate change, while Abacus finds that Canadians in general recognize the need to transition away from fossil fuels. And Erin Weir points out that instead of inventing complaints about what the federal government might do, Brad Wall would be better served pointing out how the Libs are actively underfunding transit in Saskatchewan.

- Finally, Rebecca Joseph and Jim Bronskill report on the continued public demand to repeal Bill C-51 and rein in the unaccountable surveillance state. And Matthew Behrens discusses his experience as a target of an "anti-terrorist" investigation.

Saturday Afternoon Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Derrick O'Keefe makes the case for much-needed regime change in British Columbia, while Nancy MacDonald notes that such a result is far from guaranteed despite the Christy Clark Libs' gross abuses of the public trust. And Christopher Pollon examines the close link between political donations and the distribution of Site C contracts, while Maximilian Kniewasser reminds us that Clark's LNG promises turned into nothing but an expensive failure.

- Azfar Ali Khan and Randall Bartlett discuss the complete lack of a business case for the federal Libs' planned infrastructure bank (that is, as long as one recognizes that enriching the financial sector isn't a justification worth accepting). Andy Blatchford reports that the Libs have received - and are apparently ignoring - the same advice from the public service about the dangers of privately-proposed infrastructure. And Bill Curry reports on the control capital has held over the process of developing the bank proposal.

- Meanwhile, the Canadian Press also points out that Ontario's Libs are the latest government to use Donald Trump as an excuse for yet more tax giveaways to the corporate sector.

- Bruce Livesey examines how Canadian spies have been used to undermine citizens raising questions about the fossil fuel industry. And Alex Boutilier and Tonda McCharles' report on the use of CSIS' powers of disruption under Bill C-51 reveals that new authority are not only being used (contrary to the unfortunate lede), but are being systematically used only in ways which avoid judicial oversight.

- Finally, Tom Parkin notes that the controversy over Harjit Sajjan's role in Afghanistan is particularly significant as a reminder of the questions which have never been answered about Canada's complicity in torture.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Sarah-Taïssir Bencharif discusses her experience facing prejudice against Muslims in Canada. But Ashifa Kassam reports on the growing public response to violence, as communities across the country formed "rings of peace" around mosques during their prayers on Friday.

- Meanwhile, Maher Arar points out how Canada's security state has been built around Islamophobia. And Manisha Krishnan argues that any real security threat comes from the radical right.

- But then, Kyle Curlew makes the point that we should be more skeptical of the basis for an unaccountable and intrusive security state to begin with. And CSIS' wanton intrusions into personal privacy (which it can't even be bothered to document) look to reinforce the position that the only reasonable direction to pursue is that of dismantling baseless surveillance.

- Finally, the Star's editorial board writes that it's long past time for the federal government to stop breaking its promises and obligations to Canada's First Nations.

Saturday Afternoon Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Dean Baker discusses some of the myths about the effects of corporate globalization - with particular attention to how our current trade and immigration structures are designed to provide easy profits for capital at the expense of labour around the world. And Jason Hickel reports on new research showing how the developed world (or at least its upper class) is extracting trillions of dollars from the countries which can least afford to lose them.

- James Kwak comments on the massive gap between the effects of minimum-wage increases as threatened based on oversimplified economic theories, and the real-world impacts which have been beneficial for workers and the broader economy alike. 

- The International Labour Organization reviews the continued lack of secure employment around the globe. And Ashley Cowburn reports on the UK public's strong support for the idea of reining in CEO income compared to that of a business' general workforce.

- Alexander Kaufman highlights Rex Tillerson's implausible denial that he has any idea Exxon and other oil companies enjoy public subsidies. And Ross Belot points out that based on then Libs' combination of nominal greenhouse gas emissions targets and plans which fall far short of meeting them, we're likely to see yet another public giveaway to the oil sector in the form of carbon bailouts.

- Finally, Dennis Gruending offers his take on the need for a public response to the threat of mass surveillance.

New column day

Here, on how a change in government hasn't done anything to slow the spread of Canada's surveillance state - both in terms of intrusive new legislative proposals, and a continued determination to operate even outside the law.

For further reading...
- Again, Dave Seglins and Rachel Houlihan reported on the Cold War-era wiretapping approvals which are still being officially denied by the federal government.
- Justin Ling documented the history of "lawful access" legislation, along with the more recent effort of Ralph Goodale and the RCMP to repackage the same intrusions in a new message.
- Tonda MacCharles reported on both CSIS' admission that it too spied on journalists, and its subsequent broken promise to own up to its past surveillance - seemingly because it's still engaged in the same tactics now.
- Finally, Colin Freeze reports that CSIS has also been seeking bulk data collection mechanisms for years. Asha Tomlinson points out how many apps already collect far more data than they need for business purposes. And Sasa Petricic looks to China for a warning as to the implications for privacy and individual freedom when state power meets the centralized collection and use of data.

Monday Afternoon Links

Miscellaneous material for your Monday reading.

- Danielle Martin highlights how investments in ending poverty including a basic income can improve health outcomes among other key social indicators:

Far more than consumption of medical care, income is the strongest predictor of health. Canadians are more likely to die at an earlier age and suffer more illnesses if they are in a low income bracket, regardless of age, sex, race, and place of residence.

There are at least two ways in which income is related to health. First, income allows people to purchase the things that are necessary to survive and thrive, such as nutritious food and safe shelter. Second, income affects health indirectly, through its effect on social participation and the ability to control life circumstances. Put another way, the biggest disease that needs to be cured in Canada is the disease of poverty, and part of the cure is to implement a big idea: A Basic Income Guarantee for all Canadians.

We can eliminate income poverty by ensuring that no one in Canada has an income below what’s needed to achieve a basic standard of living. If we did so, we’d see a considerable improvement in the health of Canadians. The Basic Income Guarantee goes by various names (such as the guaranteed annual income, the negative income tax, and the basic income), and there are different ways to design it. The version I like best works like this: if your income from all sources falls below a certain level, you get topped up to a level sufficient to meet basic needs. That’s it. A true Basic Income Guarantee would ensure that everyone in Canada has an income above the “poverty line.”

The Basic Income Guarantee can’t and mustn’t replace all social programs. We still need good public education, publicly financed health care, quality affordable child care, affordable housing, and reliable unemployment insurance. But it would eliminate the need for the kinds of income support programs that invade people’s lives and limit their choices.

- And Robin Boadway and Roderick Benns similarly argue that a basic income should be included in our set of fundamental needs in setting labour policy - though we shouldn't pretend it's a complete solution to the problems facing workers either. 

- Joseph Stiglitz discusses how workers stand to lose out from Donald Trump's combination of trickle-down and crank economics. And Alan Blinder and Alan Krueger note that Trump's preference for corporate deal-making is likely to ensure that the most important work in building and maintaining necessary but unglamourous infrastructure doesn't get done.

- The Star rightly points out that we shouldn't use prison as a solution to individuals' mental health problems.

- Tamara Khandaker writes that the Libs' idea of reexamining the already-appalling civil rights abuses in Bill C-51 seems to be to push an even more intrusive and unaccountable surveillance state.

- Finally, Karl Nerenberg observes that Justin Trudeau may be creating far larger risks for himself by passing up a clear opportunity for electoral reform, rather than working with the consensus in favour of a proportional electoral system. And PressProgress muses as to what an electoral reform survey would look like if it were designed to be as slanted as the Libs', only in the opposite direction.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Jacob Levy highlights the importance of "identity politics" - or more specifically, the willingness to fight against systematic inequality of all kinds - as part of an effective progressive movement. And George Monbiot writes that we should be returning to first principles when it comes to the economy, starting with a renewed commitment to rebuilding the commons. 

- Dean Burnett rebuts a UK report which attempted to detach mental health from underlying social issues including poverty.

- Karri Munn-Venn points out that last week's climate change announcement from Canada's federal government falls far short of meeting the world's commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

- Robert Fife and Steven Chase report on Justin Trudeau's galling claim that in granting pay-for-play access to billionaires, he's not only avoiding being influenced personally, but taking wealthy donors' money to lobby them. And Susan Delacourt sees the cash-for-access system as a strong indication that the Libs haven't changed an iota from their history of backroom politics.

- Finally, Daniel Tencer writes that the Libs are planning far worse systematic intrusions into Canadians' privacy than were ever included in Bill C-51, while also highlighting some needed pushback by Canada's tech industry against yet another round of unjustified and unaccountable online surveillance. And Tonda MacCharles reports on the predictable results of a security state deciding whether or not to be publicly accountable, as CSIS has scrapped a promise to open up about past (and apparently ongoing) spying on journalists.

Wednesday Afternoon Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Thomas Frank writes that a progressive party can only expect to succeed if it places principles of equality and workers' interests at the core of everything it does - rather than serving mostly as the voice of a wealthy professional class:

Somewhere in a sunny corner of the country, either right now or very shortly, a group of tech tycoons or well-meaning private equity investors will meet to discuss what went wrong in this election cycle. They will consider many things: the sexism and racism of Trump voters, the fundamental foreignness of the flyover, the problems one encounters when dealing with evangelicals. They will celebrate some activist they learned about from NPR, they will enjoy some certified artisanal cuisine, they will hand out prizes to the same people that got prizes at the last event they attended, and they will go back to their comfortable rooms at the resort and sleep ever so soundly.

These people think they know what liberalism includes and what it doesn’t include. And in the latter category fall the concerns that made up the heart and soul of liberal politics a few decades ago: labor and work and exploitation and economic equality.

To dedicate your life to concerns like these today is to sign up for obscurity and frustration. It’s to enter a world without foundation grants, without appearances on MSNBC, and without much job security. Nothing about this sphere of liberal activism is fashionable or attractive. Books on its subjects go unreviewed and unread. Strikes drag on for weeks before they are noticed by the national media. Labor organizers are some of the hardest-working but least-thanked people I know. Labor reporters are just about extinct. Promises to labor unions are voided almost as soon as they leave a politician’s lips.

- Meanwhile, Tom Parkin discusses how the NDP - and Jagmeet Singh in particular - may serve as Canada's antidote to the Trump brand of politics.

- Chuck Collins, Helen Flannery and Josh Hoxie examine the toxic effects of relying on gilded giving from a small number of extremely wealthy individuals to support services, rather than being able to build a base of broader funding (whether public or charitable). And Cathy Crowe makes the case for a push toward building affordable housing.

- Daniel Leblanc reports on the CRA's long-awaited progress in cracking down on offshore tax havens.

- Kevin Metcalf discusses how the new surveillance state established by C-51 is only criminalizing and isolating youth while offering no real security benefit. And Justin Ling notes that the RCMP's response to the repeated rejection of "lawful access" legislation is to push for the same powers under a different name - with Ralph Goodale and the Libs only enabling them in the cause.

- Finally, John Doyle writes about the blatant elitism behind Kellie Leitch's drive to destroy Canada's only major media outlet which isn't ultimately answerable to corporate interests.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Stephen Dubner discusses the importance of social trust in supporting a functional economy and society:

(S)ocial trust is …

HALPERN: Social trust is an extraordinarily interesting variable and it doesn’t get anywhere near the attention it deserves. But the basic idea is trying to understand what is the kind of fabric of society that makes economies and, indeed, just people get along in general. It’s clearly so critical for a whole range of outcomes.

Outcomes like economic growth.

HALPERN: This is a more powerful predictor of future national growth rates than, for example, levels of human capital or skills in the population.

Outcomes like individual health.

HALPERN: Basically, having someone or feeling that other people can be trusted or people you can rely on in your life is worth a great deal. It’s roughly the same positive effect in a series of studies as giving up smoking. And smoking is really, really bad for you so, you know, social isolation, essentially, is incredibly bad for your health.

- Meanwhile, George Monbiot discusses the role of neoliberalism - and its implicit assumption of a dog-eat-dog society - in laying the groundwork for Donald Trump's election.

- Max Fawcett makes the case for proportional representation in Canada's electoral system due to the tendency of winner-take-all systems to facilitate demagoguery while stifling diversity of representation. Gary Shaul writes that the Libs can't hold out much longer on electoral reform, while the Star's letters to the editor show that the strong preference for proportional representation of the public engaged on the issue isn't in doubt. Karl Nerenberg highlights that the U.S.' distorted election results only signal the need for a more fair system. And Andrew Coyne offers his take on what a national referendum on electoral systems might look like.

- Finally, the Star's editorial board at least argues that Canada shouldn't be too quick to hand over unaccountable surveillance powers to our state apparatus - though it's striking how the goalposts have moved from reviewing C-51 to discussing even more intrusions on civil rights. And Ewen MacAskill reports that the UK has passed "extreme surveillance" laws with virtually no pushback.