Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Cynthia Kaufman discusses Moses Naim's theory that while a transnational ruling class has managed to exercise almost total control over the functions of government, it's set to lose power over the public at large. And 63Mag interviews Jennifer Hollett about the future of progressive activism and organizing in Canada.

- Sophia Harris reports on yet another round of fee increases from Canadian banks which will do little other than goose their already-massive profits. And Kelly Crowe highlights the pharmaceutical industry's track record of secrecy and falsified test results.

- Jim Bronskill writes that the Canada Border Services Agency's "Border Security" show has at long last been cancelled due to its blatant and inexplicable infringement on privacy rights.

- Tom Parkin calls for the Libs to get moving on ending the Charter abuses imposed under C-51. And Vincent Gogolek worries that Justin Trudeau's promises about improved transparency and access to information are about to be replaced by even more means of suppressing information.

- Finally, Bill Graveland reports on Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond's observation that child protective services need to be able to track at-risk children across provincial borders.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Andrew Coyne argues that the Senate's role in overruling elected representatives - which only seems to be growing under the Trudeau Libs - represents an affront to democracy. And Duncan Cameron has some suggestions beyond proportional representation as to how our electoral system can better live up to a democratic ideal.

- Elizabeth Thompson reports on the expert consensus that tax evasion needs to be met with far stronger consequences. But Kimberly Ivany and Harvey Cashore note that the people responsible for the Isle of Man offshoring are instead (with the Libs' permission) dictating what may and may not be discussed in Parliament - even by experts invited specifically to address the scheme. And at the same time, a KPMG accountant has admitted to participating in insider trading and tipping.

- Charles Mandel reports on the lack of effective regulation of cosmetics, while highlighting the dangers of allowing the sale of unsafe products which are expected to be used regularly. And Jordan Press discusses our lack of any reliable mechanism to so much inform consumers about products made with child labour.

- Meanwhile, Fay Faraday examines how temporary foreign workers are treated in Canada. And Ian Hussey offers a useful list of facts about Alberta's minimum wage and the need to shore it up.

- Finally, Jennifer Hollett comments on the three major issues surrounding the future of work:

Armine is soon hosting a series of panels on “full employment,” which used to be a public policy priority of governments everywhere, in the post-war period. It fell off the map in the 70s, and by the mid 90s we stopped talking about it entirely.

Critical of the lure of basic income, Armine argues it is difficult to scale. “It’s not going to happen at a level that will unshackle people from the need to work.” Where full employment is everyone who wants to have a job, can have one. And then, this is the critical point she stresses, that it’s a good job.

I hope this is where all the conversations overlap. Be it precarious work, basic income, or innovation, these questions, panels, and hashtags should push us to figuring out a way to ensure the lives of everyone are better off.

Thursday Afternoon Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Corey Hogan makes the case for Rachel Notley's NDP to develop a progressive fix to Alberta's fiscal mess:

No matter what you decide to do, you're going to take a political hit with somebody. Credibility will be lost, capital will be spent.
...
Your upper income tax hike was a good start, but you and I both know it's only the minimum payment on that grand old PC legacy — Alberta's structural deficit.

Our taxes are so low they don't even pay for health care and education, let alone the rest of government. And it's not like there's no way out of this mess. If we moved to the tax rates of the next lowest-taxed province we wouldn't have a deficit at all.

If you're going to raise taxes, let's get it over with  — and better one big tax hike than three small ones. We'll be further ahead as a province and you'll have three years for us to get over it and thank you for your foresight.

Now, not 2018,  is the time to do what's necessary but not necessarily popular.
...
(J)ust because you need to spend your political capital doesn't mean you should waste it.

The amount you would need to win right-wing Alberta is well beyond your bank balance. Trading the goodwill of the people who voted for you in the hopes that it leads to the goodwill of people who will never like you is a sucker's bet. 
...
Compromising with those who will never support you is a good way to lose the support of those who do.

Pick a side. Making the person who's angry with you angrier is better than alienating your supporter.

- Thomas Walkom highlights why the Leap Manifesto bears no resemblance to the caricature being made of it by much of Canada's media. Rosemary Westwood argues that particularly based on the success of Bernie Sanders' campaign, the NDP shouldn't have to apologize for believing in the progressive and socialist principles which have worked so well for Canada. And Clare Foran discusses the future of Sanders' movement once the current presidential campaign passes.

- The Globe and Mail examines the state of money and politics in Saskatchewan - sadly including massive amounts of corporate money combined with little indication as to how it affects policy.

- Katie Hyslop writes that limitations on the availability of affordable supportive housing in B.C. can serve to tear families apart.

- Finally, May Warren reports on research showing that the majority of employment in the York region now consists of precarious work. And Jennifer Hollett examines the stressors facing precarious workers in Canada.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Hugh Segal discusses the need for an open and honest conversation about poverty and how to end it. And to better reflect Canadians' continued desire for a more fair society, Roderick Benns makes the case for a basic income as Canada's next major social program.

- Matt Bruenig writes about the U.S.' income inequality as compared to other developed countries- and it's well worth noting that Canada's distribution is only slightly less distorted than the U.S.'.

- Margo McDiarmid reports on the Cons' latest steps to block any evaluation of the environmental damage done by the tar sands. Dennis Gruending rightly points out that environmental activism will be of limited use if it can't influence government policy, as the major challenges we face demand more coordination than citizens alone can muster. And PressProgress notes that Canada is missing the boat when it comes to developing the renewable energy which will power the world in the decades to come.

- Finally, Jennifer Hollett argues that it's long past time to get rid of our embarrassing leaders. And Michael Harris observes that Stephen Harper remains at the top of that list, with his party's "rage over reason" attitude serving as a particularly important basis for concern.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- David MacDonald studies the effect of the Cons' income-splitting scheme, and finds that it's oriented purely toward funnelling money toward the top of the income scale:

“Income splitting creates a tax loophole big enough to drive a Rolls Royce through. It’s pitched as a program for the middle class but in reality it’s an expensive tax gift for the rich,” says Macdonald. “The upper third of Canada’s richest families would receive $3 of every $4 spent on income splitting.”

The study finds seven out of ten senior families get no benefit at all from pension income splitting and the richest 10% of senior families receive more than the bottom 70% combined. The cost of pension income splitting for senior couples in 2015 is estimated at $1.7 billion ($1.2 billion federally and $500 million provincially). In contrast, it would cost $1.5 billion a year to lift all Canadian seniors out of poverty.

The study examines the Conservative plan to extend income splitting to families with children under 18 and finds:

• 86% of all families would gain no benefit whatsoever from this tax loophole.
• The richest 5% of families would see more benefit than the bottom 60% of families combined.
• The bottom 60% of families would receive, on average, $50. The richest 5% of Canadian families — those making over $147,000 — would see an average benefit of $1,100.
• This loophole would cost the federal government $3 billion in lost revenue and an additional $1.9 billion provincially — for a total revenue loss of $4.9 billion in 2015 alone.

- Ian Welsh offers up his four principles necessary for genuine prosperity - featuring fairness, kindness, generosity and a focus on the future as an antidote to the corporate attempt to make a virtue out of greed. Which leads to my further observation that we'd be better off with more Ian Welsh.

- Meanwhile, Paul Krugman observes that U.S. voters are starting to recognize their country's class structure (and to develop due skepticism about policies intended to further the concentration of wealth at the top). And Tim Hudak may be facing the same lesson, as his attacks on workers run into the reality that organized labour produces better outcomes for the population as a whole.

- But David Atkins notes that there's a long way to go in protecting workers' rights and well-being - and that the focus may need to include global treaties which remove any opportunity for employers to seek out havens for employee abuse:

The lesson should be obvious: the more international and legally binding the agreement, the more helpful it will be to workers in developing nations. The more expansive and multi-party the treaties are, the less competitive labor arbitrage risk will entail for any nation that improves factory conditions. Voluntary commitments from multinational corporations will do little to prevent the next tragedy.

Labor and worker protection agreements are in their infancy at the highest international levels. But with multinational corporations increasingly able to use labor arbitrage to manufacture products in nations with the weakest worker protections, the international community must take a stand in creating legally binding, global treaties that are proactive in nature, and carry negative trade consequences for those nations that choose to flout or ignore them.

- Finally, Jennifer Hollett talks about her political experience so far:

On test cases

Not surprisingly, Linda McQuaig's entry into the NDP's Toronto Centre nomination contest against Jennifer Hollett has set off plenty of discussion this morning. And much of the focus has been on a possible by-election battle between McQuaig and Chrystia Freeland - the authors of the two most prominent recent books highlighting the gap between the rich and the rest of us.

But I'll suggest that neither The Trouble with Billionaires nor Plutocrats figures to be the most important piece of reading material for the Toronto Centre by-election. While the campaign will hopefully raise the profile of economic inequality as an issue, I'm not sure either candidate can expect to gain much leverage against the other - and in particular, McQuaig's better-developed policy prescriptions may not stand out in a short campaign.

In contrast, McQuaig's It's the Crude, Dude offers a vital starting point for debate in the area where there's plenty of room for both clash and shifting positions among the opposition parties.

As I and others have already noted, the Cons seem determined to turn cheerleading for resource extraction into the core of their economic message. And the NDP and Libs have thus far taken significantly different positions in response: while the NDP has made the case for a more sustainable economy which includes eliminating public subsidies for pollution from the tar sands, Justin Trudeau's main line of attack has been that the Cons are putting the wrong shade of lipstick on the pig in making foreign bitumen sales the centrepiece of Canada's economy.

Now, it looks like those two positions are set to clash in Toronto Centre. And while the issue figures to be an important point of contention no matter who emerges from the nomination contests, McQuaig's presence in particular could present a direct challenge to the Libs' attempt to be the friendlier face of the tar sands.

That is, unless Freeland has enough clout within Trudeau's inner circle to try to change her party's direction to improve her own chances. But the more likely course of events looks to involve Freeland trying to sell petro-politics in downtown Toronto against an opponent who's literally written the book on the dangers of that strategy. And the question of whether the NDP can gain ground by being on the right side of that contrast may go a long way toward shaping our choices for 2015 and beyond.