Thursday Afternoon Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Bryan Harris, Steve Bernard and Chris Campbell discuss the danger that a drying Amazon rain forest will accelerate the climate breakdown. 

- Jordan Omstead reports on Canada's place of shame as one of the countries looking to increas carbon pollution in the face of the climate emergency. And Hadrian Mertins-Kirkwood writes that the current state of politics around carbon pricing is undermining support for any climate action at all. 

- Meanwhile, Marc Fawcett-Atkinson points out that a group of corporate-friendly MPs are pushing eliminate any requirement that pesticides or GMO seeds be assessed by regulators for safety or environmental risks before they're used in Canada. 

- Drew Anderson exposes how Danielle Smith and the UCP lied about their explanation for banning renewable energy development. And David Climenhaga examines the PR apparatus being assembled to paper over the plan to sell off public health care - even as Emanuel Maiberg reports on the reality that privatized providers operate only by abusing workers and neglecting patients in the name of squeezing out profits. 

- Finally, Cory Doctorow discusses how the Biden administration is making some effort to root out the most unscrupulous investment advisors - but also notes that the greater problem is an "every man for himself" system of retirement income. 

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Evelyn Forget makes the case for a national basic income which would provide a more stable fiscal base for Canada's provinces as well as its citizens. And Dennis Raphael writes about the social murder resulting from the wanton destruction of income supports and other policies which save lives. 

- Meanwhile, the CP reports on the recommendation of British Columbia's provincial auditor that it actually track the effects of tax expenditures, rather than merely taking for granted that they serve any useful purpose.

- Mel Watkins writes that the mistakes Canada made by giving up sovereignty in previous trade deals laid the groundwork for the latest NAFTA concessions. And Brent Patterson notes that the USCMA includes special protection for GMOs in order to benefit US agribusiness regardless of the risks for Canadian producers and consumers.

- The CP takes note that our current emission reduction targets fall far short of what's needed to rein in catastrophic climate change. And in case we needed more reminders of the immediate dangers associated with fossil fuels, Jesse Ferreras reports on the explosion and fire caused by an Enbridge pipeline rupture in B.C., while Bobbi-Jean MacKinnon talks to one of the workers in the immediate vicinity of the Irving Oil refinery explosion.

- Finally, Ed Broadbent and Hugh Segal argue that it's long past time for Canada to pursue electoral reform:

What used to be unusual occurrences in our system – minority governments – are fast becoming the norm both provincially and federally. Three of the past five federal elections have produced minority governments. With a first-past-the-post electoral system, this can be a recipe for increasing instability.

The reason for this is that such a system exaggerates the effects of even tiny swings in voting: Just a few votes in a single riding can be the difference between a majority and a minority government. As a consequence, parties that find themselves in a minority situation often engage in a constant game of “chicken,” continually jockeying for advantage with an eye to a snap election. In proportional systems, such gamesmanship is rare. A small change in the vote for a party only results in a small change in the number of seats. There’s no point in triggering a snap election. So people get on with governing. And, knowing a number of parties are likely to be elected causes leaders to be more collaborative and less confrontational with each other. This makes for better government.

The evidence of the past few months is clear. Given the realities of Canadian voting trends, converting our provincial and federal electoral systems to proportional ones needs to be an immediate priority. We hope that Quebec, B.C. and PEI get the ball rolling and we look forward to seeing other Canadian provinces and the federal level following their example as soon as possible.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Stephen Hume rightly mocks the Fraser Institute for using its tax-exempt status to whine about individuals who don't earn enough to pay income taxes. But I'll take the opportunity to reiterate a point I've made before: progressive governments in particular will do far better to consider how public resources can be used to benefit people of all income levels, rather than buying into the "get people off the tax rolls" rhetoric that only allows corporate interests to make arbitrary distinctions between "makers and takers".

- Meanwhile, Canadians for Tax Fairness catch bank officials trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the public on the use of tax havens to shelter financial profits.

- Alison discusses how yet another spate of spills and tough questions has caused problems for oil industry shills. But I doubt they're complaining so long as they're still in charge of setting public policy.

- And there isn't much indication that the corporate sector will lose the ability to warp legislation in its own favour anytime soon.

- Finally, Mia Rabson, the Winnipeg Free Press, the Toronto Star, and the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix all weigh in on Stephen Harper's muzzing of his MPs (and how it reflects a deeper democratic deficit). And Tim Harper muses that the Cons may be well past their (however sad) prime as a government.

#skndpldr - Battlefords Debate Notes

With Saskatchewan NDP's leadership candidates figuring to be thoroughly familiar with each other and the party's debate format, one might have expected little new to emerge from the Battlefords leadership debate. But instead, it offered some novel subject matter for the candidates to discuss - and the candidates' reactions to new (or even differently-worded) questions still look to have plenty to tell us as the voting window approaches.


So what was new compared to previous debates? To start with, the audience questions took a couple of turns not seen in previous debates - with varying results.

An early question asking candidates to explain public-private partnerships and assess the P3 development of a new mental health facility was met with strong responses all around. And a later offering about the federal democratic deficit let each of the candidates focus on a particular area of strength: Trent Wotherspoon was able to champion open government and proper accounting transparency, Ryan Meili to focus in on the need for democracy to be reflected in institutions as well as a single leader's philosophy, Cam Broten to discuss the legislative process in detail and Erin Weir to pitch his proposal to eliminate corporate and union contributions to parties.

But a query about genetically-modified organisms gave rise to two distinct sets of responses: Meili and Weir both presented detailed discussions about the possible merits and pitfalls of GMOs, while Broten and Wotherspoon largely demurred on the basis that they weren't particularly familiar with the details of the issue. And that contrast was particularly stark in light of the second round of candidate questions, where Broten challenged Meili on his willingness to talk beyond a script, only to be met with an effective defence of the value of being open to discussing new and creative ideas.

Meili didn't fare as well responding to a more detailed set of questions from Weir about his plan to facilitate crowd-funding of investments. But he wasn't alone in providing at least one less-than-thorough answer: Broten avoided Weir's question as to whether favourable small-business tax treatment should be available to professional corporations, while Broten's question to Wotherspoon about party-building was also met with few specifics (even though Broten has asked similar questions before).

Finally, the most significant development may have been Meili's second round of questions, where he called out Broten's campaign based on concerns about personal attacks by volunteer callers. In effect, Meili seems to have concluded (and not without justification) that the best way to counter whisper campaigns is to bring them out into the open - and I'll be curious to see whether the campaigns take note of Broten's disavowal of the practice.

Parliament in Review: December 14, 2011

Wednesday, December 14 saw another day of debate devoted to free trade issues, this time addressing a proposed treaty with Jordan. But first...

The Utterly Unprecedented, Stunning Development Which Shook The Very Foundations Of Canada's System Of Government As Administered By Stephen Harper

Helene Laverdiere asked a simple question to Peter MacKay. And MacKay actually answered it.

The Big Issue

Gerald Keddy started debate on C-23 with a fairly helpful summary of the goods currently traded between Canada and Jordan. But as the opposition parties noted, there's much more to the picture than mere dollars: Brian Masse pointed out Jordan's abuses of migrant workers, while Wayne Easter highlighted its political instability. Wayne Marston noted that the main difference in philosophy between the NDP and the Cons is that the former considers human rights to be a top priority in foreign relations, while the latter somehow believes that deals aimed solely at shiny dollar figures will take care of all other issues. Masse questioned how Canadian industry can be expected to compete against sweatshop labour, and tore into the Cons over their utter negligence in dealing with the United States on border issues. Linda Duncan noted that the Cons' versions of free trade agreements were omitting even the lip service that was once paid to labour and environmental standards in NAFTA and other previous deals. Chris Warkentin, apparently concerned about any such talk, invoked the Cons' amendment-barring tactic to make sure that omission wouldn't be fixed within the bill. And Raymond Cote noted that Parliamentary scrutiny should be a crucial means of preventing Canada from signing onto bad deals - rather than the nuisance the Cons find in any critical analysis of every bill they present.

In Brief

Alex Atamanenko expressed disbelief that the Cons would approve of GMO contamination of Canada's food supply, while Libby Davies made a statement criticized their efforts to undermine the long-term viability of a publicly-funded health care system. Nycole Turmel responded to Stephen Harper's description of the Kyoto Protocol as "stupid" by pointing out some genuinely stupid political decisions. Marc Garneau raised the Cons' newly-announced intention to move all committee proceedings behind closed doors. Kennedy Stewart wondered why the Cons are rushing to force through approval for new pipelines when we already lack the resources to monitor the pipelines which currently exist in Canada. Peter Julian noted that the Harper government's spirit of giving was limited to further freebies for rich corporations - to which Jim Flaherty responded by offering the public a lecture about credit. Brad Trost, apparently concerned that we're not selling off our natural resources fast enough, introduced a bill to facilitate total foreign ownership of uranium mines. Ryan Cleary's bill proposing an inquiry into the cod fishery was defeated by the Cons at second reading. And Helene LeBlanc summed up the case for her infrastructure motion, while Dan Harris criticized the Cons' attempt to impose a private toll structure on any new infrastructure.

Glad we're in agreement

There's some reason to quibble with the relative importance being assigned to some of the measures passed in the House of Commons today. But for now, let's give kudos to all opposition parties for positive outcomes on four key votes. And the fact that both Jack Layton and Michael Ignatieff also chose today to take a national stand on health care user fees is just gravy.

On poor information

In just the past couple of months, the Cons' government has voted down mandatory labelling for genetically modified foods, and fought to prevent international labelling standards to include more complete information about a given food's health content. Which makes it glaringly clear that the Cons couldn't care less about putting information in the hands of consumers concerned about what's actually in the food they buy.

But have no fear - as long as you're in the class of consumers more concerned about the standard at which a product can be labelled as "made in Canada" than with the actual contents of their food, the Cons are prepared to require the labelling you want.

Update: Canwest's report adds another twist, as Harper's announcement today is timed so as to undercut what the Commons agriculture committee has already been doing on the same topic:

Mr. Harper's announcement circumvents a process currently underway in the Commons agriculture committee, which launched a study into Product of Canada labelling months ago.

Next week the agriculture committee is scheduled to debate and review its draft report on the Product of Canada label.

Which raises a few serious questions. First, was the committee about to reach a decision which the Cons saw a need to preempt? Or alternatively, did Harper simply want to take all the credit for something along the lines of what the committee would have reached through multi-party work? And either way, will opposition members now have yet another reason to avoid working with Con committee members lest any effort at honest discussion be used against the other parties by the Cons' central command?