Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Ed Yong examines how the coronavirus has been allowed to run rampant in the U.S. And the Globe and Mail's editorial board warns that we can't have much confidence that Canada is prepared to deal with pandemics either.

- Paul Krugman discusses how Republicans are deliberately refusing to acknowledge the ugly economic reality facing unemployed workers, while Doug Henwood laments the consequences of being governed by callous morons.

- Michael Bloomberg makes the case for making fossil fuel site remediation as a core priority in rebuilding.

- But Andrew Nikiforuk writes about the decades of responsible resource management policy scrapped by Jason Kenney in order to make a coal mining push. And Bob Weber reports on the agreement between Kenney and Jason Trudeau to actually reduce the already-insufficient monitoring of the environmental effects of the tar sands.

- Finally, Terry Boehm offers a reminder of the disastrous effects of the Harper Cons' selloff of the Canadian Wheat Board.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Larry Elliott discusses how the rise of Donald Trump and other exclusionary populists can be traced to the failed promises of neoliberal economics:

The fact is that the US middle class, which in Britain we would call the working class, really did enjoy more rapid increases in living standards and a much higher degree of job security three or four decades ago. It is also true that the offshoring of production has brought benefits through cheaper imports, but these gains tend to seem more nebulous than lost jobs and year after year of flat or falling pay.

A quick look at what has been happening to the US economy in recent years sheds light on the problem. As in Britain, jobs have been created but productivity has been exceptionally weak. One reason is that companies have not been investing. Rather executives have been borrowing money cheaply for share buyback schemes that boost the value of the equity they hold in their own companies. They have gorged themselves at the expense of the wider US economy and been able to do so because organised labour is so weak. There is no chance Trump will be championing new rights for unions, but he is the beneficiary of a raw form of populist politics.

- Alison points out how Christy Clark's B.C. Libs have funneled massive amounts of public money - and ceded control over crucial policy areas - to natural gas operators for no public gain. And James Wilt examines Saskatchewan's woeful lack of protection from environmental destruction due to the desire of the oil sector to avoid answering for its failures. 

- Canadians for Tax Fairness highlights just a few of the corporate behemoths which are able to structure their operations to avoid paying taxes to the countries where they derive their profits. And Josh Gordon argues that B.C.'s new tax on foreign-owned real estate represents only a minor first step in translating obscene individual wealth into social revenue.

- The Winnipeg Free Press discusses how the federal government's abdication of any responsibility for rail transportation and grain marketing is destroying the port of Churchill (among other communities).

- Finally, Max Ehrenfreund weighs in on the connection between an improved minimum wage and healthier babies - particularly for the children of mothers at the low end of the income spectrum.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Canadians for Tax Fairness offers a checklist to allow us to determine whether the federal budget is aimed at improving matters for everybody, or only for the privileged few. And Andrew Jackson argues that the Cons' focus should be investment in jobs and sustainable development:

Business investment is likely to fall even further due to the resource slump and halted mega projects. This might be offset a bit by new investment in the hard-hit manufacturing sector and in high tech, though there is no sign of that in the most recent numbers.

In this context, the federal government should be doing everything in its power to boost a slowing economy and to help set the stage for a more durable, investment driven recovery.

Ottawa has been advised by the IMF and many prominent economists, from former US Treasury Secretary Larry Summers to former federal deputy minister of finance Scott Clark, that it can and should boost public investment, especially in mass transit and basic municipal infrastructure.

Since the economy is operating with a significant and growing slack, such spending would boost GDP by more than the actual increase in investment. The federal government itself has cited figures showing that the boost to infrastructure investment in the recession had a multiplier impact on the economy of 1.5, meaning that GDP rose by $1.50 for every $1 spent.

The case for public investment is even more compelling now that the Government of Canada can borrow long term at interest rates well below the rate of inflation to finance projects such as mass transit which demonstrably have a positive economic return in terms of boosting long-term productivity.

...

There is also a need to focus our research and development efforts on industries which will transition us to much more environmentally sustainable economy, such as renewable energy, the construction of a national power grid to displace coal-fired power, and the promotion of much more energy efficient technologies throughout the economy.

The federal Budget will likely pay lip service to boosting investment through small additions to existing commitments. But the current government has given the real priority to costly tax cuts such as family income splitting and doubled TFSA contribution limits, leading them to cut spending on direct government programs to balance the books.

Lack of real attention to investment will leave our sluggish economy dangerously dependent upon growing household debt, and ill-prepared to face the economic and environmental challenges of tomorrow.

- But David Olive reminds us that the Cons are actively working to demolish the government's ability to serve as more than a conduit for corporate interests. And Seth Klein notes that the use of tax-free savings accounts to line the pockets of the wealth at the expense of the rest of us also serves as compelling evidence as to who's intended to benefit under the Harper Cons.

- Meanwhile, John Lorinc reports on the use of community benefits agreements to ensure that good jobs are available to the people who need them, offering an important reminder that role of government shouldn't be limited to handing out money without considering how to maximize its effect.

- Thomas Walkom calls out the Ontario Libs for trying to use a sideshow of beer sales to distract from the reckless selloff of Hydro One.

- Bruce Johnstone notes that the Cons' corporate giveaway of what's left of the Canadian Wheat Board is happening despite a glaring lack of answers to major questions, while Mia Rabson offers a eulogy for the CWB. And the National Farmers' Union points out that labeling what's left as "Canadian" is a matter of spin and wishful thinking.

- Finally, Doug Cuthand rightly slams the Cons for trying to blame First Nations men alone for Canada's shameful legacy of missing and murdered aboriginal women.

New column day

Here, on how the Cons' secretive giveaway of what's left of the Canadian Wheat Board can only be explained by their desire to eliminate collective marketing in favour of total corporate control.

For further reading...
- Janyce McGregor reported on the Cons' refusal to consider allowing the Farmers of North America to bid on the Wheat Board's remaining assets. And Karl Nerenberg followed up on the Cons' excuses in Parliament.
- Dougald Lamont rightly sees the Cons as forcing producers toward the "bozo zone" of racing to the bottom in quality and price.
- And even the Globe and Mail recognizes the dangers of giving away public assets through a secretive process when there are bidders willing to ensure both some return in the short term, and a viable business structure in the long term.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Mark Gongloff takes a look at social mobility research from multiple countries, and finds that there's every reason for concern that inheritance is far outweighing individual attributes in determining social status. And Left Futures notes that the problem may only get worse as our corporate overlords become more and more sophisticated at cannibalizing our commonwealth for profit.

- Speaking of which, Jake MacDonald offers an insightful (if maddening) review of how farmers are suffering from the demolition of the single-desk Canadian Wheat Board.

- Andrew Jackson comments on the Cons' glaring failure to do anything to combat child poverty. And Cameron Dearlove discusses why we shouldn't pretend that child welfare is merely a family matter:

Child poverty should be of concern not only to parents and those who work with children, it must be of concern to the whole community. The experience of poverty has detrimental impacts on any individual, but when it's experienced through childhood development, the impacts are even more acute. 

Not having enough to eat, or not being able to afford healthy foods, impacts a child's concentration in school and can lead to lower academic achievement, along with negative effects on physical health. The stresses of poverty affect psychosocial development, with higher rates of behavioural problems and emotional and mental health challenges. 

The connection between a poorer diet and poorer health are obvious, but research has shown an even larger association with poverty's impact on cognitive development. One study of children entering kindergarten found 72 per cent of the non-poor children were proficient in recognizing words, compared to only 19 per cent of children experiencing poverty. These differences are shown to compound throughout life into adulthood. 

The impacts of poverty on development are not equal across ages. The detrimental effects of poverty are most severe in early childhood brain development, when future cognitive, social, and emotional functions are being shaped. This makes early intervention in childhood poverty even more pressing.

- Theophilas Argitas reports on new polling showing that while the tar sands may be the Cons' one and only priority, Canadians on the balance would prefer that we not focus on developing them further. Bruce Johnstone links that public concern with the inherent dangers of resource reliance as reason for concern about our economic direction. And Jon Queally writes about Kinder Morgan's failed injunction against the people seeking to defend Burnaby Mountain.

- Finally, Haroon Siddiqui points out how the Cons' exploitative mindset fits with Canada's historic colonial attitude toward First Nations and the environment they rely on. And while Diane Francis is a bit too focused on profits, she too recognizes that it's long past time to stop shirking our responsibilities.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your Monday reading.

- David Atkins emphasizes the need for progressive parties and activists to discuss big ideas rather than settling for the path of least short-term resistance:

Both the poor and the middle class feel threatened and increasingly pessimistic. Opinions of elite institutions across the board are at an all time low. Whether on the right or left, few believe anymore that anyone in government, business, or politics is actually looking out for their interests. In a world like this, the move to ensure that every single individual in society has an equal, infinitesimal chance to become obscenely rich loses its moral force. The rhetoric around "making sure that no one is left behind" in starvation and penury is far less compelling when the entire middle class feels like it's being left behind.
...
Tapping into the backlash will require more than just a focus on winning elections, as voters no longer believe politicians can or even want to solve their problems. It will also require much more than the weak vision of progress that the New Left has been peddling for decades.

It will require an acknowledgement of the trends that continue to destroy the middle class and send the working class into abject poverty, and a commitment to not only protect those falling furthest behind but to reverse the broader trend.

It will require a willingness to propose and try ambitious and novel policy ideas, both at the federal level and through the laboratories of the states. Policies like a Wall Street transaction tax, or state-run banks, or incentives designed to decrease rather than increase the cost of housing, or even a universal basic income. Capital mobility can be a problem, but even that is soluble through international trade treaties that serve to protect the interests of workers rather than plutocrats. These sorts of ideas can and should serve as the template for a re-energized left that promises not just vague and increasingly unrealized "opportunity" to people, but that actually delivers tangible results.

- Meanwhile, Darcy Henton reports on the latest example of unchecked privatization and corporatism run amok - as TransAlta is accused of taking a page out of Enron's playbook and causing up deliberate power shortages in order to drive up its own prices. Market efficiency at work!

- And Bruce Johnstone writes that the Cons' obsession with demolishing the Canadian Wheat Board is the most important factor behind the lack of shipping capacity that's leaving a prime grain crop stranded on the prairies.

- Dan Leger and Mark Burgess both note that the Cons' election legislation is aimed purely at rigging the electoral rules in their favour. And Linda Leon writes to her Con MP with an appropriate response to the bill.

- Finally, James Cudmore reports on Doug Drever's attempt to encourage accountability and access to information. But it's well worth noting that the Cons' culture of denial seems sufficiently dominant that even a strong dissenting voice wasn't enough to stop others from happily taking up the job of keeping information secret:

Then DND headquarters changed the plan again. Drever was ordered to advise CBC to ask for the documents through Access to Information rather than release them.

"Actually … No, I won't,” he said in one email.

"Gotta stand for something once in a while,” he added in another.

Drever told the army team to get someone else to refuse the request.

Eighteen minutes later, a subordinate, Capt. Denny Brown, reported, "Mission accomplished."

Sunday Afternoon Links

This and that for a sunny Sunday.

 - Mitchell Anderson's second article on Norway's success in converting oil resources into a massive source of public wealth focuses on the country's history of resistance to outside ownership. But I wouldn't see much reason why Canada couldn't turn its own sense of hard-earned independence from the world's dominant powers (which has always defined our relationships to the U.K. and U.S.) toward our corporate overlords.

- And in a guest post at Progressive Economic Forum, Tony Clark highlights why there's reason to be skeptical of the demands of our oil barons - as a "labour shortage" being used as an excuse for importing disposable foreign labour in fact reflects nothing more than a refusal to share the benefits of a profitable industry with Canadian workers.

- Bruce Johnstone rightly criticizes Stephen Harper's pardons to Customs Act violators for valuing nebulous economic rights far more than the real rights and freedoms his government has attacked while in power.

- Finally, I'm not sure how much circulation Yvonne Marton's profile of Thomas Mulcair's car ownership will receive. But it looks like a neat example of Mulcair fitting into the NDP's set of priorities - focusing on function and value in comparison to the Cons' preference for shiny trinkets.

Sunday Afternoon Links

Assorted content for your long weekend reading.

- While some of us may recognize that there's little reason to lend much credence to the talking points spewed out by any Con spokespuppet, others have tried to give the benefit of the doubt as long as possible. But Lawrence Martin notes that even by those standards, John Baird is losing any pretense of credibility. And Susan Delacourt notes that the Cons - while never known for maturity or reasonableness - are getting more childish by the day.

- Doug Saunders offers a look at what a Canada of 100 million people might look like. But let's recognize as well that we're far less likely to reach that point following the Cons' path of preferring disposable temporary foreign labour to an immigration policy that actually allows families to settle in Canada.

- Bruce Johnstone laments the fact that he's being proven right as to the harmful effects of eliminating the single-desk Canadian Wheat Board on western agriculture. 

- David Climenhaga classifies Dutch disease alongside climate change as areas where the Cons and their oil-sector allies are trying to shout down inconvenient truths.

- Finally, Tabatha Southey comments on the G20 report from Ontario's Independent Police Review Director:

(T)he G20 was a weekend of excess in every way. It seemed as if too much money had been spent on the whole affair. I was reminded of parties I once attended in the mostly unfurnished, newly rented homes of freshly successful film directors. Sometimes I’d think, “What is it that does this to people? A man earns some decent money and all of a sudden there’s an ice swan on the table.” A 30-year-old guy starts making $2-million a year, and suddenly he’s throwing his 50th wedding anniversary party. He forgets himself. He forgets the demographic he will be serving that weekend.

Close to $1-billion was spent on security for the G20 gathering. It was as if the officials won policing a summit in a lottery. Ostentatious displays of policing were everywhere – hundreds of riot-gear-clad officers charging repeatedly through peaceful crowds, banging their massive riot shields like so many big-screen TVs ordered in bulk for the guest bathroom.

Like the ice swan, these expenditures bore almost no relation to the events at hand. 

...

The G20 was the result of an unparalleled level of co-operation between federal, provincial & municipal governments. This would be inspiring had it not been three levels of government working together to deprive Canadians of their rights.

Some senior Toronto police commanders are expected to be charged shortly for a variety of misconduct offences. Currently 28 front-line officers face disciplinary hearings on complaints including unlawful arrests and use of excessive or unnecessary force.

We owe it to the protesters who marched peacefully, holding up signs with which I frequently did not agree, to get answers. Those protesters are placeholders for the time when a cause moves me, or anyone else, to demonstrate. I am grateful to them.

We also owe those answers to the many decent police officers who realize that the role of the police is never, as one officer interpreted his directions from superiors that weekend, to “own the streets.”

Saturday Afternoon Links

Miscellaneous material for your weekend reading.

- Tabatha Southey speculates as to the inevitable results when the Cons try to summon the entire Internet to answer for its political activity.

- David Olive points out that for anybody who wants to buy into "tax freedom day" messaging, the corporate sector is relieved of any responsibility to contribute to the public good far before we mere citizens.

- Mike de Souza notes that it's an unreasonable lack of consultation with First Nations - not phantom foreign funding - that poses a real risk to the Cons' latest tar sands promotion project.

- Meanwhile, David Pugliese reports on the obvious consequences of the Cons using Canada's military as a partisan research agency - as opposition MPs will have no reason to think they'll be dealt with as anything but political enemies.

- Sasha Issenberg writes about Barack Obama's efforts to present a new type of politics focussing on targeted appeals based on specific voter concerns rather than mass robocalls and blast messages - offering a model which I'd love to see the NDP follow over the next few years.

- Finally, Bruce Johnstone notes that it hasn't taken long for the dominoes to start toppling after the Cons' destruction of the single-desk Canadian Wheat Board - and Viterra, which was supposed to be our bulwark against foreign control of Canada's food industry, instead looks like it'll be the first piece of the industry to get sold off.

Parliament in Review: November 28, 2011

Monday, November 28 saw the final day of debate in the House of Commons on the Cons' legislation to trash the single-desk Canadian Wheat Board. And not surprisingly, the result was a particularly focused set of concerns about the bill - though those were waved aside yet again.

The Big Issue

The line of the day went to Carol Hughes on the empty promise of "freedom":

Perhaps the Conservatives are correct in a sense in that they are giving our farmers more freedom. However, what they are doing is freeing our farmers from the protection that the single desk provides. They are giving them freedom from financial stability, freedom from proven risk management, freedom to be bullied and bought by big agriculture. They are now freed from a guaranteed decent price on the global market.

Meanwhile, the Cons decided not to stay seated for the debate. Instead, David Anderson kicked off proceedings by hearkening back to the 1920s as his apparent ideal for agricultural marketing systems. Pat Martin again asked for any evidence whatsoever as to the anticipated impacts of demolishing the single desk, only to receive no answer even from the parliamentary secretary responsible. Alex Atamanenko and Frank Valeriote tested whether the Cons had paid any attention to the disastrous effects for farmers when the Australian Wheat Board was similarly torched. Atamanenko also criticized the replacement of an elected board of directors with a set of undemocratic political appointees. Wayne Easter wondered why the Cons were effectively taking the side of the U.S. and its agribusiness giants against Canadian farmers. Randy Hoback described what he would see as a fair voting process based on acres farmed, but didn't bother to explain why his party hadn't bothered to conduct that kind of plebiscite rather than overruling the only votes ever actually taken. Niki Ashton remarked on the helpful declaration by Gordon O'Connor that she could count on being attacked by the Board-bashers brought into Parliament by the Cons. And Alain Giguere pointed out that plenty of institutions beyond the Wheat Board itself stand to be affected by the Cons' attack.

But all the arguments in the world were ultimately for naught, as the Cons voted down any amendments (including the ones limited to preserving some semblance of democracy in the Wheat Board) and rammed through the bill.

Dumb on Crime 33 1/3: Too Dumb to Count

Meanwhile, some time was also taken debating David Wilks' bill to increase the mandatory minimum sentence for the kidnapping of a child by a stranger. Needless to say, the Cons' speeches didn't present the slightest justification for the bill other than their usual stream of declarations of (paraphrased for greater eloquence) "tough! good! criminals! bad! tough! good!". Jack Harris responded by imploring the Cons to take into account the exhortation to make good laws and wise decisions. Sean Casey nicely discussed the need for proportionality based on the facts of a particular case. And Jonathan Genest-Jourdain focused on prevention on the basis that the minimum sentence was nothing more than a sideshow.

In Brief

Peter Julian decried the Cons' environmental vandalism in reneging on Canada's commitment to the Kyoto Protocol and standing in the way of any meaningful replacement. Robert Aubin again pointed out the absurdity of the Cons' unfunded, unplanned and unfocused committee on French language rights in Quebec workplaces. Rodger Cuzner highlighted the disastrous results of Con neglect and austerity when it comes to processing EI claims. Anne Minh-Thu Quach questioned what Canada would have to show for billions in extra prescription drug costs based on CETA. Kennedy Stewart wondered why the Cons led the City of Calgary on for three years before declaring that recreation centres weren't eligible for P3 funding. Olivia Chow reiterated her call for legislation requiring side guards. Chris Charlton introduced a bill to bring Canada into compliance with an ILO convention against child labour by raising the minimum age requirement for workers, while Atamanenko proposed to allow conscientious objection to the use of tax dollars for military purposes. Linda Duncan asked the Cons to lift the 2% cap on aboriginal education funding. And Francois Lapointe asked an adjournment question about the opportunity to transition away from asbestos mining at a time when nobody is actually employed in the industry, only to receive an extra-long version of the Cons' greatest denial hits from Jacques Gourde.

Parliament in Review: November 23, 2011

Wednesday, November 23 saw the last votes in the House of Commons on the dismantling of the single-desk Wheat Board. And to who thought there might be some suspense as to the Cons' determination to impose their agenda without listening to anybody, it's always great to welcome new readers.

The Big Issue

Of course, the passage of the Cons' Wheat Board bill started with Peter Van Loan's latest time allocation motion. Joe Comartin warned Van Loan that the NDP had plenty of material available to show the Cons once considered exactly that type of action to be profoundly antidemocratic, and Niki Ashton, Alexandrine Latendresse, Matthew Kellway and Pierre-Luc Dusseault made good on the promise.

Meanwhile, Scott Simms managed to get Gerry Ritz to admit that at least one other single-desk marketer is on the chopping block. And Garry Breitkreuz argued that the fact he's been telling constituents that the Cons planned to ram through the bill immediately and without debate somehow served as reason for them to go ahead and do so.

Once debate resumed on the bill proper, Lynne Yelich broke the Cons' streak from the previous couple of days by deigning to speak in favour of the Wheat Board bill. But she may also have proven why the Cons are less than eager to bother, as Ralph Goodale pointed out that the position of processors that they expect better prices in the absence of a single-desk Wheat Board can only mean that less money is going to farmers. Niki Ashton highlighted the total lack of study and planning as to the actual effects of torching the single desk. And Don Davies called for the Cons to let farmers decide whether they support the bill.

But sadly, the Cons rammed through motion and the unamended bill.

Consider the Source

Kirsty Duncan cited both a departmental briefing note to Peter Kent and his own written submission in response to a question as evidence that there was no duplication in ozone monitoring to be cut - only to be informed by Kent that she should "use more reliable research". Which led in turn to this before Duncan was cut off by Andrew Scheer for reasons not apparent:

Mr. Speaker, I asked the Minister of the Environment a question and cited a response to an order paper question signed by the minister himself. The minister's response was that I should use more reliable sources. The minister's answer suggests that the minister's order paper response is wrong and has misled the House.

To give him the benefit of the doubt, I suppose the minister either misled the House in his order paper response or he is misleading the House now--

And that wasn't the only odd intervention by Scheer, who also responded to a point of order about a blatant breach of privilege by Gordon O'Connor by commenting that he agreed with a later point by Ed Holder about the behaviour of visitors.

In Brief

Don Davies and Chris Charlton both raised the desperate need to alleviate poverty in members' statements, while Jean Crowder followed up in question period. Elaine Michaud noted that concerns about the appointment of a unilingual Auditor General extended to at least a couple of prominent Cons. Nycole Turmel and Jack Harris challenged the Cons to provide some evidence that their dumb-on-crime plan would accomplish anything. Olivia Chow wondered about the rationale for slashing airline safety inspections while spending millions on little-used jets. Scott Brison nicely questioned the Cons' stimulus priorities:

How could the Conservatives use GPS to track action plan signs and not bother to track how many jobs were created?

Laurin Liu questioned the Cons' lack of interest in investing in clean energy, while Megan Leslie pointed out the consequences of dirty oil when it comes to trading partners' perceptions of Canada. Francois Lapointe noted that not a single employee is currently being paid to mine asbestos in Canada, and wondered why the Cons continue to shill for the industry rather than looking for alternatives for workers. Carol Hughes introduced a bill to establish medals for military service during the Cold War, while Davies followed with a proposal to extend voting hours in federal elections. Francis Scarpaleggia spoke to his bill on water exports - with a particularly odd intervention seeing an objection to Elizabeth May's request to co-second the bill, while the Cons managed to find excuses to oppose action to prevent bulk water exports. And Sean Casey presented a petition calling for all junk mail to be made out of hemp paper.

Parliament in Review: November 18, 2011

Friday, November 18 saw two pieces of legislation discussed. And the contrast couldn't have been much more stark between an opposition effort to develop better legislation, and a government focused on nothing more than sticking to talking points regardless of whether they made the slightest sense in context.

The Big Issue

The main topic of discussion was the Canadian Wheat Board, including debate on the opposition's amendments to at least eliminate the Cons' plan to take a wrecking ball to the elected board of directors. But predictably, the Cons offered no defence of those particular provisions - stubbornly repeating their "delay" talking point even though the bill would obviously take no longer to pass amended than unamended.

Meanwhile, Robert Sopuck's speech deserves special note as an example of a Con deliberately pretending that everything that led to his election never happened. Sopuck won his seat based in part on his firm statement that the Wheat Board should be defended - only to use his opportunity to stand up for his riding by doing nothing but spouting the same anti-Wheat Board talking points we've heard dozens of times before, including by saying that voters had already decided the issue by electing him.

Needless to say, Pat Martin eagerly pointed out the fact that plenty of western voters had taken the Cons at their word that the Wheat Board wouldn't be torn down without some opportunity to be heard, while Don Davies discussed his grandfather who was both a Conservative voter and staunch defender of the Wheat Board. Anne-Marie Day criticized the Cons' trampling of a democratically-operated institution in favour of direct political appointments and silencing affected parties, while Claude Gravelle wondered why the Cons are so eager to take Canada's farmers for granted. And Wayne Easter noted that the single-desk Wheat Board is highly efficient compared to other marketing mechanisms while also returning all surpluses to farmers (at least until the Cons decreed otherwise), while also noted that the same "producer freedom" arguments repeated ad nauseum when it comes to the Wheat Board would apply with equal force to supply management which the Cons plan to maintain.

Flag Football

The other bill debated was the Cons' first foray into literal flag-waving, as John Carmichael spoke to his private member's bill to make it a criminal offence to limit the flying of the Canadian flag. Tyrone Benskin and Guy Caron raised concerns about the heavy-handed punishment included in the bill. Scott Simms wondered whether Carmichael's bill might have served as a means to prosecute Danny Williams in the course of his anti-Harper protests. And Royal Galipeau asked a cryptic question about "civil society organizations that receive public subsidies, money from Canadian taxpayers, and refuse to fly the Canadian flag" - signalling that explicit loyalty tests may be coming in the relatively near future if he has his way.

Evolving Traditions

Lib MP Mauril Belanger made a novel request, asking that Gerald Keddy table an iPad which he had referred to in answering a question. And at the very least Keddy was willing to table the text he was referring to - meaning that the Cons aren't yet using advances in technology as an excuse to completely negate all historical disclosure obligations.

In Brief

Jack Harris and Helene Laverdiere both praised the Cons for taking at least one step to allow for proper debate and analysis of C-10, only to be met with a response that they had no interest in doing anything more. Rosane Dore Lefebvre questioned the Cons' reliance on risky and inequitable voluntary savings programs - only to receive a response from Shelly Glover highlighting the riskiest and least equitable choices the Cons have made. Francoise Boivin and Alexandrine Latendresse challenged the Cons' attacks on pay equity. Glenn Thibeault noted that a voluntary consumer protection system (which the Cons chose in favour of actual regulation) is falling apart as TD Bank pulled its previous participation. Jason Kenney demonstrated that his math tutoring from Jim Flaherty is going about as well as could be expected. Claude Gravelle asked when the Cons would bother to proclaim their long-promised emission reduction regulations for the oil sands, only to be told that the Cons don't believe anybody should even ask the question. Ryan Cleary pressed the Cons on increasing EI processing times which keep money out of the hands of workers when they need it most. Jean Crowder and Anne-Marie Day challenged the Cons to do something about poverty. And Randall Garrison questioned why the Cons are withholding funding needed to restore rail service on Vancouver Island.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Alex Himelfarb nicely summarizes the price of austerity:

Let me be clear that I share in the broad consensus that we must be fiscally prudent. But let’s pause on what fiscal prudence really means: It means spending wisely, reducing waste, collecting sufficient taxes to pay for the public goods and services we want, and keeping debt coming down, at least during reasonably good times.
...
Today’s austerity, however, is not primarily about fiscal prudence. If it were it wouldn’t be proceeding in tandem with large, unaffordable and unnecessary tax cuts for the most affluent among us. These tax cuts make deeper program cuts inevitable.

The persistent emphasis on low taxes and cuts to services and public goods looks more like ideology masquerading as fiscal common sense. In this light, austerity seems rather to be about cutting back the state and rolling out the free market agenda. Less public, more private; less collective, more individual. It is, in other words, the fulfillment of the neoliberal counter-revolution rather than an economic plan for the future.
...
I, for one, would propose that inequality, not austerity, be the defining issue for us now. Income inequality is growing fast in Canada and even the traditional deniers are coming on board. The gap is simply too big, the risks too high to ignore. Indeed, extreme inequality will continue to grow in an agenda dominated by austerity and tax cuts, an agenda that reduces our capacity for mutual aid and for collective solutions to our major challenges – our low productivity, climate change and environmental deterioration, and declining political participation.

Of course we ought to be fiscally prudent and that means asking of each cut and each expenditure, including every tax cut: will this help reduce inequality or will it make things worse?

Let’s make inequality in all of its manifestations – child poverty, the reemergence of elderly poverty, the squeeze on working Canadians and students, and the excessive incomes at the top – a national priority.

- Paul Waldie documents the results of the Cons' insistence on demolishing the single-desk Wheat Board with no consideration of the resulting consequences. And predictably, the outcome looks to be plenty of damage and confusion rather than any of the supposed benefits the Cons have been claiming.

- Meanwhile, the Cons are also working on making Canada's food supply less safe. And don't take my word for it: here's what their own spinners said in adding the jobs the Cons are now cutting:

The new investments being announced today will improve the Government's ability to prevent, detect and respond to future foodborne illness outbreaks. Among other improvements, the Government will:
-hire 166 new food safety staff with 70 focusing on ready-to-eat-meat facilities...

So if the hirings were an improvement to the "ability to prevent, detect and respond to future foodborne illness outbreaks", then surely the firings have to be the opposite. Right?

- Frances Woolley posts about the effect of moral hazards in allocating health care resources. But while the principle is worth discussing, I have to seriously question how much of a problem is demonstrated when the sole example of actual gratuitous consumption of health care comes from Homer Simpson.

- Finally, Linda McQuaig criticizes the Cons' preference for foreign capital over Canadian workers:

Ironically, the Harper government has complained forcefully about “foreign” interference from outside environmentalists protesting a proposed pipeline across the Rockies. But when it comes to foreign companies stripping Canadian workers of half their wages and then moving operations out of the country, the government hasn’t a negative word to say.

Harper is of course staunchly pro-capitalist, and has aggressively lowered corporate tax rates, while refusing to link lower taxes to investment or job creation.

But his anti-union stance, evident in disputes at Air Canada and the post office last summer, has been particularly provocative. He seems determined to turn Canada into an anti-union paradise — prompting the Ontario Federation of Labour to call for a mass rally at the Caterpillar plant in London this Saturday.

As the PM gears up for his coming battle against federal public sector unions, he will no doubt draw inspiration from Mitt Romney’s stirring words: “I like to be able to fire people who provide services.”

Sunday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your weekend.

- Bruce Anderson worries that the Cons might think they face no restriction on their ability to get away with dirty tricks. But Noah Richler suggests that the best way to fight back against the Cons' disdain for democratic debate is to treat them as a joke. And Dr. Dawg and deBeauxos start with an apt one.

- But Jeffrey Sachs reminds us that we shouldn't use justified cynicism over our current government to make the right's case to eliminate the concept of public service altogether.

- And Livio Di Matteo notes that if it weren't for the Cons' reckless tax-slashing, we'd never have faced the federal deficits which are now being used as an excuse to attack social funding.

- Finally, Bruce Johnstone slams the Cons' refusal to let farmers decide the fate of the single-desk Canadian Wheat Board.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Gerald Caplan documents the U.S. Republicans' refusal to live in a reality-based society, while hinting that the same philosophy is no less present in the Harper Cons.

- Meanwhile, Bruce Johnstone comments on this week's Canadian Wheat Board ruling as an indication that the Cons also believe themselves to be above both the law and the rule of law. And Ken Rosaasen notes that even the Cons' usual obsession with property rights is taking a back seat to their determination to demolish the Wheat Board.

- Thomas Walkom points out the dangers and failures in the Cons' latest U.S. border deal.

- Finally, Bill Curry reports on the Cons' push for ever-deeper cuts to the federal government. And it's well worth noting that this is exactly the danger involved in the Libs trying to raise an issue about election promises deferred as a result of an extended period of federal deficits: what better excuse could the Cons ask for in seeking to hack away at public programs in the name of yet another set of tax goodies for the people who need them least?

New column day

Here, on how the Cons are taking away the real choice currently enjoyed by Western grain producers thanks to the Canadians Wheat Board.

The data on grain production within the column is drawn from Statistics Canada. And see CBC's report on the total lack of planning by the Cons in destroying the single-desk Wheat Board.

Parliament In Review: October 26, 2011

Wednesday, October 26 saw a rare opportunity for the opposition parties to set the agenda. And as a result, the big issue was one which the Cons prefer to discuss as little as possible - even if it's far more relevant to more Canadians than most of the Harper government's distraction tactics.

The Big Issue

And that issue is...transit, which was dealt with in a second-reading debate on Olivia Chow's private member's bill. Chow in particular pointed out that municipalities themselves aren't the least bit interested in having the federal government wash its hands of the issue:

Hazel McCallion was just ranked number one in a Canadian poll as the most popular mayor. Naheed Nenshi, the major of Calgary, is number two. He is the Prime Minister's mayor and he supports a national transit strategy. Gregor Robertson, the mayor of Vancouver, is number three and he too supports a national transit strategy. These mayors are all in touch with their constituents. They all know what is needed.

Here are some more words: “We would encourage all parliamentarians and all parties to support the creation of a national transit strategy” They are not the words of a big city mayor. They are the words of the mayor of Grande Prairie.

The mayor of Winnipeg said that this provides an excellent framework for a national transit strategy. He was talking about the bill.

On the east coast, the Charlottetown city council supports the bill for a national transit strategy. That endorsement is echoed in all parts of the country, the transit authorities of London, Ottawa, Kelowna, the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities, the Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties , the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities which represent over 2,000 cities large and small, from coast to coast to coast.

Business groups such as the Toronto Board of Trade, and just today, the Victoria Chamber of Commerce, are on board.

There is a reason that all these great community leaders, business groups and ordinary Canadians are crying out for us to act. Transit is important; in fact, it is vital.

...which could only mean that the Cons were determined to do just that.

Meanwhile, Chow pointed out why the current general gas tax transfers aren't enough to ensure the development of well-planned transit systems. Elizabeth May seconded the bill and pointed out that Canada is the lone OECD country without a national transit policy. Kevin Lamoureux raised the idea of making transit free for seniors during off-peak hours. And Fin Donnelly pointed out the health and economic benefits of an effective transit policy.


The Race to Respond

Ralph Goodale raised a point of order as to why a Con spinmeister had been recognized to answer a question directed toward an opposition committee chair - a tactic which looks to be a sadly effective response to the idea of limiting the Cons' ability to provide non-answers in question period as long as the Speaker is so interested in giving the maximum possible speaking time to his party that he doesn't care in the slightest where a question is directed.

In Brief

Robert Aubin raised homelessness and housing in question period, only to have his call for a long-term strategy met with a statement that the Cons had already done plenty as far as they're concerned. Chris Charlton introduced a private member's bill to establish an oil and gas ombudsman. Jack Harris moved another motion to split up the Cons' dumb-on-crime legislation to allow the more problematic aspects to receive the scrutiny they deserve, while noting that the Cons' new bill left out amendments agreed to when earlier versions actually received some study. And in question period, Harris challenged Vic Toews on the differences between the Cons' previous gun registry bills and the one they're so determined to ram through now. Joe Comartin expanded on his ultimately-successful challenge to Russ Hiebert's anti-union bill. Alexandre Boulerice wondered whether the Cons' acceptance of the Auditor General's recommendations out of Tony Clement's G8 scandal included any willingness to allow Parliament to investigate, rather than taking Clement at his thoroughly-debunked word. Pat Martin pointed out another Con MP who campaigned on the idea of a vote on the future of the Canadian Wheat Board's single desk, rather than its destruction by fiat. And Rathika Sitsabaiesan called for an investigation into war crimes and crimes against humanity in Sri Lanka - only to be met with Deepak Obhrai's response that diplomacy works behind the scenes rather than in public. (Which surely needs to be passed along to whoever's been directing the Harper Cons' all-bloviation, all-the-time strategy on the Middle East.)

Thursday Afternoon Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Thomas Walkom suggests that the systematic eviction of Occupy camps from Canadian cities may only help the movement to evolve from its first form:

City administrations in places like Toronto, Halifax and Vancouver are inadvertently handing demonstrators something they desperately need — a way to honourably end stage one of their protest and build on it something more pointed.

As a short-term tactic, the decision to occupy parks in order to draw attention to global inequality was spectacularly successful.

In a world buffeted by recession, it focused public attention on the epicentre of the economic crisis — the global financial system.
...
There must be an end point at which those involved in the action can say: Yes we won something. Not everything, maybe, but something.

In cities like Halifax and London, Ont., where the occupy movements have been expelled from public parks, city officials provided that end point. Depending on how a superior court judge rules Saturday, Toronto protesters may face the same fate.

Yet none of this need spell defeat for the occupiers. They now have a chance to strengthen their fragile alliances with other organizations, such as labour unions, that are dissatisfied with inequality in Canadian life.

More important, they can now redirect their energies toward the specific elements of Canadian political economy that encourage such inequalities — from the tax code to municipal outsourcing to the provincial welfare system to the federal government’s war on labour.

- Don Drummond points out that there's plenty to be done to improve Canadian health care besides giving in to the right's relentless demands to privatize.

- Yes, it's outrageous that the Cons are raiding the Canadian Wheat Board's contingency fund (which would otherwise have been distributed to farmers) to pay a small portion of the costs of demolishing the CWB's single desk on its way to being sold off. But it's well worth noting the more basic point that the existence of a fund which gives farmers a share of the benefits of commodity arbitrage is the type of collective benefit that will be lost as the CWB is thrown on the mercy of the market.

- Finally, Ben Christopher notes that labour and management alike are aghast at the Cons' attacks on Canadian unions.

Parliament In Review: October 25, 2011

Tuesday, October 25 saw another day of discussion about the Canadian Wheat Board. But this time, the topic of debate was set on the opposition's terms, as the proceedings focused on Niki Ashton's motion calling to allow grain producers to vote for themselves as to the Wheat Board's future rather than having their single desk trashed by fiat.

The Big Issue

The passage of the day goes to Djaouida Sellah on how Ashton's motion fits into the Cons' broader contempt for democracy:

The motion asks the government to do three things: consult, step back and accept. The government needs much more practice in order to excel at these activities. I hope it will start practising right now.
...
I was not joking when I said I was rising to defend democracy. In case the government has not noticed, people are currently demanding their right to speak. They want their voices to be heard. A stunt like this only fuels public cynicism about our respectable institutions. The government has to listen to reason and hear the voice of the people. It has to take a step back and accept the verdict handed down by the farmers.

This government has to stop showing contempt for the public. It has to stop looking down on those who do not share its views. Democracy is much more than just winning elections. Democracy is about holding ongoing discussions with the public. I do not mean it is about controlling the message, as the Prime Minister's Office does; it is about listening to the needs and opinions of the public.

And Linda Duncan wondered what happened to the Cons' one-time claim to care about transparency and grassroots democracy.

Meanwhile, Jamie Nicholls questioned the Cons' use of "life, liberty and property" (see e.g. Brad Trost) as reflecting a deliberate change in Canada's social values, while Pierre Dionne Labelle listed a few examples of the Cons' efforts to destroy collective institutions. Kennedy Stewart pointed out that the Cons' actions were contrary to both the outcome and process of democracy. Frank Valeriote criticized the Cons' anti-democratic "resistance is futile" message. Wayne Easter noted that the other cooperative institutions (such as provincial wheat pools) which once offered the collective benefits of the Wheat Board have since been thoroughly corporatized. Carol Hughes asked about the effect on food security of undermining the Wheat Board, while also expressing concern about the continued erosion of family farming and wondering about the effects of granting yet more power to international megacorporations. Ted Hsu noted that the business sector often sets up what amount to single-desk structures as a means of achieving the best possible price for a product.

And on the Cons' side, Mike Lake cited the Cons' election results in a few ridings as the only votes the Cons needed to justify trashing the Wheat Board. But it can't escape notice that one of the ridings he pointed to was Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette - home of MP Robert Sopuck and his criticism of exactly what the Cons are doing:

The Tories have tried to eliminate the single desk and rejig how wheat board directors are elected, but Sopuck said only farmers should decide what happens to the wheat board.

"There's a lot of support for the wheat board over all parts of the political spectrum from left to right," said Sopuck.

Money Is No Object

I'm sure Peter MacKay thought he was sticking to his ideological guns in defending his party's insistence on pushing ahead with the purchase of F-35s even as other countries are backing off in droves. But his exact response to questions about the value for money involved in the purchase is probably worth framing for future reference:

Mr. Matthew Kellway (Beaches—East York, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, this minister has no answers.

His “just trust me” approach has gone from incredibly hopeful to ridiculously irresponsible as the government moves ever closer to blowing the budget on these jets that do not even work.

The independent Parliamentary Budget Officer has already pegged the cost overruns at a staggering $53 million per plane. How many more millions is this minister planning to spend to get working radios on these things, and how much more is he going to spend so that they can land?

Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, there is the difference. This is a government that is prepared to spend millions on important equipment that saves lives and provides mission success for members of the Canadian armed forces. That is the difference.

So the answer to how much more the Cons will spend to force through the purchase seems to be...whatever it takes to be able to claim to have bought something. Which looks like an ideal way to ensure that the Canadian public will be utterly ripped off - and all while failing to do more to support Canada's military than could be done through a remotely rational purchasing process.

In Brief

At the same time as the Keystone XL pipeline earns headlines on both sides of the border, Pierre Jacob questioned the Cons about a pipeline leak in his own riding. Nycole Turmel asked about Peter Kent's involvement in Tony Clement's G8 patronage scandal. Tyrone Benskin pointed out the Cons' concerted effort to avoid recognizing the CBC's 75th anniversary. Joy Smith spoke to her private member's bill, which (unlike the Cons' government-based attack on refugees) actually cracks down on human trafficking rather than immigration generally - and earned opposition support as a result. Joyce Murray provided evidence that the Cons' dumb on crime strategy is destined to be a miserable failure, only to be met with the Cons' unwillingness to countenance anything of the sort. In response to Francoise Boivin's question, Diane Finley went into some detail about the Cons' plan to shift social priorities into the big-money charitable sector. And Matthew Dube noted the debt burden and lack of opportunity facing new graduates.

[Edit: fixed date.]

Parliament In Review: October 24, 2011

Monday, October 24 saw another day dedicated largely to discussion on the Canadian Wheat Board - with the Cons simultaneously declaring that there's nothing to debate and failing to respond to the concerns pointed out repeatedly by the opposition, while a few extra points against the bill found their way into the conversation.

The Big Issue

Perhaps the most noteworthy development in the debate was an observation as to one of the main contrasts between the Wheat Board as it stands and the shell the Cons want to leave to be demolished over the next few years, as Wayne Easter repeatedly questioned why the Cons' legislation would fire all of the directors actually elected by farmers while leaving their own anti-CWB appointees in place - particularly those with a direct stake in destroying the Wheat Board due to their interests in its competitors.

Meanwhile, Pat Martin slammed the complete lack of evidence, planning or competent management in the Cons' determination to trash the Wheat Board as quickly as possible before pointing out plenty of evidence that farmers benefit from the Wheat Board as it stands. Andrew Scheer rejected Wayne Easter's argument that the Cons' legislation violates the privilege of MPs. Yvon Godin repeatedly called for the Cons to keep their promise to allow farmers a vote on the fate of the Wheat Board. Kevin Lamoureux responded to the Cons' "count the seatzzzz!" rhetoric by pointing out how similar arrogance caused the Mulroney PCs to implode in Western Canada. Ryan Cleary noted that Newfoundland is moving toward its own marketing board for fish, while Gerry Byrne raised similar questions about an existing program for freshwater fish. In question period Ralph Goodale asked why the Cons are so eager to see all the most important decisions about Canada's farming industry made by U.S. agribusinesses, while querying whether the Cons would do anything to stop foreign takeovers in the grain industry. And Malcolm Allen pointed out how consistently the rhetoric of "trust the market!" has proven disastrous for ordinary people who end up paying the price for the errors of the corporate sector.

Screen Plays

The other bill discussed at some length was Con MP Patrick Brown's private member's bill to set up a national cancer screening strategy. But while there was little dispute on the substance of the bill, opposition MPs did raise a couple of noteworthy points as to how it fits with the Cons' normal view of health care: Anne Minh-Thu Quach pointed out the need for improvement in the wider health care system rather than the single issue alone, while Hedy Fry noted that the Cons' willingness to take steps toward direct action to combat breast cancer makes it implausible for them to claim they can't do anything about other health issues based on jurisdiction.

In Brief

Nycole Turmel slammed the Cons for bulling ahead with the purchase of F-35s with no regard for whether they'll function in the Arctic. Robert Chisholm again noted the Cons' incompetence in dealing with supposed friends and allies. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe questioned the Cons' determination to direct the spoils of tax-free savings accounts to the people who need them least. And Jean Crowder questioned the Cons' spin that there's reason to cut Service Canada jobs as unnecessary at a time when EI claims are actually rising.