Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Thomas Walkom discusses how Canadian workers are feeling the pain of decades of policy designed to suppress wages - and notes there's plenty more all parties should be doing to change that reality. And Doug Saunders points out what we should want our next federal government to pursue to bring about lasting growth:

Many economists came to realize not only that government intervention bailed many countries out of the post-2008 recession and restored growth and employment, but that the crisis itself may have been caused, in good part, by the disappearance of active government support in the economy – the sort of direct investment and partnership that had existed in earlier decades.
...

Economists began noticing that the great economic boom of the 1990s and 2000s had been a direct product of targeted state investments in specific companies and sectors. The Italian economist Mariana Mazzucato, in her influential book The Entrepreneurial State, chronicled the emergence of the iPhone as a direct product of Washington’s large-scale investments in Silicon Valley – not just through state spending on technology products and tax incentives to high-tech industry, but through the specific choice of Apple, in the 1970s and 1980s, as a company Washington would invest in (though small-business investments that put $2 into Apple for every dollar of private investment). Intel and Compaq were also targets of this active state investment, much as Elon Musk’s Tesla electric-car company is today.

Dr. Mazzucato, in an interview from her University of Sussex office, describes the heavily funded state banks that have allowed Germany, China and the United States to build globally competitive companies – and notes that Canada, despite having earned a fortune in petroleum revenues in the past 15 years that could have created a similar major institution, has nothing substantial of the sort, nor any proposal to create one.

“Canada is interesting,” she said. “It is one of the most skewed countries, not only in terms of sectors – lots of emphasis on the extractive stuff – but also in terms of instruments: It’s very, very indirect. It does most of its government investment through tax incentives. Compare that to the United States or China or Germany, where it’s all direct: If they want to do something, they do it. They directly finance a sector or the most innovative companies, and they create grants or guaranteed loans to do it, not an indirect tax credit. And on top of that, these Canadian investments are not so mission-oriented: At best, there’s a list of sectors to be supported indirectly, but no targeting of specific companies or industries. And then they get surprised when they’re not on the top any more in any of the big innovations.”

- Andrew Coyne rightly argues that we shouldn't spend so much of an election campaign attacking past personal statements from candidates, while noting that part of the problem lies in the vetting authority that's been taken over by the parties' leaders.

- Meanwhile, Kevin Grandia highlights Cheryl Gallant's climate change denialism as a symptom of the Cons' real unfitness for office. And Donald Gutstein comments on Doug Black's role as an oil lobbyist within the Senate.

- Tabatha Southey writes that the Cons are offering nothing but fear, uncertainty and doubt for voters, while Sandy Garossino weighs on that message as it applies to refugees in particular. And Terry Glavin zeroes in on how that strategy involves ignoring the plain facts even of high-profile events such as the tragic deaths in the Kurdi family.

- Finally, Parker Donham sets out why Canada can't afford any more of Stephen Harper. And Fram Dimshaw reports that the veterans who once served as Harper's political cover are joining the cause in demanding more responsible government.

Parliament In Review: June 13, 2011

As I'd suspected, there looks to be plenty of material for a review post from just a day's worth of events in the House of Commons. So here's an inaugural daily review of what you may have missed in Ottawa yesterday - with a few themes I'll be developing in future posts.

The Big Idea

While it hasn't received much attention in the media, one of the main points of discussion since Parliament resumed has been the structure of the Cons' tax credits - which in areas ranging from volunteer firefighting to childrens' arts participation are set up as non-refundable credits which offer absolutely no benefit to less-well-off Canadians participating in the activities the Cons claim to want to encourage. And yesterday saw plenty more questions and comments on the subject, with MPs including Randall Garrison and Marc Garneau highlighting the issue. And Pat Martin noted that we can look forward to a more systematic review by the NDP:

(W)e are in the process of doing an analysis, perhaps the first in-depth analysis, of many of the tiny incremental tax credits that the Conservatives have offered Canadians over the last two or even three budget. We are breaking this down by quintile to see who is actually availing themselves of the tax credits being offered.

What we are finding, and it is not ready for publication yet because it is not quite finished, is that the tax credits that are targeted for the sports tax credit or the children's art and music tax credit, for instance, will probably not help many poor kids participate in sports who would not otherwise be participating or participate in music, dance, theatre or art who would not otherwise be participating. It is those who are availing themselves of it who are already participating in that program.

Which is to say that we can expect plenty of focus on the Cons' choice to hand money only to those who need it least in the days and years to come.

Value Statement of the Day

Mathieu Ravignat summed up what Pontiac's voters chose instead of Lawrence Cannon:

The good people in the Pontiac voted New Democrat for the first time and they know exactly what they voted for. They voted for a more respectful government. They voted for a perspective that does not reduce Canadians to economic units, an option which understands that there is more to being a Canadian citizen than paying taxes, that there is such thing as the good life in a country that has at its heart the principle of caring for each other. They voted for a stronger, more social Canada, with a strong place for Quebec in it; a Canada where after a productive life one can take a much deserved rest; a Canada where universal health care is a fact, not simply an empty phrase; a Canada which enables families to make ends meet, that helps create new innovative green jobs; and a Canada which leaves to our children, my children, a beautiful environment filled with diverse ecosystems because it is a good in itself and not a means.

Vote of the Day

Yes, the NDP's budget amendment was defeated and the Cons' budget passed. But it's worth noting that the division from last week continued - with the NDP, Libs and Greens each voting for the amendment and against the budget, while the Bloc voted with the Cons both times.

Gotcha

Amidst the criticism of the Cons over their G8 pork-barrelling and dishonesty, Alexandre Boulerice pointed out how the Auditor General's concerns about a shockingly nonexistent paper trail contradicts the Cons' own 2006 platform, which included a commitment to “oblige public officials to create the records necessary to document their actions and decisions”.

The Stimulus Continues

Over the past few days, one of the NDP's main questions on the budget has been the reason why the Cons refuse to extend the eco-energy retrofit program for more than a single year. But James Lunney's answer to Chris Charlton raises plenty more questions than it resolves:

There is a difference between permanent measures and those that are meant to stimulate activity. The member is aware that we are running a deficit and were severely criticized for that. When we were coming up with the economic action plan, opposition parties were annoyed that we were not operating fast enough and wanted us to spend more, but we have an obligation to balance our budget.
...
We have an opportunity in next year's budget, if we need further stimulus, to move ahead with a program. In the meantime, we are hoping as many Canadians as possible will take advantage of it this year to keep people working and move ahead with energy efficiency in their homes. It is a well-appreciated program that is supported by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Canadian Home Builders' Association.

Now, as best I can tell the Cons' consistent party line to date has been that their stimulus program as announced in 2009 has been wound down, and that there's effectively no need to further stimulate Canada's economy. So it's rather a surprise to hear both that there's still a need for stimulus spending, and that retrofitting is still being classified as such.

Non-Answer of the Day

Anna-Marie Day asked a simple question as to whether the Cons would consider an anti-poverty program. Patricia Davidson responded with the Cons' patented economic word salad - featuring precisely zero mention of poverty.

Of course, an honourable mention has to go to Cheryl Gallant, ducking a doubly embarrassing question from Gerry Byrne about search-and-rescue priorities with a chorus of "Sea Kings! Sea Kings! Sea Kings!"

In Brief

A few more interventions worth noting: Peter Stoffer's question on what a Conservative Canada actually means; Annick Papillon's focus on the social and economic costs of inequality; Andre Bellavance's unsuccessful attempt to push the NDP's Isabelle Morin on the federal government's role in health care; and Jonathan Genest-Jourdain's focus on developing an alliance between Quebec, Coaster, Innu and Naskapi communities in Manicouagan.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Nick Taylor-Vaisey follows up on the point which I put aside yesterday, and notes how absurd it is for the Sun Media Party to be portraying the status quo as some horrible new development:

Akin calls the current language of the regulation “outmoded and impossible-to-enforce”, and perhaps that’s true. But if truth squads have existed, they must have been in hiding for the last couple of decades. Because that’s how far back the current regulation can be traced.

Twenty-five years ago, the CRTC set in stone that no licensed radio station shall broadcast “false or misleading news”. That was 1986. The following year, the CRTC did the same the same for TV stations. In 1990, the commission did the same for pay TV.

Now, perhaps the proposed changes are for the best. Perhaps not. But Angus was simply defending the status quo. And if that status quo includes truth squads roaming the streets in search of journalists, it’s been a pretty invisible campaign.

- James Travers points out that while any gains from a perimeter security deal with the U.S. are likely to be illusory, Canada's concessions will once again be all too real:

Nudged along by Stephen Harper, Canadians increasingly mistake their prime minister for a U.S. president. Now, as construction begins on a border perimeter, they are making the flip-side error of assuming Barack Obama has Harper’s power to deliver promises.

Few of the checks and balances constraining the president limit the Prime Minister. In practice that means Obama can’t guarantee the cross-border free flow of people, goods and services that Harper hopes to secure with sovereignty concessions.
...
Forgetting that the world’s most powerful leader doesn’t wield the unfettered influence of the Prime Minister, (Canadians) are ignoring two inescapable facts of cross-border life.

One is that trade pacts are only as strong as their capacity to equitably resolve disputes that jeopardize entrenched interests. The other is that the president’s promise is only as good as what other Americans are willing to deliver.

- By Cheryl Gallant's logic, shouldn't the Cons be cancelling their F-35 purchase and suggesting that communities band together to buy locally-operated fighter jets if they think it's so important?

- Finally, I'm far from sure that the declaration that municipal and provincial dollars will absorb the cost of a Quebec City arena is anything short of the best-case scenario for the Cons.

Sure, it'll be painful for them to watch the usual PR stunts take place without being able to participate. But it also allows them to take credit among less-informed voters without actually contributing anything useful - and I'm far from sure they won't get just as much mileage out of that as they would have in actually tossing in some money.