Sunday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Lana Payne juxtaposes massive profits and public concessions for Caterpillar and Rio Tinto against their attacks on Canadian workers:

(T)he demands by ElectroMotive, a subsidiary of equipment giant Caterpillar, are about as outrageous as they get, including a 50 per cent cut in pay.

These demands are coming at the same time as the corporation's revenues are projected to be about $44 billion for 2011, including billions in profits.

Certainly the CEO of Caterpillar is not hurting for a buck. And neither is the retiring boss.

In 2010, Caterpillar CEO Doug Oberhelman's compensation totaled about $10.4 million, according to an Associated Press review. Jim Owens, his predecessor, raked in $22.5 million in 2010 because of an extremely generous stock grant of about $16 million.
...
In Quebec, Rio Tinto (one of the world's largest mining corporations) locked out about 800 Alcan smelter workers. The corporation is also demanding major concessions, including cuts in pensions from its workforce.

The chief executive at Rio Tinto earned nearly $9 million in 2010, a 32 per cent pay raise over the previous year. That year, the company had profits of over $14 billion.
...
It's bad enough that workers are expected to pay the price of the financial crisis and subsequent recession - a recession they didn't cause. It's bad enough that in tough economic times workers are told to hold the line.

But now, even in the face of stunning corporate profits, even in the face of incredible corporate cash hoarding, even in the face of obscene CEO pay and billions in corporate tax cuts and credits, the living standards of workers are still under attack.

Is it any wonder these workers are angry? Make no mistake, eventually this kind of lewd corporate gluttony and the arrogant indifference of governments to it will come home to roost. It is only a matter of time.

- Kathryn May reports on the Cons' move to shutter public language training for civil servants. But it's worth taking a closer look at what's being done:

The federal government is getting out of the business of providing language training to its employees, throwing 179 teachers and instructors across Canada out of work.

The move - which started with downsizing in the 1990s, and intensified after a 2006 Treasury Board decision - marks the first time in decades that the government won't be directly offering French and English training to public servants to meet the language requirements of their jobs.
...
Until now, departments have had the option of using private schools or the Canada School of the Public Service, which charged fees, to train their workers.

In other words, departments have previously had a choice whether to use private or public training providers based on which actually provides better value for money. And the Cons have decided instead to make sure that the training money flows into the private sector to facilitate corporate profiteering - even where it wouldn't have been the better option if departments had a choice.

- But don't worry: public servants in Con ridings may yet stand a chance.

- Paul Krugman highlights the growing inequality which corporatists on both sides of the U.S. border want to avoid discussing.

- Buckley Belanger raises concerns that an industry-monitored environmental code may lead to serious damage without Saskatchewan's government having a clue what's going on.

- Finally, La Presse reports on the petition demanding that Lise St-Denis step down and face a by-election after her defection to the Libs. But in fairness, the new petition has a ways to go before matching the last similar effort.

Attacking the watchdogs

Shorter hand-picked cronies of Stephen Harper:

Down with accountability! We must make the federal government answerable to the Dictator-For-LifePrime Minister and nobody else!

The mission creep continues

I noted yesterday how the Cons' Afghanistan mission creep is based on dishonesty with the public when it comes to the terms of motions in Parliament. But let's note that the Cons have been equally deceptive when it comes to justifying increased troop levels based on Canada's actual operations, as the Cons' planned numbers run contrary to their own stated reason why the number of Canadians in combat was increased from 2,300 to its current level of 2,500:

Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor says Canada will have to send more troops to Afghanistan if it takes command of NATO forces in the country...

O'Connor says it will mean a larger commitment of troops - but only about 100 more than the 2,300 currently deployed in Afghanistan.

Given that Canada increased its troop levels for the specific purpose of supporting its command role, one would expect that the numbers would then drop back down when another country rotates into the command responsibility. And that's due to take place this November.

But based on David Emerson's comments yesterday, the Cons don't have any intention of reducing the current contingent of 2,500 troops by the first part of 2009, even though the reason for the previous increase will have ended months earlier. Instead, they're apparently planning on ignoring the possibility of reducing troop levels at the end of the command stint, using the 2,500 level as the new baseline, then adding to that in order to reach 2,700 troops in combat in 2009.

All of which goes to reinforce a couple of points which are far too familiar based on the Cons' stay in government. First, the Cons' strategy in Afghanistan is simply to be seen expanding Canada's military role, with no regard for whether there's any link between military commitments and end goals. And second, the Cons still can't be trusted to provide honest information about the mission - which should make it all the more obvious why it's long past time for both Canada's Afghanistan combat role and the Cons' stay in power to end.

Nothing to see here

Shorter David Emerson and Susan Schwab, trying to minimize media discussion about their NAFTA negotiations:
NAFTA is great - but too dull to be worth reporting on. So please go away and stop asking questions.

The sellout continues

Politics Watch reports that Deceivin' Stephen apparently didn't manage to hand enough over in his initial softwood sellout to appease the U.S., and is now looking to sign an even worse deal in order to avoid the litigation that his previous giveaway was supposed to end:

Almost a year after it was signed, Prime Minister Stephen Harper rose in the House of Commons Monday to defend the softwood lumber agreement with the U.S. after reports on the weekend that Canada may consider making concessions to the U.S...

On Saturday, the Globe and Mail reported Trade Minister David Emerson said opinion in government is divided over whether Ottawa should fight in court a U.S. complaint that some provincial aid programs to the lumber industry are subsidies and the Canadian companies are not paying enough export taxes under the 2006 deal...

Emerson's comments to the Globe outraged NDP leader Jack Layton who asked in question period, "Why do governments continue to make concessions when negotiations are over?"

"We're seeing the United States attacking our provinces for simply trying to manage their natural resources and what does the government do? They start looking at the idea of adding export taxes to this sector and that will cost us more than the tens of thousands of jobs that we've already lost."

Seeing as that the Cons have proven beyond doubt before that they don't much care how their deals affect actual producers within Canada, the result of any negotiation figures to be yet another disaster - particularly with the Cons no less desperate to claim any type of accomplishment (however negative) than they were in signing the initial deal.

But if Canadians realize just how eager the Cons are to concede every point the U.S. thinks to bring up, they don't figure to stand for that type of relationship for long. And hopefully today's attention will force the Cons to back off their latest move to that effect.