#Elxn44 Roundup

The latest from Canada's federal election campaign.

- Bruce Campbell discusses the connection between the climate crisis and wealth inequality - along with the miserable failure of Lib and Con governments in responding to both. And Canadians for Tax Fairness offers a fact sheet on closing tax loopholes. 

- Erica Lentl interviews Jagmeet Singh about the NDP's plans on LGBTQ2S+ issues, including in seeking to improve on the Libs' version of a conversion therapy ban. And Max Fawcett discusses how climate change is just one of the areas where the O'Toole Cons want to drag Canada backwards, while Randy Boswell points out O'Toole's laughable attempts to distance himself from the regressive positions he trumpeted to win and hold the Cons' leadership.   

- PressProgress points out Lib candidate Douglas Kobayashi's history of opposing not only minimum wage increases, but the existence of minimum wages at all. And Ashley Burke reports on Justin Trudeau's willingness to endorse Raj Saini despite multiple serious allegations of sexual harassment. 

- Meanwhile, 350 Canada offers its first set of endorsements for climate champions on the ballot - including Regina-Lewvan NDP candidate Tria Donaldson. 

- Finally, Andrew Coyne writes that Justin Trudeau has turned the presence of protesters into a claim of victimhood without addressing the problems with his campaign generally. And Don Martin discusses how the Libs' efforts to make the campaign all about Trudeau have backfired due to voters' increased skepticism. 

Sunday Afternoon Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Nazeem Muhajarine discusses the importance of a response to the coronavirus which recognizes how a virus can change course and pose new threats. But Scott Schmidt notes that Alberta - like Saskatchewan and Ontario - is insistent on staying the course even when it obviously leads to disaster. And Brooks Fallis warns that the public is sleepwalking into a dangerous third wave.

- Don Martin writes about the abject failure of most Canadian provinces to use rapid tests to help in the fight against COVID-19. And Jerry Dias weighs in on the need for paid sick days as part of the plan to reduce community spread.

- Moira Welsh reports that for all the outcry about the mistreatment of residents in long-term care homes, nothing has changed for the better since last year in Ontario. Erick Espinosa and Michael Talbot expose how one for-profit operator has gone so far as to turn its retirement home into a prison, removing interior door handles to trap residents in their rooms. And PressProgress rightly asks why workers and unions were left out of British Columbia's review of COVID-19 and long-term care, while also revealing that Ontario workers are being pushed back to work under the province's workers' compensation system while still experiencing symptoms.

- Aaron Wherry writes that Canada's political system is better off for at least having enough party discipline to prevent the most extreme and anti-democratic forces from systematically gaining power. And Paul Krugman notes that the U.S.' Democrats are finally responding in kind to the Republicans' determination to use every lever at their disposal to shape policy outcomes. 

- Finally, Taylor Lambert muses as to whether the Notley NDP did enough with the opportunity created by a majority government.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Kerri Breen reports on the public's understandable frustration with Canada's political system. Don Martin offers a prime example as to why that's justified, as Justin Trudeau has cynically concluded that it would be counterproductive to stand up for people facing religious discrimination in Quebec as a result of Bill 21. And Karl Nerenberg examines Trudeau's track record of broken promises - including some of the most important commitments which earned him a look from progressive voters in 2015.

- Meanwhile, Charlie Smith notes that Jagmeet Singh may be ideally positioned to offer a desperately-needed alternative to corporate service as usual.

- Common Dreams takes note of a new study showing both the ubiquity of plastic ingredients in the bodies of German children, and a familiar pattern of inequality in which less wealthy children are more likely to face dangerously elevated levels of pollution.

- Chris Varcoe points out that the City of Medicine Hat has joined the ranks of traitors to Jason Kenney's fossil fuel cause by planning to shut down gas wells which can't produce a viable return.

- Finally, William Horobin discusses Thomas Piketty's latest book, including its proposals for political and economic remedies to the scourge of undue inequality.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Melanee Thomas writes that we need to change our political system, rather than blaming women for the barriers placed in their way:

Ethos – that set of values and beliefs that guide our politics – is key to explaining why women remain so under-represented in Canadian politics. My research using Swedish data confirms how raising levels of women’s representation can engage them with politics. Swedish political parties in 1974 implemented a voluntary gender quota to ensure they elected more women. Over time, the proportion of women in Sweden’s national legislature, the Riksdag, rose from about 20 per cent in the 1970s to over 45 per cent today. What’s most interesting is that as more women were elected, it sparked greater interest among other women in politics. Sweden differed from Canada in that it took action to get women on par with men in their political institutions. Here, where only 26 per cent of MPs are women, the number is still too small to spark the same increased interest in politics among women.

This shows how ethos matters: If women observe how politics remains closed to them, no amount of resources or individual interventions will make them want to participate more in politics. A more effective route is to transform what our politics look like. The Swedish example shows this can be done by changing the collective belief: Women belong in politics.

- And David MacDonald examines how most of Canada's federal tax loopholes are grossly biased to favour men over women.

- Jeanna Smialek reports that U.S. employers who refuse to offer higher wages are complaining they can't find workers to accept their terms. And Sara Mojtehedzadeh reports on Ontario's cuts to enforcement against temp agencies which systematically violate employment standards and health and safety laws.

- Finally, Ed Finn challenges the Libs' spin that it's worth making governments complicit in corporate crime and corruption in the name of temporarily clinging to jobs which can be eliminated on a whim. And Don Martin highlights how the burgeoning lobbying industry can only be explained by the perception that access to power is the path to sustained wealth.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Susan Delacourt writes that the Libs' federal budget is best seen as requiring an overriding "to be continued". And Don Martin flags a few points which may prove important later - including what might be an unexplained delay of any electoral reform.

- Meanwhile, Teuila Fuatai highlights how the budget falls short in terms of promised and expected improvements for Canadian workers. And Alison Crawford exposes apparent plans to outsource nearly half of Shared Services Canada's non-security work.

- Chantal Hebert points out that the overriding problem with the fiscal framework set up by the Cons - being heavy reliance on resource prices and other volatile sources of revenue rather than a more stable, more fair tax system - doesn't look to be changing at all.

- And Ian Young highlights a glaring example of how catering to high-wealth individuals has done nothing to serve the public good, as millionaires provided with easy immigration access are paying an average of a mere $1,400 apiece in Canadian income tax while having little economic impact other than to make housing less affordable for everybody else.

- Finally, Michael Geist rightly points out that a public consultation on the Trans-Pacific Partnership may be meaningless if the Libs aren't willing to walk away from the deal, as there's little reason to think the same actors who insisted on tilting the playing field against the public in the first place will be receptive to any changes or flexibility in interpretation.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Frank Graves writes that we're seeing the end of progress for all but the wealthiest few - and that we all stand to lose out if we come to believe that progress for the rest of us is impossible:

There is a virtual consensus that a growing and optimistic middle class is a precondition for societal health and economic prosperity. This consensus position reflects the historical record of when nations succeed. Yet if this consensus is correct, we note with alarm that almost nobody thinks that these conditions are in place in Canada. To the contrary, the consensus view is that the middle class is shrinking and pessimistic.
...
There are important barometers of confidence and we have tested these the same way in repeated measures for twenty years or so; the trajectories are clear and revealing. Never in our tracking has Canada had such a gloomy outlook on the economic future. Never in our tracking has the sense of progress from the past been so meager.

- Meanwhile, Spiegel interviews Naomi Klein about the choice between ever-increasing resource consumption and a sustainable planet:

SPIEGEL: So you're saying that a new era of consumption and energy use began precisely at the moment when sustainability and restraint would have been more appropriate?
Klein: Exactly. And it was at precisely this moment that we were also being told that there was no longer any such thing as social responsibility and collective action, that we should leave everything to the market. We privatized our railways and the energy grid, the WTO and the IMF locked in an unregulated capitalism. Unfortunately, this led to an explosion in emissions.
...

SPIEGEL: Let's go back to our first question: Why have people been unable to stop this development?
Klein: We have systematically given away the tools. Regulations of any kind are now scorned. Governments no longer create tough rules that limit oil companies and other corporations. This crisis fell into our laps in a disastrous way at the worst possible moment. Now we're out of time. Where we are right now is a do-or-die moment. If we don't act as a species, our future is in peril. We need to cut emissions radically.
...
SPIEGEL: You're saying that all the small steps -- green technologies and CO2 taxation and the eco-behavior of individuals -- are meaningless?
Klein: No. We should all do what we can, of course. But we can't delude ourselves that it's enough. What I'm saying is that the small steps will remain too small if they don't become a mass movement. We need an economic and political transformation, one based on stronger communities, sustainable jobs, greater regulation and a departure from this obsession with growth. That's the good news. We have a real opportunity to solve many problems at once.
SPIEGEL: You don't appear to be counting on the collective reason of politicians and entrepreneurs.
Klein: Because the system can't think. The system rewards short-term gain, meaning quick profits. Take Michael Bloomberg, for example ...
SPIEGEL: … the businessman and former New York City mayor …
Klein: … who understood the depths of the climate crisis as a politician. As a businessman, however, he chooses to invest in a fund that specializes in oil and gas assets. If a person like Bloomberg cannot resist the temptation, then you can assume that the system's self-preservation capacity isn't that great.

- Naturally, the Cons are going out of their way to make sure nobody's able to talk about either growth or sustainability. On that front, Kristie Smith reports on the Cons' refusal to allow our elected representatives to assess their woeful economic record. And Carol Linnitt talks to Donald Gutstein about their determination to silence anybody trying to make the case to save our planet.

- Of course, the most prominent current example of that is their terror bill. On that front, the Ottawa Citizen rightly questions the Cons' rush to impose massive new powers with as little study as possible. Louise Elliott reports on how C-51 ignores the Supreme Court's past decisions about security certificates, while upwards of 100 professors in law and related disciplines have released a letter calling for the bill to be amended or scrapped. And both Don Martin and Michael Harris call out the Cons for their selective definition of a threat (at least before universal surveillance powers are put in place).

- Finally, Health Poverty Action examines the global cost of the war on drugs. Anna Mehler Paperny discusses the social and economic consequences of a lack of accessible child care. And the Guardian reminds us that ignoring homelessness doesn't make its human costs disappear.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Robert Reich discusses the Koch brothers and their place in the U.S.' new plutocracy:

The Kochs exemplify a new reality that strikes at the heart of America. The vast wealth that has accumulated at the top of the American economy is not itself the problem. The problem is that political power tends to rise to where the money is. And this combination of great wealth with political power leads to greater and greater accumulations and concentrations of both — tilting the playing field in favor of the Kochs and their ilk, and against the rest of us.

America is not yet an oligarchy, but that’s where the Kochs and a few other billionaires are taking us.
...
When billionaires supplant political parties, candidates are beholden directly to the billionaires. And if and when those candidates win election, the billionaires will be completely in charge.
...
A new gilded age is starting to look a lot like the old one. The only way to stop this is through concerted political action. Yet the only large-scale political action we’re witnessing is that of Charles and David Koch, and their billionaire imitators.

- Don Martin notes that the Cons' idea of an election seems to dovetail with Vladimir Putin's. And Andrew Coyne tears into both the substance of the Unfair Elections Act, and the thoroughly adversarial process being used to ram it into law:

(U)nder any normal government, this would be considered fairly devastating stuff: not only near universal expert opposition, but a widely held suspicion that the bill, far from merely flawed, is expressly designed to tilt the next election in the Conservatives’ favour. As for Poilievre, the revelations that he had acted in such consummate bad faith on such a critically important bill — failing to consult, ignoring some experts’ advice and misrepresenting others — would ordinarily be career-limiting, to say the least.

But this is not a normal government. It does not operate in the usual way, nor does it feel bound by the usual rules. After all, if this were a normal government, it would not have as its minister for democratic reform such a noxious partisan as Poilievre, whose contempt for Parliament and its traditions registers every time he rises to speak in it.
...
But as this is not a normal government, Poilievre has instead doubled down. To the detailed objections of its critics, he offers nothing but the same, and I mean exactly the same, talking points, recited without evident effort to persuade but merely to impress upon his listeners how genuinely uninterested in their opinion he is. To Neufeld’s complaints at having his report misrepresented, he responds that Neufeld does not understand his own report. The inaccurate and out-of-context passages he had cited from it were, he told Parliament, quoted “accurately and in context.” If Neufeld did not wish to use these words, he blithely told the CBC’s Evan Solomon, he should not have written them.

And so we face the likelihood, as incredible as it sounds, of the government using the majority it won in the last election to pass a bill widely perceived as intended to fix the next — and contesting that election in the shadow of illegitimacy the bill would cast. It will do so, what is more, not in spite of the opposition it has aroused, but because of it: because it has convinced itself that all such opposition, from whatever source, proceeds from the same implacably partisan motives as its own.

- Meanwhile, Susan Delacourt ties the Unfair Elections Act into the Cons' general desire to combine sophisticated and unregulated private control over information with a less-informed public sector:

Conservatives, allergic to registries and census forms in government, have spent the past 10 years scooping up citizen data for their political use, depositing it into a formidable machine they call the Constituent Information Management System (CIMS.)
...
The proposed electoral reform does promise to crack down on people trying to pass themselves off as voters with inadequate identification — a measure that every election expert says will remove voting rights for thousands of Canadians without adequate ID — seniors, youth and aboriginal people in particular.

It’s as if the Conservatives have been watching a whole different movie from the rest of us. The problem wasn’t fake ID in the 2011 election; the problem was fake phone calls, telling voters that their ballot-box location was changed. We didn’t have too many over-eager voters in 2011. We had someone trying to keep people away from the ballot box.

For the sake of argument, however, let’s say that voter ID is a problem.

Why not spend some money to get voters equipped with proper identification before 2015? Why not use that big CIMS database to find out who doesn’t have the proper ID to exercise the basic, democratic right of voting? What about a Canadian citizenship card, complete with residence details?

- John Geddes points out another area where the Cons aren't letting data inform public policy - as they're choosing what even the Department of Finance recognizes to be less economic development based on nothing more than their distaste for public pensions like the CPP.

- Finally, Mark Kennedy reports on this weekend's Broadbent Institute Progress Summit. And for those of us who can't be there in person, the proceedings are being streamed online here.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- David Cay Johnston and Miles Corak both discuss the results of a study which compares economic outcomes in technologically advanced countries, and shows that tax giveaways to the wealthy exacerbate inequality without doing anything at all to contribute to economic development.

- And Paul Krugman highlights the fact that all the evidence in the world won't stop the Republicans from trying to take away what few supports are left in the U.S., with a particular focus on food stamps:

Food stamps have played an especially useful — indeed, almost heroic — role in recent years. In fact, they have done triple duty. 

First, as millions of workers lost their jobs through no fault of their own, many families turned to food stamps to help them get by — and while food aid is no substitute for a good job, it did significantly mitigate their misery. Food stamps were especially helpful to children who would otherwise be living in extreme poverty, defined as an income less than half the official poverty line. 

But there’s more. Why is our economy depressed? Because many players in the economy slashed spending at the same time, while relatively few players were willing to spend more. And because the economy is not like an individual household — your spending is my income, my spending is your income — the result was a general fall in incomes and plunge in employment. We desperately needed (and still need) public policies to promote higher spending on a temporary basis — and the expansion of food stamps, which helps families living on the edge and let them spend more on other necessities, is just such a policy. 

Indeed, estimates from the consulting firm Moody’s Analytics suggest that each dollar spent on food stamps in a depressed economy raises G.D.P. by about $1.70 — which means, by the way, that much of the money laid out to help families in need actually comes right back to the government in the form of higher revenue. 

Wait, we’re not done yet. Food stamps greatly reduce food insecurity among low-income children, which, in turn, greatly enhances their chances of doing well in school and growing up to be successful, productive adults. So food stamps are in a very real sense an investment in the nation’s future — an investment that in the long run almost surely reduces the budget deficit, because tomorrow’s adults will also be tomorrow’s taxpayers. 

So what do Republicans want to do with this paragon of programs? First, shrink it; then, effectively kill it. 

 - Susan Delacourt rightly wonders why the Cons don't have the slightest interest in figuring out who used their voter database to commit electoral fraud - declaring victory because their own cover-up managed to prevent the Council of Canadians from identifying the culprit. But I'd think the phrase "they know perfectly well who committed the fraud" is sorely missing from any theory about of the Cons' handling of the scandal.

- Taking into account Robocon, Clusterduff, Rob Ford and other scandals, Aaron Wherry labels May 2013 as the worst month in the history of Canadian politics. (Though I still think that even in the last few years December 2008 - featuring Harper's prorogation to shut down Parliament in the face of a non-confidence vote, Stephane Dion's tragic bungling of the opportunity to form a coalition government, and the Senate appointments of Mike Duffy, Pamela Wallin and Patrick Brazeau among others which set up so many of the current scandals - ranks ahead by a fairly significant margin.)

- Finally, speaking of the Cons' scandals, Thomas Walkom suggests that Duffy is in fact the perfect representative of Stephen Harper's culture of hyperpartisanship and entitlement. Rex Murphy sees the PMO's work to cover up for Duffy as fatal to the Cons' self-image. And while I don't necessarily see the outrage properly being pointed solely at Duffy rather than his political masters, Don Martin's rant is still work a look:

On editorial decisions

By all means, I agree with the commentators pointing out that this is rather less than surprising treatment of (and by) a Con cabinet minister. But as always, there's another rather important followup question: why would Don Martin or anybody else still bother wasting their time interviewing MPs who are guaranteed from years of experience to have nothing but false, pre-programmed talking points to spout in the first place?

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your Monday reading.

- Alison draws the links between Robocon and an American firm proud of its efforts in some of the Republicans' most odious causes, while Sixth Estate provides a timeline of shady election dealings by the Harper Cons. Dr. Dawg asks the media to stay focused on the "fraud" part of the Cons' Robocon scam; Glen McGregor and Stephen Maher seem set to oblige by hinting that the infamous Pierre Poutine may soon be coming forward, while John Geddes speculates about just how far up the rot within the Cons actually goes. Allan Woods notes that the scam seems to have been largely aimed at older voters, while Andrew Potter points out the importance of context in determining how individuals act. The NDP is working on making sure Elections Canada has the necessary authority to deal both with Robocon and future abuses, while plenty of citizens rallied yesterday to demand a full inquiry.

- But perhaps the most interesting comment on Robocon is Don Martin's - which makes it clear that the Cons offered weeks of categorical denials of any national-level election fraud before making even a cursory attempt to determine whether it held any truth. (And does anybody think that being shut in a room with a raging Harper was going to encourage anybody to step forward?)

- Meanwhile, Karl Nerenberg points out Jason Kenney's refusal to provide refugees with any escape from international human rights abuses if they don't fit the Cons' political plans.

- Michael Geist notes that unfortunately, some of the loudest lobbying on the Cons' copyright bill wants to make bad legislation even worse by making consumers' privacy and ISPs' business both subject to the whims of media conglomerates.

- Thomas Friedman draws a contrast between countries which rely on natural resources and those which develop based on education - making it particular problematic that the Cons are so determined to emphasize the former at the expense of the latter.

- Finally, David Cay Johnston discusses how Sweden's social-democratic orientation has resulted in a radically higher standard of living for much of its population:

Saturday Afternoon Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- No, it isn't much surprise that poll respondents may think we've moved to the right as a country: after all, Con propaganda (largely echoed by the media) has been declaring that for years. But as Warren Kinsella notes, that perception bears no resemblance whatsoever to Canadians' opinions about actual issues.

- Thomas Walkom points out the glaring gap between what Don Drummond rightly suggested should be done in allocating, and what his recommendations would actually do:

Don Drummond, Ontario’s adviser on everything, says the harsh government spending cuts he wants must be seen as fair to succeed — they must hit everyone.

In fact, they almost certainly won’t. The well-off will fare better than the poor and middle class. Public sector employees will be hit harder than those in the private sector.

Groups with political clout — such as the multinational pharmaceutical firms that charge prices Drummond deems too high — are sure to successfully resist proposals that they share the pain. They’ve done so before.
...
That the rich will fare best under Drummond is true by definition.

The well-to-do depend less on government programs than the poor and middle class. That is a fact. Drummond’s call for government to roll back the Ontario Child Benefit will hurt poor families who receive the subsidy. It will not affect the rich who do not.

Nor are the wealthy being asked to chip in through higher progressive taxes. Drummond did advocate that some taxes, including those on property and gasoline, be hiked. He even wants a special tax (he calls it a user fee) levied on rural parents who bus their children to school.

But these kinds of regressive taxes hit the poor and middle class proportionally harder than the rich. A surtax on high-income earners could correct that bias. But Premier Dalton McGuinty specifically told Drummond to stay away from such remedies.

- pogge wonders how ministers with no clue what's in the bills they're demagoguing about fit into the Mostly Competent Government promised of the Cons. And Dr. Dawg anticipates what's coming next on the legislative front.

- Finally, Stephen Maher and Don Martin are among the latest commentators to criticize the Cons' obsession with online surveillance. And the Ottawa Citizen notes that at least some parts of the Cons' bill - though not the most galling ones - can be traced directly to legislation introduced by the Martin Libs.

On sure signs

I'd think Don Martin would have dealt with political actors enough to know when he's being spun. But since his latest post suggests otherwise, let's offer up what looks to be a sorely-needed hint.

When partisan spinners declare that they can't lose, it isn't evidence of cleverness or insight. Instead, it's merely a common instance of self-interested actors using all means available to spread a sense of inevitability to their own self-interest - and it's only newsworthy as evidence of hubris.

Indeed, if the Cons honestly believed that any possible outcome to the NDP's leadership race presented nothing but upside for them, that would be as sure a sign as any that they're vulnerable to some serious losses to come. But I'd give them credit for enough of a link to reality not to fall into such an obvious trap - making it all the more inexcusable that Martin didn't think to question the spin.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Gerald Caplan laments the difficulty in trying to comment reasonably on the actions of a government whose attitude toward reason ranges from overt hostility to wilful blindness:

Stephen Harper has just declared that the greatest security threat to Canada is something he called “Islamicism.” I’ve seen no sensible dissection of this remarkable comment because no one can make sense of it. It goes without saying that vigilance against any potential terrorist attack is vital. Has some new peril now been discovered that no one else knows about? Are Canadians in imminent danger? Might we not be fretful about a nice homegrown Christian version of Norway’s notorious Anders Breivik as well as extremist Muslims? Why does our leader choose to feed into the bigotry of those who are determined to smear all Muslims as terrorists?

In terms of what really menaces Canadians, is “Islamicism” really scarier than global warming? What is it about these conservatives that make them care so little about their kids’ future? What about water scarcity, a looming crisis? Or the fragility of the global economic system? Youth unemployment? What about the bottomless need everywhere in Canada for new or repaired or upgraded infrastructure? Who’s going to protect us from exploding road rage on our gridlocked roads? What about glaring, growing inequality and our declining quality of life?

- Meanwhile, Don Martin points out the latest absurdity in the form of Stephen Harper's utter unwillingness to concede that Bob Dechert's close relationship with a Xinhua reporter can even be questioned:

It’s been a full week since news broke about affectionate emails from a Conservative MP to a Chinese state agency reporter.

Shrugged off by the Harper government as a “ridiculous” non-story, the ongoing revelations prove this is a legitimate story given the long legs by this government’s ridiculous non-reaction.
...
A probe would actually do Mr. Dechert a big favour. Until he gets the all-clear from a proper investigation, the mild-mannered Mr. Dechert will stand accused of having taken his oath of loyalty too casually and his foreign affairs job too literally.

- Lest there be any doubt: yes, inequality is bad for business. Austerity is bad for the economy. And still the Cons and their counterparts around the globe continue to fight for both.

- Finally, Bruce Johnstone contrasts the Cons' reluctant acceptance of the results of the Canadian Wheat Board's director elections with their new insistence that the votes and views of CWB members don't matter.

Saturday Afternoon Links

This and that for your weekend reading.

- In case we didn't already have enough examples of the Wall government's contempt for voting, James Wood notes that it's dragging its heels on authorizing any enumeration before the official writ period. That figures to work wonders in making it more difficult to accurately identify voters - but raises the question of why a government which is supposed to be able to coast to re-election feels the need to throw as many wrenches into the works as possible.

- We shouldn't be surprised to find out that most corporatist spin is based on blind belief in mythical concepts ranging from confidence fairies to magical wealth creators. But Sixth Estate highlights a particularly egregious example, as Stephane Dion's newest buddies are declaring that we can wish natural resources into existence.

- Meanwhile, in the real world, the consequences of that type of blind faith in markets can be readily observed - even as the Cons double down in their fervour:

As in many other countries, Canada is witnessing a phenomenon in which the most wealthy are enjoying stunning increases in their income while the rest of society stagnates. It’s something that Finance Minister Jim Flaherty is likely to hear about in no uncertain terms in the parliamentary debate following the tabling of the budget on June 6.

The trend (long summarized as “the rich get richer while the poor get poorer”) is so pronounced globally that Angel Gurria, head of the industrialized world’s main think tank, is warning that income equality is becoming a “serious threat.”
...
In a 2008 study of 30 OECD countries, Canada was singled out as one of the member nations that has witnessed the worst widening of the wealth gap.

Inequality and poverty declined in Canada for 20 years before the late 1990s, the OECD study said, but since have gotten much worse.
...
And some analysts say the economic strategies being pursued by a re-elected Harper will only make matters worse, leading to a further expansion of the income gap between the very rich and others in Canada.

The crux of the issue concerns the Conservatives’ plan to continue implementing corporate income tax cuts and to eventually bring in other tax breaks, such as expanding deposits in Tax-Free Savings Accounts and allowing two-income couples with children younger than 18 to split their income for federal tax purposes.

While these measures have been promoted as ways of creating jobs or helping average Canadians, some economists say the benefits to the rich from these tax breaks will far outweigh anything seen by other members of society.

- Finally, Don Martin points out one noteworthy consequences of the NDP's surge:

Funny thing, but the more...under-30 MPs you meet, all of them unexpectedly elected in the orange wave of the NDP surge, the more you sense they will be a future asset, not a long-term liability, to leader Jack Layton.

They talk beyond their years, think quickly and most have an academic grounding in what federal politics is all about.
...
I'm only met half a dozen or so, but I suspect it'll be great fun watching them spring in parliamentary action next week.

Thanks to them, the average age of Canada's 308 MPs has dipped below 50 for the first time in history.

Granted, that still leaves the average age in the House of Commons somewhat higher than in the general population. But as with other measures such as womens' representation, the NDP can at least claim proudly to have made Parliament more representative of Canada's population than ever - and hopefully the result will be a political conversation that better reflects the concerns of the general public.

Part of the pattern

Don Martin's indignance at being lectured by Con MP Jim Abbott based on his "sanitized, censored exposure" to only the portions of Afghanistan cleaned up for visiting dignitaries is rightfully getting plenty of attention. But it's worth recognizing that the issue goes far beyond Afghanistan alone.

After all, one of the core problems with the Harper Cons is the fact that they so scrupulously avoid being exposed to anything which might disturb their bubble of hyperpartisanship, feeding into their constant message that nobody else's experience or opinion deserves to be taken into account. And if Martin's own experience has taught him that the world as the Cons perceive it - and fervently believe it should be presented in the media - has nothing at all to do with reality, maybe that should lead him and others in the media to start being far more critical of the Cons' spin in other contexts.

Burning questions

Who, other than Cons reviewing the report for their own damage control purposes, would have access to Sheila Fraser's report on stimulus spending before its release?

And why in the world would Don Martin give them free rein to spin the report in advance?

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content for your perusal...

- Steven Staples' report on the Cons' plan to spend $16 billion on F-35s has mostly been noted for its suggestion that Canada rely on drones for operations abroad. But the most important point seems to me to be Staples' observation as to what kind of capabilities actually matter in defending Canada's own terrain - and the folly of spending billions on add-ons that serve absolutely no purpose in that context:

(I)ntercepts do not in any case require an aircraft with the advanced technology of an F-35. Cutting-edge air-to-air combat and “stealth” capabilities, in
particular, are irrelevant. Bombers (and spy planes) do not dogfight, and they don’t operate search radars, for the simple reason that to do so would expose their own location and thus make them more susceptible to being shot down.

The continuing need for identification and control of civilian aircraft (and the desire to prevent theoretical “Bears over Winnipeg” options) argue against the elimination of all air defence capabilities, but these roles do not require a capability even more sophisticated than that of our existing CF-18 force...

- In retrospect, it's surprising that the issue of First Nations ownership of resources other than oil and gas has been left undetermined as long as it has. But presumably based on the sheer amount of money at stake in Saskatchewan's potash industry, it doesn't look like the issue will go unaddressed much longer.

- Brian Topp notes one particularly remarkable polling result after the Libs's concerted recent effort to sell their own leader and slam the NDP's:

Mr. Layton and Stephen Harper both continue to enjoy satisfaction and leadership numbers at around the 30 per cent mark, while Mr. Ignatieff has emerged from his latest honeymoon still tracking at only half that level in most polls. Since leadership perception can be a leading indicator of party support, we can say that as things stand today, Mr. Harper is efficiently supporting his party at its current level; Mr. Layton has the opportunity once again to help grow his party; and that Mr. Ignatieff would be a drag on Liberal support were an election to happen now.

- Finally, Don Martin rightly recognizes that the Cons may face the most difficult transition to an economic recovery of any federal party due to the reduction in their ability to pay for photo ops:

Thanks to international agreements on the need for massive stimulus spending, Harper had political cover to launch drunken-sailor spending, his government paving every pothole and cutting every ribbon, all of marked by thousands of look-at-us signs promoting their Economic Action Plan.

Yet as a minority mandate to deliver Conservative change, the last two years have been a major bust. Harper’s disappointed party puritans and made many enemies when straying from the economic file.

Senate reform has given way to senatorial stuffing, with Harper’s 32 appointments setting a single-year record in 2009. The bureaucracy has bulged, the balanced budget been delayed and there’s a hard-sell, single-source jet fighter contract on the horizon.

Academics, cities and provinces have been outraged by his census-altering shenanigans. His reckless spending on the G8-G20 summits was gobsmackingly profligate for the alleged party of prudence. Injured veterans are at war against a government which prided itself on being military-friendly. Environmentalists, as usual, feel shunned by climate change inaction.

Their government hasn’t shrunk, ministerial accountability has been selectively enforced, parliamentary decorum is still toxic and our status in the world, if this week’s United Nations smackdown means anything, is soiled.
...
The recession saved Stephen Harper from his own trivial pursuits. Perhaps he should be wary of the recovery.

Deep thought

Silly Don Martin with his suggestion that the Cons are up to more political games with the gun registry. Of course it makes perfect sense that the French skills which weren't a problem when Marty Cheliak was first put in charge of the Canadian Firearms Program nine months ago would be a fatal flaw now.

Friday Morning Links

A random assortment of information for the end of your work week...

- It's understandable that Bill Tieleman and other figures in the Fight HST movement are upset over the fact that a Lib appointee at Elections BC has chosen to stall the petition process. But it's worth keeping in mind that the legislation provided for by the petition is unlikely to pass the B.C. legislature in any event - and in the long run, the justified perception that the petition process has been set up to fail may prove to be the best possible outcome in building support for a quick and decisive recall campaign.

- Alice once again sets the record straight on fund-raising mechanisms for Canada's political parties, pointing out in particular that the oft-repeated theory that eliminating per-vote funding would harm the Bloc has no basis in reality. But I'd offer a reminder that there's one more factor worth taking into account, as thanks to the tax credit system much of the fund-raising allocated to "candidate", "riding" and "party" is also effectively publicly funded. (Update: Of course, there are those who won't let the facts spoil a poorly-thought-out rant.)

- Rick Salutin offers up an interesting theory as to how the census, like prorogation before it, may have served primarily as an excuse for voters to shift against a Harper government that's still out of touch with the public:

The long-form census shift was probably introduced as a bit of red meat for the Reform base. Yet the country seems to have seized on it. This is reflected by the downward Tory drift in the polls. It’s as if the population chose to focus on this issue, rather than the crime and fear agenda. They didn’t take the bait and they used the census ruckus as a way of changing the subject.

Jeffrey Simpson argued forcefully on this page that the census blew up in Mr. Harper’s face because our “civil society” – respectable organizations of solid citizens – rose up as one to demand their rightful stats. Yet the Harperites surely factored that in (or out) when they chose to neuter the long form. They likely thought such “elite” reactions would cut for them at Tim Hortons. But what if the unease out there in ordinary voterland is greater than it seemed when it comes to crime and the rest of their agenda. People might not want to go head to head with Tory heavies who come at you armed with costly surveys and public-relations advice. But they might be prone to shifting the ground to an unexpected issue, like the census, and artfully dodging an unfruitful debate about which they feel ambivalent. U.S. voters dive into issues like crime on cue from their politicians. Canadians are a slier and cannier electorate. Maybe they didn’t take the bait, and switched the topic.

We’ve seen that before, with the eruption of the prorogation issue and the arts issue in Quebec. Both served as pretexts to withdraw support from the Conservatives without embracing other parties.

- Finally, Don Martin's piece on Jack Layton takes a bit of a detour into analyzing the Cons. But it's right on point in noting that Layton's return to the public eye following a fairly quiet summer looks to significantly change a political landscape, particularly based on what Layton has been accomplishing in the meantime:

Jack is back.

That's good news for Canada's top political leftie, not so much for rivals Stephen Harper and Michael Ignatieff. It's been a tale of two leaders for most of this summer -- Prime Minister Harper for being in relative seclusion on a deserved holiday; Liberal Leader Ignatieff for being on the road discovering a real Canadian summer of beer and barbecues instead of his oft-ridiculed travel abroad to enjoy fine wine and French cuisine.

Layton has surfaced in the news periodically, but mostly toiled out of sight to line up star candidates for an election he expects to fight next spring.
...
While Michael Ignatieff's road-tested image enhancement and Jack Layton's return to active duty were bad news, Stephen Harper's biggest headaches were all self-induced.

That's why Layton was still grinning when an assistant dragged him away from a perfect-weather patio for a French language classroom. "Stephen Harper has become our best opening to attack," he laughs.

"He's pig-headed. My mother is absolutely right about him."

The reviews are in

Plenty of voices are chiming on the Cons' billion-dollar G8/G20 boondoggle - and none looks to be buying the Cons' spin for a second. Here's Don Martin with his own list of what could have been funded with the Cons' wasted billion:

No amount of righteous government bluster about living in post-9/11 protection paranoia, last week's bank firebombing in Ottawa or the precedent of hosting two back-to-back summits can explain how an $18-million security tab for the G20 in Pittsburgh last September, which involved 4,000 police, must balloon to a billion dollars in Toronto requiring 10,000 cops on the ground.

This is Canada, not Kandahar. In a London that has seen subway and bus terrorist bombings, the official security tab for its G20 gathering last March was $30-million.
...
The tab for this security overkill could cover a third of the estimated international cost for the African family planning initiative, or pay two-thirds of Canada's 10-year humanitarian assistance program in Afghanistan.

A government that still hasn't delivered on its promise to beef up police forces could hire 2,500 officers for five years, buy a million advanced Tasers, pay a year's salary for 23,000 soldiers, procure a total of 366 LAVs or purchase five Black Hawk helicopters for every hour the leaders are yakking.

Jeffrey Simpson focuses on the Cons' needless siege mentality:

This siege mentality has now been used in preparing for the G8 and G20, with everyone fearing some major terrorist attack against the leaders, or against one of them. A corner of Muskoka is being turned into a militarized zone, downtown Toronto shut off, baseball games moved out of town, thousands of police and security agents mobilized, to say nothing of helicopters, planes and, for all we know, submarines in Lake Ontario.

The siege mentality then joins the explosion of staff that now accompany leaders to such events to create events of nightmarish bureaucracy. Canadians officials have been camped out in Toronto for almost two months working on the myriad of logistical details to make this extravaganza happen.

The whole thing is over the top and way too expensive for three days that bid fair to be a non-event in substance.

Alec Bruce nicely boils down the issue with a comparison to family expenses:

There is something almost poignant about federal office holders who believe they have to periodically buy their way into the good books of the international community. It's a little like watching a hardscrabble kid-made-good, but from the wrong side of town, cutting a fat cheque to a country club.

Oh, he's a member, alright. But, he'll never really belong.

Meanwhile the kids stay home wondering whether daddy's super-ego will forever eclipse their own social, educational and employment aspirations as the household debt mounts and the deficit between fond ambition and brutal reality widens.

And the Star features several strong letters to the editor, including this gem from David Hague:

If I challenged anyone to spend $1 billion with the proviso that once the money was spent there can be no evidence of the expenditure, the winner of the challenge would probably have hosted a G20 summit. Once the summit is over the billion dollars will have evaporated. Oh well no big deal as we just borrow the money from our children and grandchildren and let them pay the bill.