Tuesday Afternoon Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Martin Kenney comments on Canada's continuing role in "snow washing" offshore tax evasion. The Conference Board of Canada examines the massive gap between what Canada should receive in public revenues, and what's actually taken in to keep our society functioning. And Kamal Ahmed highlights how employers are avoiding their responsibilities by relabeling work relationships.

- Joe Romm points out that Donald Trump's obsession with coal power - like that of other right-wing politicians - is doomed due to the ready availability of more efficient energy sources. Andrew Nikiforuk points out the $30 billion liability for inactive wells which may be absorbed by Alberta's citizens due to the lack of any requirement for the oil sector to clean up its own messes. Carol Linnitt notes that the Libs' promised tanker ban on British Columbia's north coast is anything but. Zoe Todd reports on still more research showing the connection between fracking and earthquake activity. And Melissa Davey discusses new research showing that the impact human activity on our changing climate far outweighs any natural effects.

- Nicholas Kristof reminds us how the trumped-up threat of terrorism pales in comparison to risks we think nothing about facing every day.

- Evan Dyer reports on the Libs' plans to sacrifice national sovereignty along with travellers' privacy and security in the interest of appeasing the U.S.' irrational fears. And Stuart Trew examines the lamentable track record of cross-border deregulation which has harmed the public in Canada and the U.S. alike. So suffice it to say that Michael Harris' hope that Justin Trudeau would doing anything besides go along with Donald Trump to get along is sadly misplaced.

- Finally, Sam Wong points out that even monkeys and dogs judge humans based on how well they treat others - making it all the more bizarre that so many voter pools seem to have decided to do otherwise.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your Monday morning reading.

- Sixth Estate is the latest to weigh in on Statistics Canada's findings about inequality:

Progressive taxes are based on the idea that the more money you earn, the more you spend on unnecessary luxuries. Poor people therefore have very low tax rates because the bulk of their income is (or should be) spent on absolutely necessary items: food, clothing, and shelter. Wealthy people have higher tax rates because the bulk of their income is available for discretionary spending. Losing 50% of $1 million per year isn’t remotely as painful as losing 50% of $10,000 per year.

Except that in Canada, the progressive taxation system has clearly been left behind. Over the past 30 years, the income of the top 1% nearly quadrupled, but their tax rate did not increase. The bottom 90% merely doubled, and their tax rate slightly decreased. The most explosive gains were won by the top 0.01% — an elite club which saw their income quintuple since 1982, even as their tax rate actually declined from a peak rate of 46% in 1994 to just 35% today. Some burden!

- And even the Conference Board of Canada can tell there's a problem with poverty and inequality that needs to be addressed:

Linked to inequality is Canada’s high poverty rate, which ranks among the worst of the 17 countries the report looks at.

Canada’s child poverty rate is 15.1 per cent, up from 12.8 per cent in the mid-1990s, earning a ‘C’ ranking – only the U.S. ranked lower. Working-age poverty was 11.1 per cent, up from 9.4 per cent in the late 1990s – the ‘D’ ranking Canada received was the same as the U.S. and Japan.

The Conference Board calls Canada’s rate of child poverty “unacceptable,” and says action needs to be taken.

“Poor children do not eat well, do not learn well and have low chances of escaping poverty when they grow up,” Lafleur said.

- Gaius Publius looks in detail at the evidence showing austerity helps nobody (except a few predatory elites who are more interested in distancing themselves from the masses than any social or personal good). And Paul Adams points out that it's long past time to move past Paul Martin's all-too-successful effort to claim that manageable deficits are a worse outcome than poverty and lost opportunity.

- Finally, Mike Duffy's sad attempt to create a Prince Edward Island paper trail in order to hang onto his Senate seat would be a damning blow to any chamber with a good name to preserve. But who wants to bet that his fellow Con patronage appointees will do anything but circle the wagons around him?

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- For those with a few months to kill between now and next March, now may be the time to direct a browser tab toward Alice's NDP leadership site and start hitting "refresh".

- The Conference Board of Canada is once again warning about rising inequality, this time pointing out that income disparity is rising even faster in Canada than in the United States. Somewhere, Jim Flaherty is high-fiving Stephen Harper.

- Which is part of the reason why there's a need for a true party of labour - which Duncan Cameron rightly identifies as the NDP's niche.

- Finally, Nova Scotia Finance Minister Graham Steele concisely describes the Fraser Institute's economic analysis. And Jim Stanford and Erin Weir find similar levels of credibility from Ontario's PCs and Libs, respectively.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Jeffrey Simpson has a bit of trouble recognizing that inequality applies at all rungs of the income ladder, not merely as a matter of resolving poverty. But otherwise his latest is well worth a read:

The Conference Board of Canada, hardly a bastion of far-left thinking, just reminded Canadians about the growing income inequalities in their society.

The richest group of Canadians, those in the top fifth of income earners, saw their share of national income rise from 1993 to 2008. Within that fortunate group, the biggest gainers were the super rich, the top 1 per cent. And they got even richer not so much from investments but from basic salaries of the kind paid bank presidents and company CEOs.

From 1980 to 2005, the earnings of the top group rose by 16.4 per cent, while middle-income Canadians’ incomes stagnated, and earnings for those in the bottom group slid.
...
So why are we a more unequal society? That’s the subject of fierce debate. Other countries’ income inequalities are also growing, albeit to varying degrees, and the inequalities in big developing countries such as China, India and Brazil are much higher than anything in Canada or Europe.

It’s argued that globalization rewards some of the highly skilled (and people who can manipulate other people’s money, as in hedge funds, banking and financial services), while leaving others behind. Clearly, the struggles of manufacturing in North America and Europe have robbed those societies of millions of good-paying, often unionized, jobs. Some of these have been replaced by better-paying service-sector jobs; most have not.

The Conference Board notes that government transfer programs flatten out some inequalities, but not as effectively as 20 years ago. Unemployment benefits go to fewer people; welfare rates haven’t always kept up with the cost of living.

Many of the Harper government’s tax cuts, for example, have disproportionately benefited those better off, since they’re not geared to income – as in all those itsy-bitsy bribes for sports equipment, the GST cut and the child benefit cheques than come through the mail every month.

- Apparently the Cons can't even hold a photo-op for their pension giveaway to the financial sector without somebody pointing out the more viable solution:

Retired graphic arts worker Rene Walti, who relied on saving inside an individual Registered Retirement Savings Plan, said he would be pleased to see his four children benefit from the pooled plan option.

“You try to instill in them that you start when they are 18, and save 10 per cent at least of every cheque. Then they have other ideas, as we had other ideas at their age, too. And, that’s the problem. People start too late in an RRSP.”

So, he said, the “the general expansion of the Canada Pension Plan should also take place, because some people don’t have the discipline to save. With a mandatory CPP deduction that is a bit higher than it is now, at least we can keep them out of poverty.”

Menzies said an expanded CPP “certainly hasn’t been taken off the radar screen,” but provincial finance ministers agreed the pooled plans would be the fastest way to offer Canadians a better savings option.

- Dan Gardner is right to note that the Cons' dumb-on-crime strategy is neither entirely new, nor based on a direct attack on historic sentencing principles. But aside from the hope of a shift back in the longer term, is there really much value in avoiding changing the principles used in exercising discretion (in both sentencing and parole) while severely limiting the outcomes that are actually available?

- Finally, David Sirota points out why fast food is cheaper than healthier alternatives - with a heavy emphasis on subsidies for major components of the less-healthy food.

Thursday Afternoon Links

Assorted content for your review.

- Iglika Ivanova calculates the cost of poverty in British Columbia:

My findings confirm what we’ve already suspected: poverty comes with a very high price tag. The cost of poverty to government alone is estimated to be between $2.2 to $2.3 billion per year. The costs to society as whole is $8.1 to $9.2 billion annually. That’s a lot of money – close to 5% of the total value of our economy.

The study focuses on two types of costs in particular. First, I quantify the societal resources devoted to tackling poverty’s negative consequences. These include the health and crime-related costs of poverty. Second, I capture the economic value of foregone economic activity and lower productivity that are associated with poverty. BC isn’t using all the talents and productive potential of its citizens who live in poverty and this acts as a drag on our economy. These costs are what economists call “opportunity costs:” they do not represent resources we’re actually spending now but rather resources that would become available to society if poverty was significantly reduced or eliminated.

- But then, the historical failure to deal with poverty as a broader priority (particularly in contrast to handing money to the already-wealthy in the interest of supposedly boosting the economy for everybody) fits far too well with Ivor Tossell's apt description of Rob Ford's governing style as "uncompetent".

- And it's just now that we're seeing some reason for hope that matters will change for the better - as the problems with poverty and inequality are finally filtering up to the groups who have refused to consider them for so long.

- Finally, Josh Eidelson's article on how Wisconsin unions are seeing more opportunity to influence public policy without legal recognition is well worth a read.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Armine Yalnizyan follows up on the Conference Board of Canada's recognition that growing inequality is a serious problem for Canada by noting the similar observations around the globe:

There is a growing awareness that when the fruits of prosperity are so poorly shared, trouble is not far off, for the economy and for society alike. The Conference Board report is a reflection of the growing concern shown by the business press in Canada, the U.S. and the U.K. in recent months, with stories ranging from national and international income trends to firm-level eye-poppers.

At Davos this year, the World Economic Forum named rising inequality as the “most serious challenge for the world”. Their survey of 580 global decision-makers led to the conclusion that “economic disparity and global governance failures both influence the evolution of many other global risks.” Tackle growing inequality, and you tackle the root of much dysfunction in the world.

- Scott Stinson is the latest to question the thesis that Stephen Harper has somehow made Canada into a more conservative country. But I'm not sure his counter is on point either: while the Cons have tried to put on a non-threatening face for the public at large, I'd be curious to see a trace of evidence that their party supporters have generally moved an inch away from the values that were indeed seen as contrary to those shared by most of the country.

- David Climenhaga points out that in the midst of the most volatile political environment Alberta has seen for ages, there's reason for optimism that the provincial NDP can build on the party's federal success.

- And Chantal Hebert notes one of the reasons why the party was able to break through federally:

A stronger focus on values also contributed to the success of the NDP — a party with no government track record but with a long history of treating equality and minority rights as party policy and of voting accordingly in the House of Commons.

On May 2, that history made it easier for many former Bloc Québécois and Liberal supporters in Quebec to find a second home with the NDP.

- Finally, it's no surprise that the U.S. offered the Harper Cons tips on how to better serve the oil industry in selling the tar sands abroad. But given the Cons' constant focus on putting the oil patch first, I would think it's noteworthy that they were seen to need the help.

Wednesday Evening Links

Assorted content to end your day.

- Charlie Angus is leading the charge against the Cons' plan to ram through lawful access legislation, labeling it as warrantless snooping and spying on Canadians. We'll have to see how far Angus can get in swaying public opinion, but a concerted effort over the summer could go a long way to at least make this part of the dumb-on-crime strategy into a political loser for the Cons.

- Sun Media isn't prepared to meet basic media standards for accuracy and fairness. On a newsworthiness scale, this ranks somewhere below "dog bites man" - is "dog wants food" common enough to fit the bill?

- Meanwhile, the Conference Board of Canada not only recognizing a growing level of inequality but also hinting that it's a problem actually does qualify as a remarkable turn of events.

The 33-year trend which has accelerated since 1993, raises questions about the country’s economic well-being, including whether Canada is using all the skills and talents of its citizens and whether social cohesion and fairness are being undermined, says How Canada Performs: Is Canada becoming more unequal?

Social policy experts who have been raising the alarm over Canada’s growing income gap since 2006, say the Conference Board report represents a watershed.

“The significance of this report is that it is now firmly on the radar of the business establishment,” said economist Armine Yalnizyan who has written several reports on the issue for the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives that are referenced by the Conference Board.

“The jury is no longer out. This is a pressing issue of our era,” Yalnizyan said in an interview.

- Finally, the Cons have officially completed the Harper Shuffle on their earlier suppression of a report on the Champlain Bridge, having completely reversed their position without either admitting they were wrong or even acknowledging that they've changed course.

Wednesday Morning Links

Assorted content for your midweek reading.

- It's tough to disagree with Jamey Heath's view that a united Canadian left is a long way off. But perhaps more important than his recognition that it will take awhile to reach that end goal is his rightful identification of the process most likely to get there:

Many left-leaning Liberals are Liberals for no reason other than it used to be a viable alternative to Conservatives. They would find a happy home in the NDP if they accepted its invitation.

But they are leery. They fret the party's success may prove shortlived and worry it has not taken on board enough lessons from successful Prairie cousins, or the not-sosuccessful Bob Rae experience in Ontario.

Convincing them the NDP can form the base of something new -able to work with Quebecers -will take more than a welcome mat. It also depends on more introspection from Liberals who mistake being in the middle with avoiding the polarized politics their party long fed.

- Alice's latest chart comparing the riding-level two-party races in 2008 and 2011 is definitely worth a look. But it's particularly worth noting that the two largest blocks of ridings involve races where the NDP seems well positioned to take over Con territory - including the 50 where the NDP came second to the Cons in both 2008 and 2011, and the 43 where the NDP eclipsed the Libs as the second-place party. And indeed, an even split of the 148 ridings where the NDP and the Cons were the top two contenders would result in the NDP ranking at the top of the federal party standings.

- Thomas Walkom points out what the Conference Board of Canada's report on health care really says - contrary to the media spin about it somehow serving to justify further privatization:

(The report) makes the obvious point that health involves more than doctors, hospitals and drugs. It suggests that Japan’s high life expectancy is related more to diet than anything else (the Japanese are far less obese than Americans).

And it points out that the countries with some of the worst health outcomes are often those with the most poverty.

That Canada has the second-highest level of infant mortality among advanced nations may have little to do with our health care system and much to do with the fact that our poverty rate is almost as high as America’s.

The second question the Conference Board looks at is why U.S. medical costs are so high.

Its findings here won’t give much solace to the National Post.

The study attributes much of this extra spending to America’s reliance on private medical insurance. Administration costs in the United States are twice those of its nearest competitor, France.

Incidentally, Canada already has the third-highest rate of private health spending among the countries surveyed, a fact that should give pause to those who claim that privatization leads to lower costs.

The study also fingers another panacea of the right: market incentives. It notes that outpatient surgery and diagnostic testing in the U.S. are skyrocketing — in part because pricey tests (such as MRI scans) are needlessly duplicated and in part because fee-for-service billing encourages specialists to schedule more operations.

- Shorter Charles Moore: Better to redefine "democracy" as meaning something other than government supported by voters than to acknowledge that a distorted first-past-the-post system doesn't live up to the standard.

- Finally, pogge notes that at least some of the lessons from Maher Arar's abduction seem to have been wilfully ignored by CSIS in identifying Canadians as "suspected of terrorist-related activity" based on nothing more than distant association.

First impressions

A few quick notes on the Conference Board of Canada's potash report which was released today.

To start off with, the report includes some highly questionable assumptions which fit into the Conference Board's tendency to echo corporate buzzspeak. Most notably, it's stunning that the Conference Board ignores BHP Billiton's own repeated statements that it wants nothing to do with Canpotex by rationalizing that "market discipline" would override that explicit intention.

But that only makes for the difference between loss of $2 billion over 10 years, compared to one of $5.7 billion under a scenario where a buyer decides to undercut potash prices based on its own internal considerations (whether gaining market share or wanting to favour particular purchasers). So either way, the clear decision for the Wall government is whether it's worth losing hundreds of billions of dollars per year solely in order to be perceived as friendly to business.

Meanwhile, the Conference Board does present one useful suggestion to minimize the cause of the possible tax losses from a BHP Billiton takeover:

(T)he Province may want to consider making the impact of capital
expenditures on potash royalties project-specific, rather than company-specific.

Of course, it's open for question whether there should be much need for tax breaks on potash investment in any event. But to the extent they're going to remain in place, the Conference Board's suggestion would seem to make for a useful means of linking tax breaks to the capital investment they're supposed to stimulate, rather than having them serve as a means to put the province on the hook for a takeover.

Self-serving

I'll post later on how the continued push for P3s makes for a stark contrast with how far too many Canadian governments and political parties treat spending which actually serves to benefit society at large rather than corporate benefactors. To whet your appetite, though, here's Toby Sanger on the Conference Board of Canada's latest infomercial posing as research:

The Conference Board of Canada published a report late last month, Dispelling the Myths, which purports to show that public-private partnerships (P3s) have delivered major efficiency gains for the public sector, a high degree of cost certainty, and greater transparency than conventional procurement.

While the report maintains it provides an impartial assessment of the benefits and drawbacks of using P3s, it is astoundingly superficial and biased in its analysis.

A major flaw with the report is that it takes the superficial “value for money” reports produced by P3 agencies at face value without questioning of their assumptions or methodologies for its claim that P3s have delivered efficiency gains.

In doing so, it also completely ignores recent reports by provincial auditors general that have been highly critical of the value for money methodologies used by these agencies.
...
Even though the report’s authors interviewed over 30 people for the report, they don’t appear to have interviewed one person from a public auditor’s office. With the exception of one academic, all the people interviewed were from P3 companies, P3 promotion agencies, government officials in this capacity, from agencies directly engaged in delivering P3s, or on the record in supporting P3s.
...
It should be no surprise that this Conference Board study was entirely funded by the federal and provincial P3 promotion agencies. The source of the funding shouldn’t necessarily disqualify the research, but in this case, it appears to be clearly crafted for the interests of its sponsors.

On recall

Apparently the Conference Board of Canada can be shamed into withdrawing a report if it gets enough attention for shoddy work. So who wants to see if it's too late to take another look at its work on TILMA?

Deep thought

If the International Intellectual Property Alliance really wants to prove its dedication to defending copyrights, we should expect a claim against the Conference Board of Canada any day now.