Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Dean Baker responds to attempts to paint inequality as an inevitable result of market forces by pointing out the choices being how our markets are structured. And Jonathan Tepper discusses how the concentration of wealth and power has created giant corporate monopolies which are antithetical to market competition and innovation.

- Richard Reeves points out the need for growing inequality to be addressed by sufficient worker bargaining power to boost wages. Julia Wong and Kaylen Small report on the acts of solidarity by workers across Canada in response to the Trudeau government's choice to force CUPW to give up an effective and effectively-managed strike. The Canadian Press reports on the similarities between the effort to respond to GM's abandonment of Oshawa and the wider issues facing Canada's labour movement. And L. Ian MacDonald points out that our reaction to the Oshawa closure speaks volumes about our view of the significance and meaning of the national interest in managing economic development.

- Robin McKie writes about another global climate summit being held in the face of warnings that we may have already reached a point of no return as we try to avoid outright climate breakdown. Bob Weber reports on new research showing that Canada's cities are woefully unprepared for the future projected to result from climate change. And Amy Harder comments on the wilful ignorance and disinformation at the core of the only position opposed to a massive effort to change course.

- Simon Little reports on the apparent connection between fracking and earthquake activity in Fort St. John, B.C.

- Finally, James Wilt analyzes how far too much of Canada's media is dedicated to serving the ruling class rather than the public interest.

Leadership 2017 Links

The latest on the NDP's leadership campaign.

- Karl Nerenberg sees the youth debate in Montreal as having shown more differences in style than substance, while Christo Aivalis identifies some more clear distinctions. And James Munson examines the candidates' positions on economic development, innovation and the social safety net.

- The Tyee interviews Charlie Angus about the long road he's taking toward the leadership. And Cory Collins interviews Peter Julian about his plans for the leadership campaign and beyond.

- Speaking of which, Julian announced his plans for a Just Transition to clean energy (going a long way toward clarifying the previous brouhaha over pipelines), while also earning Erin Weir's endorsement.

- Meanwhile, the PBO has caught the Libs fudging the numbers on Guy Caron's private member's bill on small businesses.

- Finally, L. Ian MacDonald contrasts the Cons' comically childish excuse for a leadership race against the NDP's adult conversation.

Sunday Afternoon Links

Miscellaneous material for your Sunday reading.

- David Korten writes that despite the trend of the past few decades, there's nothing inevitable about international agreements favouring capital over citizens rather than the other way around.

- Miles Corak examines Nicole Fortin's research showing that concentrated income at the top of the spectrum is undermining any effort to pursue pay equity. Ben Spurr points out how precarious work can be made all the worse by transportation systems which don't take into account the needs of people trapped in irregular hours. And Mary-Dan Johnston Christine Saulnier study the living wage needed for Halifax families to live in relative security.

- Bryce Covert comments on the growing influence of female leaders within the U.S.' labour movement.

- Michael Babad discusses the jarring rise in the ratio of personal debt to income in Canada, while noting that matters only figure to get worse in the foreseeable future. And Betty Ann Adam reports on the Saskatchewan Party's conscious decision to make sure people in need bear the brunt of cutbacks and benefit restrictions.

- Finally, John Ivison and L. Ian MacDonald both note that it's better late than never for the Libs' change in course to ensure multi-party cooperation on electoral reform. And Andrew Coyne points out that the actual committee will serve as an example of a more proportional Parliament in action.

[Edit: fixed wording.]

Wednesday Afternoon Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- The Ontario Association of Food Banks discusses the long-term damage done by childhood poverty and deprivation:

When facing a very tight budget, food is often the budget line that gets cut in order to afford rent or hydro: you can skip a meal for a day or two and still be OK, but there are much more immediate consequences to not paying your landlord.

Instead, people in this situation often turn to food with higher calories and lower nutritional value to fill the empty feeling in their stomachs. Prices of healthy food in Ontario have skyrocketed over the last year: fresh fruit has jumped by 19.7 per cent since 2015, and fresh vegetables by 23.6 per cent, whereas the cost of candy has only risen by 0.4 per cent, while non-alcoholic beverages (such as pop) have actually dropped by 0.9 per cent.

People facing tough choices every single day -- rent or electricity? food or medicine? -- have high levels of stress. Stress can affect both your ability to take care of yourself and trigger high levels of blood glucose. Since diabetes is a disease in which your body isn't able to manage blood sugar levels, this can have even more adverse consequences.

All these things combined put low-income and First Nations people at a high risk for diabetes. Managing diabetes is itself expensive: beyond just the dietary changes required to keep it at bay, there is also the cost of prescription, supplies and equipment. Yet those who are low-income also often do not have enough or any insurance to cover these costs, because they work in precarious, low-wage jobs without benefits. 

- Tamara Khandaker writes about the suicide crisis facing Attawapiskat (among other Canadian First Nations), while the Hamilton Spectator reports on a suicide pact stopped in the nick of time. And Jorge Barrera reports on Jean Chretien's appalling response that the answer is to abandon communities rather than to make resources available.

- BJ Siekierski points out that even the Canadian Chamber of Commernce has figured out that the Cons' arbitrary limit on the number of regulations serves mostly to make governance more difficult - though their plan to let the corporate sector vet regulations isn't exactly a substantial improvement. And L. Ian MacDonald reminds us of the ugly state of corporate fund-raising in Canada which goes a long way toward explaining why businesses are allowed to write so many of their own rules to the public detriment.

- Finally, Clark Mindock and David Sirota trace the $600 billion of U.S. corporate money shifted offshore in a single year.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Exchange highlights the World Economic Forum's observation that countries can do far more to combat inequality. And Angus Reid finds that Canadian voters are far more receptive to Tom Mulcair's progressive economic plan than to more of the same from either of the major competing leaders.

- Meanwhile, the Leap Manifesto offers an important target as to the more fair and sustainable society we should be aiming for in the long run. And Bruce Campbell, Seth Klein and Marc Lee discuss how it's well within our means.

- Aaron Wherry takes a look at the latest attempts at large-scale strategic voting for this year's election (which have at least progressed to actually trying to persuade voters) while rightly recognizing the utter failure of similar schemes in the past. But Antonia Maioni reminds us why our votes should be based on what we want out of our government, not merely based on defeating a single opponent.

- Bill Tieleman offers just a brief survey of the reasons to doubt whether the Libs' already-tepid campaign promises will lead to anything. And L. Ian MacDonald argues that it's long past time for the Libs to stop lecturing us on sovereignty.

- Finally, Michael Harris examines the Cons' willingness to look the other way on rime when it comes from within Stephen Harper's inner circle.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Shannon Gormley points out how the Cons' actions to strip voting rights from Canadians abroad sticks out like a sore thumb compared to an international trend of recognizing that citizenship doesn't end merely because a person crosses a border. And Peter Russell and Semra Sevi lament that it's too late to reverse the damage before this fall's federal election, while the Star makes the broader point that we should be encouraging rather than limiting voter participation.

- Andrew Nikiforuk exposes how the U.S.'s green light to fracking has led to far more dangerous "shallow fracking" than anticipated - though it shouldn't come as much surprise that a poorly-regulated industry would engage in more risky practices than it would if public safety was properly taken into account.

- Ben Makuch reports that Stephen Harper is spending hundreds of millions of dollars for its own Star Wars program even as he denounces any suggestion of using public money to actually help people.

- Meanwhile, Jo Snyder makes the case for pharmacare as a means of reducing inequality. And Don Cayo notes that it's equally viable as a matter of economic policy.

- Finally, the Star argues that the Cons' economic spin consists of nothing but smoke and mirrors, while L. Ian McDonald sees it as more of a matter of theatre. And the CP reports on yet another month of economic decline on Stephen Harper's watch.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Eric Morath points out that a job (or even multiple jobs) can't be taken as an assurance that a person can avoid relying on income supports and other social programs. PressProgress offers some important takeaways from the Canadian Labour Congress' study of the low-wage workers. Angella MacEwen writes about the spread of the $15 minimum wage movement in Canada.

- Meanwhile, Carol Goar writes that while we should be looking to improve our social safety net, we need to do so while taking into account the real experience of the people relying upon it.

- Jason Warick reports on Eric Howe's findings that Saskatchewan is severely limiting its own future by failing to boost aboriginal participation in our economy. And Mitchell Anderson reminds us that Alberta (among other Canadian jurisdictions) has turned resource development into little long-term gain:

Which place is doing a better job of capturing public value from a public resource? Dividing resource revenues by production reveals some shocking figures. Norway realized revenues of $87.69 per barrel in 2013. Alaska managed $38.54. And Alberta? Just $4.38 -- one-twentieth what our Norwegian cousins managed to rake in.
...
Alberta has already produced 15 per cent more conventional oil and gas than Norway, and didn't have to go 200 kilometres out in the North Sea to get it. Even at current depressed prices, Alberta oil, gas and bitumen production to 2013 would have a combined market value of $1.7 trillion. So where did the money go?

The answer is not economic nor political. It is cultural. Albertans have accepted a consistent and repeated message from a number of vested interests that taxation is bad, government is inept, and public resources should be privatized. Once voters believe that, effective government oversight is politically impossible and industry gets to keep a larger portion of Canada's resource pie -- estimated to be worth some $33 trillion based only on our inventory of petroleum and timber.
...
So what does Norway do to ensure their private sector partners don't walk away with most of the resource wealth?

• Norway acts like an owner. Companies doing business in Norway are under no illusions about who is in charge. Misleading or lying to Norwegian authorities can lead to forfeited tenures or even jail time.

• Norway taxes to the max and makes no apologies about it. Taxation on oil profits is currently close to 80 per cent. One former energy minister even chewed out his bureaucrats in full view of enraged oil executives when they threatened to pull out of the country after taxes were raised. Noting that none had actually walked away, he told his underlings "we should have taken more!"

• Norway taxes profits, not extraction. Alberta instead sells oil and bitumen by the barrel, creating virtually zero incentives for efficiencies or value added. The Norwegian government wants companies to make money because for every dollar they make, Norway makes four. With such clearly aligned interests, companies are lining up to do business there.

• Norway captures and distributes wealth. Petroleum helps finance some of the most generous social programs in the world and every Norwegian knows it. With public buy-in like that, companies have certainty their investments are welcome and their product can get to market. Companies spending billions in the oilsands have no such assurance given the pitched battles around resource policy here in Canada. No public buy-in, no certainty. Sorry fellas, there's no free lunch on that one.

• Norway stashed the cash. All petroleum revenues go into a stand-alone oil fund administered by the Norwegian Central Bank -- not their government. This firewall prevents elected officials from getting lazy about budgeting since they can only access four per cent each fiscal year. This now-massive pot of money is also only invested outside of the country to avoid inflating the currency.

• Norway put public players on the field. One of the first things Norway did was start Statoil, the first of their two state-owned oil companies. They now own about 40 per cent of its production and 50 per cent of its reserves. These investments and risks have richly paid off and typically now bring in as much revenue as taxation. What stake does Alberta own in its production? Zero, and the balance sheet shows it.

- Finally, L. Ian MacDonald writes that the Cons' environmental irresponsibility looms as a leading cause of the death of pipeline expansions. And Barbara Yaffe slams the ineffective response to the English Bay oil spill by multiple levels of government.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Both Edward Keenan and the Star's editorial board take note of Thomas Mulcair's plan for urban renewal, with particular emphasis on its appeal across party lines:

Speaking directly to Toronto city council and Mayor John Tory, who won election largely on the basis of his promised SmartTrack “surface subway,” Mulcair said he would be a partner on transit: “Together we will get the people of Toronto moving.”

No wonder Tory declared himself “gratified and pleased” with Mulcair’s approach. Other elements of the NDP’s urban agenda include:

• Appointing a minister responsible for urban affairs — someone to advocate for cities in federal cabinet when key decisions are made.
• Delivering long-term, stable funding for affordable housing.
• Identifying, within the first 100 days of taking office, “worthy extensions” of social housing investments that are set to expire and highlighting new spending necessary to ease a crisis in affordable housing.
• Introducing $15-a-day child care nationwide, and funding 164,000 daycare spaces in the Greater Toronto Area alone. This should be of significant help to the 20,000 families in this city currently on waiting lists for affordable care.
• Accelerating immigration process-times so families can be reunited faster — an important consideration in Toronto, which serves as a magnet for newcomers to Canada.

These are all valuable initiatives. Mulcair is demonstrating a clear understanding of Toronto’s needs and has made addressing them a welcome priority.

- Meanwhile, Carmichael Outreach is offering a series of proposals to address Regina's shortage of affordable housing. But as Wanda Schmockel reports, developers are determined to avoid having a dime spent on those efforts when it could instead be funnelled toward new profit centres. 

- Michael Geist follows up on how C-51 stands to harm Canadians' privacy. And Democracy Watch calls attention to the complete lack of internal and public accountability within CSIS as another reason to be concerned about handing over unchecked powers.

- L. Ian MacDonald discusses the need to move beyond the Cons' primeval politics in talking about security and culture, while Michael Den Tandt notes that the Cons' goal is to have us soaking in fear. Tim Harper observes that the bigoted bozos who were once so desperately suppressed by the Cons' central command now represent the party's most prominent public faces. Michael Spratt writes that the Cons are wrong on both the law and the facts in their anti-niqab fearmongering. And John Cartwright highlights the role of organized labour in pushing back against prejudice and inequality.

- Finally, Richard Trumka points out that attacks on unions serve the sole purpose of suppressing wages and working conditions. Bryce Covert discusses how work is far from a guarantee that a family can escape from poverty. And Robert Reich observes that we shouldn't count on employment relationships or other work conditions returning to how they previously operated:

We need a new economic model.

The economic model that dominated most of the twentieth century was mass production by the many, for mass consumption by the many.

Workers were consumers; consumers were workers. As paychecks rose, people had more money to buy all the things they and others produced — like Kodak cameras. That resulted in more jobs and even higher pay.

That virtuous cycle is now falling apart. A future of almost unlimited production by a handful, for consumption by whoever can afford it, is a recipe for economic and social collapse.

Our underlying problem won’t be the number of jobs. It will be – it already is — the allocation of income and wealth.

New column day

Here, on how leaders who stand up to hysterical calls to abandon peace and human rights in the name of fleeting threats tend to be vindicated by history - and how Thomas Mulcair is carrying on the NDP's legacy on that front even in the face of criticism from Very Serious People.

For further reading...
- The two prime examples of media attempts to strong-arm Mulcair into writing a blank cheque for war in Iraq (based a combination of threat hype and a general affinity for hippie-punching) come from John Ivison and L. Ian MacDonald.
- Meanwhile, Janyce McGregor offers the latest comparable spin on free trade. And Tim Harper manages to fit both corporatism and war into the same column.
- To be fair, plenty of commentators are rightly calling into question the rationale for war in Iraq, with the Globe and Mail recognizing the Cons have failed to make any reasonable case, Chantal Hebert pointing out that Stephen Harper's rhetoric is nothing but warmed-over talking points from 2003, and Neil MacDonald offering some much-needed perspective on how ISIS compares to other international realities. (For a more thorough review of that point, see Nicolas J.S. Davies' take here.)
- And Lysiane Gagnon goes so far as to recognize Mulcair's role in dialing back an unwarranted call to arms.

On choosing sides

Shorter L. Ian MacDonald:

Anybody doubting whether it's worth going to war in Iraq based on minimal information and questionable reasoning had best take a cold, hard look at the dangers of being on the wrong side of history. But of course, anybody demanding a war in in Iraq based on minimal information and questionable reasoning can count on the full and indefinite support of Very Serious People around the globe, no matter how appallingly wrong the decision proves to be.

On parallel decisions

I won't comment much on L. Ian MacDonald's theory that the Cons' road to a majority involves spending hundreds of million dollars on a Quebec City arena, if only because there doesn't seem to be much to talk about other than whether blatant vote-buying is good or bad. (And unfortunately there isn't much room for doubt where the Harper Cons stand on that.)

But it is worth noting how such a decision might affect Saskatchewan.

After all, the latest news about Regina's domed stadium proposal is that the federal government is due to respond to an application within the next month or so. And if the Cons do plan to follow the Quebec City vote-buying plan, I'm not sure they'll have much choice but to pony up at least some money for Regina as well - since there could be no more sure way to enrage a substantial number of Saskatchewan voters than to reject years of entreaties from the team, city and province while rushing to spend on a similar project for political cronies in Quebec City.

Missing the point

You know the Cons have made a disastrous mistake when even L. Ian MacDonald can't help but to criticize them. But let's not MacDonald off the hook for his misplaced focus either: shouldn't it be obvious that the biggest problem with the Cons' choice to gut the census is the fact that it involves a major and destructive change made with absolutely no rational basis, rather than the lack of a communications plan to try to defend that boneheaded move after the fact?

Moving forward

I won't be quite as effusive as some about Michael Ignatieff's latest coalition comments. Granted, he's taking some important steps toward leaving the door open, and deserves credit for that. But he's still well short of the positive message that it'll take to turn the issue into a net plus for the Libs or any other opposition party. (For something closer to the right tone, see Paul Dewar from his Power & Politics appearance on Friday: "Countries around the world embrace coalitions. It's called working together for the greater good.")

That said, the most interesting response seems to be that coming from the Cons - who through MPs and media proxies are ratcheting up their level of smug self-satisfaction, based on the seemingly unfounded belief that Canadians agree with their internal view that "coalition" is and will remain a dirty word.

At best, one could argue that the strategy reflects a desperate attempt to get the Libs to repudiate any possible coalition again. And I suppose one can't rule out the prospect of Ignatieff getting spooked and capitulating once more.

But it looks more likely that the Cons' strategists are pouring all their energy into re-fighting the last battle, clinging to outdated talking points about the structure of the last coalition and failing to notice that unlike in 2008, the public has time to work through the weak points in their bluster. And the more effort they waste trying to frame the concept of parties working together as an evil to be avoided at all costs, the higher the price they'll pay if the opposition parties can offer a strong message in favour of cooperation.

On diverging interests

Shorter L. Ian MacDonald:

The Harper Cons stand to benefit massively if they can avoid an election this fall and run on a wave of Olympic patriotism in 2010. But I'd like the Liberals to prop up the government this fall as if they had no idea about those consequences.


(Mind you, it's all the more sad that the Libs are entirely likely to take MacDonald's concern-trolling advice and keep supporting Harper.)