On breaches of trust

Among other lessons to be learned from the coronavirus pandemic, we should be taking the opportunity to ask ourselves what we expect from our leaders - and whether they're living up to the standards we need to set for the public good.

That represents more than a matter of choosing ideal leaders. It's been well documented that social trust is one of the crucial factors in allowing a society to survive a collective action problem. And while a single government alone may not be able to establish or eradicate trust altogether, its choices figure to heavily influence how people react to a crisis.

Which brings us to the multiple breakdowns of trust under Scott Moe and the Saskatchewan Party government - all of them directly affecting the decisions Saskatchewan people make, and all posing grave threats both in their first-order effects, and in their resulting damage to social trust.

Let's start with the simple matter of the facts about COVID-19, and the Saskatchewan Party's seeming conclusion that we're better off not knowing where we're at the most risk.

It was dubious enough when a previous outbreak at Lloydminster's hospital was suppressed from the public for a period of days. (And it's hardly any consolation that part of that time was the result of a lack of communication within the government which is supposed to be looking out for everybody.)

But this past week's news from Regina's Pasqua Hospital establishes a pattern of COVID-19 cases in hospitals being suppressed. And this time, that secrecy came with the added bonus of Moe cutting off the normal flow of COVID-19 reporting for the long weekend to avoid answering questions about it.

That deliberate non-disclosure creates immediate risks for anybody who decides to attend to an hospital without being told that there's a known issue on site. But even more perniciously, it also creates reason for suspicion everywhere else: if we can't count on cases being reported when they arise in medical facilities, then people may avoid necessary care when it could safely be provided. (And we should fully expect addressing a backlog in needed-but-not-urgent care to be a far higher priority than the recreational businesses at the top of Moe's priority list for reopening.)

Beyond what Moe's government deigns to tell us, our trust is also necessarily affected by its competence (or lack thereof) in responding to a pandemic.

There, Moe has blindly followed Alberta in ritual Ottawa-bashing aimed at Health Canada, only to wind up ordering tests that don't work because he wouldn't allow a federal regulator to do its job. The Saskatchewan Party failed utterly to provide needed resources for mental health generally and suicide prevention in particular, even while using those systemic problems as an excuse to reopen businesses and increase the risk of community transmission of COVID-19. And it's provided pitiful excuses for relief out of provincial coffers, even as Moe has postured about allowing the federal government to help at all without his say-so.

Finally, we come to a government's willingness to listen and accept both suggestions and criticism. And there too, all evidence is that both the interests of deeply affected people and vital lines of communication have been cut off by choice - paired with deception and denial as to who's been kept in the loop.

Just ask the essential workers who are being told at best that they have to use paid sick leave in order to follow public health orders, and at worst that they're not allowed to try to protect their health at all.

Or the leaders from Northern Saskatchewan who were forced to set up their own response team after urging the province take some action to stop an outbreak which they could see coming - only to have Moe ignore them entirely at the beginning, then falsely assert they'd been included once the public health damage was too obvious for him to say nothing.

And of course, the people's mechanism for holding the government to account remains shut down due to the personal whims of the Premier, even as he tries to point the finger at a party which doesn't have authority to reopen the Legislature. Once again, the pattern is both to reject the basic structures of social cohesion and response, and to be dishonest about how he's chosen to undermine them. 

Fortunately, Saskatchewan voters have the option of a leader whose reaction to a crisis is to do everything he can to help, rather than to try to keep the public strictly isolated from the truth. But it's tragic that we're having to see the consequences of the avoidable erosion of trust first.

Sunday Afternoon Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Carson Hammond and Rob Rousseau each make the case that Canada needs a left movement for change comparable to the wave of U.S. activism propelling Bernie Sanders toward a presidential nomination.

- Brigid Delaney argues that we need to stop settling for messages of self-care, and instead work toward building social supports which aren't operated according to capitalist principles.

- Nora Loreto writes that we should treat Tim Horton's as a typically exploitative fast-food chain, not a matter of national identity.

- Gerry McCartney, LyndaFentona, GeorgeMorris and PhilMackie introduce the concepts of "superpolicies" which produce positive feedback looks beyond their immediate effects, and "policy-omnishambles" which result in multiple negative consequences. And in a prime example of the latter, Peter Erickson, Harro van Asselt, Doug Koplow, Michael Lazarus, Peter Newell, Naomi Oreskes and Geoffrey Supran study (PDF) how fossil fuel subsidies distort our energy choices while also pushing us toward climate breakdown.

- Finally, Frank Graves and Michael Valpy write about the disappearance of moderation within the Conservative Party. And McKay Coppins looks in detail at the widespread disinformation campaign being deployed in lieu of any pretense that support for Republicans can be based on facts or valid principles.

New column day

Here, on Scott Moe's choice to pursue strongman politics indistinguishable from the Donald Trumps and Doug Fords of the world.

For further reading...
- D.C. Fraser reported on Moe's willingness to stand with and behind Ford no matter how preposterous his claims. And Fatima Syed noted that both Moe and Ford are shoveling grossly inaccurate information in the name of exacerbating climate breakdown, while CTV's Question Period interview (see link in right column) featured Moe's declaration that he's not interested in facts.
- Andrew Coyne discussed the reality that a war on the truth is one of the defining features of the right - even when it occasionally backtracks on attacking the media directly. And Bob Hepburn noted that Ford and Andrew Scheer are following Trump's playbook.
- PressProgress has documented some of the Jason Kenney UCP's links to the explicitly racist right. And Gillian Steward wrote about his plan to go to war against environmentalists.
- Murray Mandryk and Tammy Robert highlighted the total lack of responsiveness from Moe's cabinet when faced with even basic factual questions. CBC reported on Moe's choice to meet with Ford alone rather than a national group of leaders - then to lie about his direction to pull Saskatchewan from any national talks while trying to claim national leadership. And Bryan Eneas reported on the sudden purchase of semi-automatic rifles for use in patrols in rural Saskatchewan.
- Finally, Mandryk argued that Moe is putting conservatism over the public interest - though I'd consider it worth distinguishing between ideological conservatism alone, and the strongman model which is actually taking precedence.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Colin Gordon discusses how contempt for democracy is one of the uniting principles of the right around the globe while reviewing Nancy MacLean's Democracy in Chains:

At the intersection of Buchanan’s market fundamentalism and his embrace of Jim Crow lies a fundamental reservation — nakedly evident on today’s radical right — about equal political citizenship and majority rule. This stemmed in part, from Calhoun onward, from a conviction that the polity could be cleft between “makers and takers,” and that it was the “takers” who, by employing state power to tax wealth and income, were doing the exploiting.

Buchanan’s “public choice” economics dressed this up as an iron law of both human nature and democratic rule (“a cynicism so toxic,” MacLean suggests, “that, if widely believed, it would eat like acid at the foundations of civic life”). Politically, Buchanan and his allies looked to gird the advantage enjoyed by the makers (by removing the last constraints on campaign finance, for example) while muffling the votes and the voices of the rest of us.

The combination, of course, is the hallmark of neoliberalism, whose interest is not in rolling back the state but in employing state power toward particular ends, including the protection of wealth and property and the suppression and surveillance of the poor. For all its thin distaste of “big government,” Buchanan’s radical right betrays a healthy appetite for repression.
...
Over time, Buchanan and his allies tacitly admitted that they had no popular constituency; that the voting public — even those who had supported Reagan and cheered the congressional “Contract with America” — hesitated “when they learned that freed markets would leave them with sole responsibility for their fates.” The solution, first floated in the early debates over Social Security privatization and starkly evident in tortuous repeal of the Affordable Care Act, is to “crab-walk” around the issues, to claim that frontal assaults on popular social insurance programs are efforts to “shore them up” rather than destroy them.

The second, and more chilling, solution is to junk the rules entirely; to tilt an already unlevel playing field decisively and irrevocably against the popular will.

- Marius Busemeyer and Erik Neimanns explore how beneficiaries of social programs tend to reject government involvement in areas other than the ones which support them personally - making benefits vulnerable to politicians who are able to play one group against another (even while intending to leave them all worse off).

- Owen Jones takes note of the fact that the same UK Conservative government which has proclaimed a lack of money to help people has been able to find plenty to buy off the DUP in order to stay in power. And Rob Shaw points out the similar turnaround from Christy Clark's B.C. Libs as they try to cling to power.

- Patrica Thille discusses how obesity is primarily the result of political choices.

- Finally, Claire Provost examines how the Trudeau Libs are choosing to do little to end Canada's persistent gender inequality.

On shows of confidence

As British Columbia's MLAs decide how to respond to the Clark Libs' latest attempt to avoid the results of an election which plainly showed that voters wanted change, let's offer this reminder.

In 2008, Stephen Harper's Cons established that they held the confidence of Parliament through a vote on a throne speech which made no mention of austerity, nor of kneecapping the Cons' competition.

After introducing a fiscal update which ran contrary to that basis for claiming confidence, Harper then used the earlier vote as his excuse to shut down Parliament and escape a vote of non-confidence which would otherwise have brought down his government.

In other words, the throne speech vote has to be based not merely on agreement with some words (including in this case ones which the Libs deliberately refused to utter when they had a chance to try to earn support), but confidence that approving them is worth being stuck with Christy Clark evading any democratic accountability. And on that standard, there's no reasonable choice for any non-Lib MLA to do anything but vote for change.

New column day

Here, following up on this post as to the Libs' cynical repudiation of the very concept of ideas and values in politics.

For further reading...
- Fair Vote Canada's list of National Advisory Board members is here - and as noted, it hardly reflects the spin of being "anti-Liberal". And FVC's statement as to the importance of being involved in electoral politics is here.
- I've covered most of the policy points mentioned in the column before, but will add David Hulchanski's post on the Libs' illusory housing spending.
- Joanna Smith reports on the Libs' attempt to strip opposition parties of their ability to hold a government to account (as well as the necessary response). Paul Wells discusses Justin Trudeau's contempt for question period - which is as obvious when he's failing to answer every question posed as when he's choosing not to bother showing up. And Andrew Coyne points out how the unaccountable concentration of power in the PMO is only undermining any perception of legitimacy in federal decision-making.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Mark Holmgren writes that there's no reason why we should allow poverty to continue in a country which has plenty of wealth to reduce it, while Patrick Butler notes that the conservative view of poverty as being solely the result of personal (lack of) merit is oblivious to the real obstacles facing people. Sara Mojtehedzadeh reports on an effort to bring employers together to provide fair wages and a stable living based on both business and social benefits. And Daily Bread Food Bank offers a reminder that the need to navigate the tax system may result in people receiving far less than the benefits they need (and are entitled to).

- Richard Denniss points out the rank hypocrisy of big businesses demanding $48 billion in tax cuts in Australia while also complaining about public deficits. Andrew Coyne highlights how Bombardier is paying out millions of bonuses on a business model of taking in public money. And John Michael McGrath discusses how small towns suffer from corporate benefit-chasing - particularly as the promise of tax revenue from chain retailers proves illusory.

- Regan Boychuk raises a question as to who should be liable to clean up the mess made by Alberta's oil industry. And Geoffrey Morgan reports on the example of Lexin Resources as a model for how large companies have tried to offload costs onto smaller operators which can't possible afford them.

- Finally, Duncan Cameron takes note of the Libs' broken promises when it comes to openness and accountability. And Meghan Sali writes that secrecy and a lack of public inclusion are among the key warning signs for trade deals and other insider-based policy choices.

On anti-Liberalism

Last night, I responded on Twitter to David Akin's Lib-fueled attack on citizen engagement in the Ottawa-Vanier by-election:

Ummm, about that "anti-Liberal group" #lpc decided to whine about... https://t.co/P5EJiYTSfv #cdnpoli 1/

— Greg Fingas (@juristblog) April 2, 2017

Here's how it viewed the #lpc when it promised electoral reform, as opposed to breaking that promise: https://t.co/wgOx5ROWHl #cdnpoli 2/

— Greg Fingas (@juristblog) April 2, 2017

So #lpc position is that anybody who supported their plans, then followed up on implementation, is unacceptably partisan. #cdnpoli 3/

— Greg Fingas (@juristblog) April 2, 2017

Ladies and gentlemen, #realchange at work. #lpc #cdnpoli 4/4

— Greg Fingas (@juristblog) April 2, 2017

Let's follow up however by noting that the problem doesn't figure to be limited to electoral reform.

Activists across Canada are rightly working for the change the Libs promised, including on issues ranging from reconciliation with indigenous people to preserving a clean environment to ensuring that CEOs pay their fair share of taxes. And plenty more people care enough about other items on the Libs' long list of broken promises to want to hold Justin Trudeau to them.

A government which didn't view the very concept of opposition as a nuisance would at least acknowledge that it's legitimate for people to take action on the same issues it highlighted to get elected. But in a party built around the single principle of saying anything to take power, anybody who questions whether the Libs are living up to their promises is apparently being dumped onto a common enemies list. 

That said, if the Libs see anybody who cares about policy choices - or even the concept of honesty in government - as "anti-Liberal", then it's worth treating that phrase that as a badge of honour rather than a criticism. And anybody wanting to hold Trudeau to any of his promises had best send the message that there are electoral consequences both for breaking promises, and for trying to delegitimize issue activism.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Lana Payne questions whether Justin Trudeau's brief nod to precarious work and burgeoning inequality will be reflected in any action. But Sheila Malcolmson notes that Trudeau's say-anything approach includes turning himself into a human shield for Donald Trump, while PressProgress reports on the record-breaking petition to push Trudeau to keep his promise of electoral reform after he's tried to weasel his way out of it.

- Meanwhile, Mike Seccombe highlights how Australian labour policy is effectively designed to make it difficult for younger workers to find secure employment. And Marc Montgomery writes about the many existing jobs which are in danger of being automated out of existence in the near future. 

- Steve Roth points out how shared wealth is an essential part of economic development:

There’s a curious fact about the wealth and growth of nations that you rarely see mentioned: No country has ever joined the modern, high-productivity, rich-country club without massive doses of redistribution, and universal government programs for social support and financial security. Not one. Ever.

...
An explanation is perhaps not far to find. Market capitalism — especially modern “holding-company capitalism,” in which corporations own corporations which own corporations, ad infinitum — inevitably concentrates wealth and income into fewer and fewer hands. It’s just the nature of the beast. Along with its immense, world-changing, manifest benefits, market capitalism labors under that inescapable burden.

Then add an Econ 101 notion that is pretty much universally accepted, because it’s strongly supported by theory, empirics, and just plain sensible intuition: decreasing marginal propensity to spend. A poorer person is more likely to spend an extra dollar (in wealth or income) than a richer person. Because: the “utility” (or just benefit) purchased by that extra dollar is so much higher for the poorer person. The fourth ice cream cone, iPhone, or Lamborghini just isn’t as enjoyable as the first. So greater concentration into a few hands means less spending — in economic terms, lower “velocity,” or turnover, of wealth.
...
“Share the wealth” is a phrase that is very anathema to libertarians and free-market conservatives. But sharing — pretty much the defining act of of altruism and cooperation — lies at the very heart of humanity’s success as a species. Cooperation, altruism, and sharing are what got us to the top of the food chain. (We’re not talking here about the techno-utopians’ faux-“sharing economy,” in which you “share” your car and driving services — in return for money. We have another word for that: we call it trade.)
...
To put it simply: Yes. Prosperity requires a welfare state.

Or to put it another way: Widespread prosperity both causes and is greater prosperity.

- Finally, Laurie Monsebraaten reports on the Ontario NDP's effort to ensure that child care funding is about more than corporate profit centres - along with the Libs' refusal to consider the possibility.

New column day

Here, expanding on this post about the Libs' electoral reform betrayal - and the likelihood that it will encourage future Stephen Harpers to exploit the distortions created by first-past-the-post.

For further reading...
- I've linked to plenty of other commentary on the Libs' broken promise here, here and here. And we can add new material from the Council of Canadians and Shawn Garbutt, along with a useful refresher from Max Fawcett.
- The Government of Canada page highlighting the problems with first-past-the-post was once here - though it (along with other related content) seems to have now been removed. But fortunately Jason Wagar has preserved it for posterity.
- And finally, the formal petition sponsored by Nathan Cullen pushing for the Libs to live up to their promise is here - and rapidly approaching its 100,000th signature.

Sunday Afternoon Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Claudia Chwalisz points out that in addition to relying on a distortionary electoral system, the Trudeau Libs' majority was built on a bubble which now seems likely to pop. Michael Harris wagers that Canadians will remember the broken core promise when they go to the polls in 2019. John Ivison highlights how Trudeau's personal choice to nix electoral reform feeds into exactly the cynicism which he claimed to want to end, while Aaron Wherry traces the shift from promising better to delivering the same old betrayal of the public trust. Alison documents some of Trudeau's past false statements about being open to something other than his own preferred system. And Stephen Tweedale and John Geddes expose the patent absurdity of the Libs' excuses for breaking a crucial commitment.

- Meanwhile, Brent Patterson notes that oil barons have had no problem getting their slightest whims catered to by Trudeau and his government - including by having an anticipated NAFTA renegotiation biased toward oil exports rather than any other public priority.

- Theda Skocpol offers a guide to rebuilding the U.S. Democratic Party which should serve as a useful checklist for progressive organizing elsewhere as well. And CBC reports on Elections Saskatchewan's report on the 2016 election - pointing particularly to the lack of voter turnout.

- Geoff Leo reports on still more evidence trickling out about the Saskatchewan Party's Global Transportation Hub scandal - this time confirming that the most damning decisions were made solely at the political level without the knowledge of the officials whose organizations were used to make land purchases.

- Finally, Ashley Cowburn reports on the UK Labour Party's move to study a basic income in advance of the next election.

On creative reinterpretation

Shorter Bill Morneau:

Pay no attention to trifles such as a "platform". In fact, our only election promise was to draw up budget plans on the back of a napkin if given the opportunity. And promise kept!

This seems pertinent

In light of the Cons' latest misleading ads, let's take a quick stroll through the offence provisions of the Canada Elections Act:

480.1 Every person is guilty of an offence who, with intent to mislead, falsely represents themselves to be, or causes anyone to falsely represent themselves to be,
(a) the Chief Electoral Officer, a member of the Chief Electoral Officer’s staff or a person who is authorized to act on the Chief Electoral Officer’s behalf;
(b) an election officer or a person who is authorized to act on an election officer’s behalf;
(c) a person who is authorized to act on behalf of the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer;...

482. Every person is guilty of an offence who:
...
(b) by any pretence or contrivance, including by representing that the ballot or the manner of voting at an election is not secret, induces a person to vote or refrain from voting or to vote or refrain from voting for a particular candidate at an election.

Because along with the even more obvious, it certainly looks like we'll be hearing about plenty more Con prosecutions which might see these provisions become much better known.

On credibility blows

Presumably, at some point in the future, the Wildrose Party will run in another Alberta election campaign, with Derek Fildebrandt as one of its candidates.

And plenty of us will have the popcorn ready to see how they try to explain their now-on-the-record belief that it's somehow a betrayal - rather than a desirable state of affairs - for a government to fulfill its promises.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Yonatan Strauch and Thomas Homer-Dixon discuss how the Cons' economic plans involve betting against our planet. And David Macdonald notes that the supposed reward for prioritizing oil profits over a sustainable future is to stagnate at recession-level employment rates.

- James Bagnall documents the rise of inequality in Canada - though it's worth questioning the assumption that the policies pitched as encouraging growth at the cost of increased inequality have actually lived up to the supposed benefit. And PressProgress reminds us of the Cons' woeful record in dealing with offshore tax avoidance.

- Melissa Newitt makes the case for a federal pharmacare program. And CBC reports on just another example of the profiteering mindset that makes needed medications unaffordable, as a pharmaceutical company is challenging Canada's authority to regulate the price of a treatment for immune disorders which costs $700,000 per year.

- Scott Gilmore duly questions the claim that Cons whose entire message is based on perpetual fear of imaginary threats can make any claim to bravery or strength:

(E)very message from the Conservative party highlights something that frightens them. The global economy. Justin Trudeau’s age. Mulcair’s budget. Crime.

Consider that last danger. Stephen Harper is regularly warning that more must be done to keep us safe, by imposing longer sentences, building bigger prisons, reducing parole. But crime rates in Canada have been declining for decades. There are fewer property crimes now than there were in the 1960s. So why is he so scared?

Perhaps it was inevitable. Conservatives everywhere have been campaigning for years on the proposition that they are the strongest and bravest. But, for that to matter, there must be a counter-threat, something that requires a real man like Stephen Harper in office, not a wet academic like Stéphane Dion or a mincing toff like Michael Ignatieff.

So they talk up the threat. It used to be the commies. Now it’s the terrorists. And the drug dealers. And the brown people. And the reckless spenders. And the environmental activists. And the census takers. Everyone and everything. They’ve spent so long warning us to be constantly afraid, they’ve internalized it. They have literally frightened themselves.

And now, ironically, the Conservative party is whom you vote for if you are timid and emasculated, if you go to bed scared and wake up worried.

And what of Chris Alexander, who used to strap on body armour and helicopter into hostile districts to stare down warlords? He’s scared of a young woman in a niqab and a homeless family in Turkey.

- Finally, Michael Harris laments how much the Cons have done to destroy trust in Canada's public institutions. And the Tyee offers a handy booklet version (PDF) of its compilation of Stephen Harper's abuses of power.

Lies and the lying liars who tell them

Ideally, this would be the end of the story when it comes to Stephen Harper's callous and desperate attempt to claim the Terry Fox Foundation's reputation for his own. But there's reason for serious doubt that will happen - and indeed the Cons may end up treating the story as a case study in how to get what they want in politicizing issues and institutions which want nothing to do with them.

The crucial part of the latest from the Foundation is this:

The foundation said it would have no further comment about Sunday’s announcement or any federal campaign issues.

So what's the problem with that stance?

To start with, let's note that there are two ways for lies to overpower truths in the the court of public opinion.

The first involves immediate impact: a lie spreads quickly enough to be seen as true before anybody has a meaningful chance to assert otherwise. Thankfully, that hasn't happened in this case - and indeed the Cons have likely been dealt at least a temporary blow in credibility.

But the second involves volume and repetition: in the absence of a counterweight, a statement repeated often enough seeps into the public consciousness with little regard for its source. And while it's easy to understand how neither family members nor the Terry Fox Foundation want to have to respond to daily questions and statements, here's the risk involved in that course of action.

We know the Cons have no scruples about lying about how they've dealt with the issue. And we can thus fully expect them to keep doing so.

So let's say Stephen Harper keeps asserting as a matter of course that there's some connection between his party and the Terry Fox Foundation.

At best, someone in the media might use a precious question to challenge that assertion, resulting in some balance in a day's reporting. But Harper will still know that he'll get the most opportunities to speak at any given event, the support of his partisan-screened crowd, and the last word in responding to the question.

More likely, the issue will simply be dropped. And the Cons' lies would then go unchallenged for their present audience, and for anybody who hears about it second- or third-hand.

In fact, the Cons may now see themselves having an incentive to push the envelope with increasingly wrong claims to test just how committed the Fox family and Foundation are to offering no further comment.

Which means that for the rest of us, there's only one reaction to Harper and his party which can do the situation justice.

While it's worth pointing out that there's no institution so far above politics that the Cons won't drag it into the mud, and no cause so noble that the Cons won't try to turn it into a political football, the ultimate issue comes down to three words worth emphasizing while the issue remains in the public eye.

Stephen Harper lies.

And if he'll lie on matters of public record involving the Terry Fox Foundation, then we shouldn't merely ask him for an apology or clarification. Instead, voters and media should recognize - and we should emphasize - that Stephen Harper's words simply aren't worth the air used to emit them.

Because at this point, the only way to keep Harper from using his party's war chest to drown out civil society is to make sure people tune out the Cons' falsehoods on first contact. And if we lacked enough reason to do that before, we surely have it now.

On questionable support

Shorter Stephen Harper:

I only need to receive a single piece of correspondence from somebody to claim their permanent blanket endorsement of everything I might someday propose. Stay tuned for future policy announcements unveiled with the enthusiastic support of grade-school penpals, American Express, and multiple members of Nigeria's royal family.

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.

Juxtaposition

Stephen Harper plays chess:

Sources say Conservative planners did factor in testimony by Wright and Harper’s former legal counsel Perrin.

Once the testimony was over, they calculated, the sting would fade, and those voters who were inclined to believe Harper’s version would continue to do so. Those who never believed him would never vote for him anyway.

Just one problem with his strategy:

The vast majority of Canadians do not believe Stephen Harper is telling the truth about the Mike Duffy Senate expenses scandal, a new poll has found.

Some 56 per cent of respondents do not think Harper has come clean about a controversy that is dominating news coverage in the federal election campaign, according to the Forum Research survey.

Only 22 per cent said the Conservative leader has told the truth about his role in the Duffy affair, while 22 per cent don’t know.

So the Cons' entire campaign plan was based on pursuing a pool of voters inclined to believe him regardless of what came out in the Duffy trial. And that pool now consists of...22 per cent of Canadians.

We can only hope the Cons were right in figuring that "(t)hose who never believed him would never vote for him anyway".

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Andrew Jackson discusses how increased development of the oil sands fits into Canada's economic future - and how it's foolhardy to assume that one necessarily equates to the other:

A new and effective global climate agreement to avoid hitting the 2 degree increase would mandate a large, phased in shift away from carbon fuels through greater energy efficiency, and a major transition to renewable sources of energy. But there would still be a role for carbon fuels in the transition.

Here in Canada, a 2009 study (funded by the TD bank) by Mark Jaccard and Associates for the Pembina Institute modelled the economic and emissions impacts of a comprehensive set of policies as part of a global effort to avoid the catastrophic two degree temperature rise. The package included putting a high and rising price on carbon, tough energy efficiency regulations for buildings and cars, and major public investments in transit and in the electricity grid so as to transition away from power generation from coal and natural gas.

The key finding of the study was that there would be no overall impact on job growth or the overall economic welfare of Canadians. While growth would be slightly lower in Alberta than under a business as usual scenario due to a reduction in the rate of growth of the oil and gas industry, petroleum extraction output would actually continue to grow before tapering off.
...
The truly “crazy economic policy” for Canada would be to double down on fossil fuel led development at a time when the world is finally starting to take seriously the need to deal with climate change, and at a time when the downside of our over reliance on crude resource extraction  is becoming ever more apparent.

There is a role for the oil and gas industry in Canada's economic future. But a comprehensive plan for environmentally sustainable development must give priority to the needed transition to a post carbon world.

- Adnan Al-Daini explains how Jeremy Corbyn's campaign offers a full social democratic response to failed laissez-faire dogma. And Matt Kieltyka reports on the success of one aspect of an effort to ensure broader prosperity through public policy, as New Westminster's living wage plan has managed to raise wages for city workers and contractors with virtually no difficulty.

- Marvin Ross laments how the symptoms of mental health problems all too often result in people getting dealt with as a matter of criminality rather than health.

- Brian Kelcey rightly slams the Cons' regulation-slashing gimmicks which figure to endanger the public without doing anything to help responsible businesses.

- Finally, Lana Payne discusses how the Cons' lies are piling up over the course of the federal election campaign, while Robert Benzie highlights the fact that even a substantial portion of the Cons' voting base isn't buying Stephen Harper's spin. And Susan Delacourt rightly notes that the obligation to testify under oath at Mike Duffy's trial has forced Harper's staffers to give accurate answers where they never did before - though one can hardly blame Parliament as a whole for Harper's refusal to either be responsible for his office or tell the truth when questioned.