Monday Afternoon Links

Miscellaneous material for your Monday reading.

- Blair McBride writes about the long-term medical crisis Alberta can expect as people are unable or unwilling to have normal diagnoses carried out while the health care system is overrun by COVID-19.  And Mickey Djuric reports on the frustration of Saskatchewan families with their inability to access medical care for children.

- Faiz Shakir writes that organized labour is managing to win some important concessions for workers in the U.S. But Brett Wilkins offers a reminder of how far there is to go in ensuring that workers benefit from the riches that are being created, as the 1% now holds more wealth than the entire U.S. middle class.

- Matt Gurney takes note of Canada's housing crisis which is progressing beyond being an economic issue to a profound social illness. 

- Jeremy Lent discusses how a capitalist mindset is entirely incompatible with any solution to the climate crisis. And Amy Salyzyn and Penelope Simons theorize that an entirely new model of professional responsibility needs to be adopted to ensure that the legal profession doesn't continue trampling human rights and environmental imperatives in the service of extractive industries.

- Finally, Simon Evans examines historical greenhouse gas emissions from a few standpoints - including a per-capita calculation which shows Canada as the absolute worst offender in spewing carbon pollution.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Andrew Jackson reviews the OECD's economic recommendations for Canada - featuring a much-needed call for fair taxes on stock options:

Special tax breaks for stock options primarily benefit senior corporate executives, especially CEOs of large public companies who are commonly given the right to buy shares in the future at heavily discounted prices. Options make up a big slice of the total compensation of senior corporate executives.

90% of the benefits of the stock options tax break go to the top 1% of taxpayers. The stock options tax break costs the federal government $785 million per year, according to the Department of Finance.

Stock options are not only unfair, they are also economically destructive in that they encourage corporate executives to boost short-term profits just before options become due. This comes at the cost of long term corporate performance according to Roger Martin, former Dean of the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto.

- Meanwhile, Robert Reich points out a few more corporate leaders who are sounding the alarm about the threat of inequality. Paul Krugman does some quick math as to how austerity continues to damage the global economy. And Paul Buchheit lists a few of the more egregious anti-equality policies which are serving to enrich the wealthy at the expense of everybody else in the U.S.

- Noel Ortega writes that any discussion of a more sustainable, more equal economy needs to take into account our planet's ecological limits - most notably the dangers of climate change. Chris Rose and John Upton both discuss Nicholas Stern's observation that we may be severely underestimating the damage we're doing by using our atmosphere as a dumping ground for greenhouse gases. And Kat Sieniuc discusses how climate change is also at the top of the list of issues which demand policy action as a matter of protecting public health.

- Paul Thomas reminds us that it's thoroughly self-defeating to trading our ability to shape policy in the long run for short-term material gains. And Hopi Sen offers some rules for aspiring politicians.

- Finally, Tabatha Southey and the Beaverton stand out from the pack in commenting on Peter MacKay's view of female judges.

Parliament in Review: November 14, 2011

Monday, November 14 saw MPs return to the House of Commons from a week's break. But if anybody thought the time away would lead to less contentious debate, the day instead saw one of the more fundamental debates we can expect to see out of our elected officials - with the Cons refusing to show a trace of self-reflection even when challenged on recklessly irresponsible actions.

The Big Issue

So what was the major issue up for discussion? Well, that was Joe Comartin's point of order seeking the Speaker's intervention to prevent Con-dominated committees from attacking judicial independence by summoning a sitting judge to participate in their CBC-bashing session. And other opposition speakers made strong points as to why the Speaker's intervention was needed, with Kevin Lamoureux pointing out the House's necessary supervisory role and Elizabeth May focusing on the rule of law.

Of course, Gordon O'Connor's evidence to counter his party's joint attacks on the CBC and judicial independence was a declaration that he watches hockey. But in response to Charlie Angus' questions, James Moore declared that the interference which the parliamentary law clerk described as "unlawful" was exactly what his party was elected to do.

Goverment In Hiding

Meanwhile, the Cons also shut down debate on Charlie Angus' motion to carry out follow-up work on the Ethics Committee's study on Helena Guergis. But their excuse for doing so (instead forcing a vote on the Ethics Committee's report alone) made rather little sense given that the Cons themselves went out of their way to avoid participating in debate on their own bills.

First, there was plenty of debate on the Cons' Senate election bill. Don Davies noted that the Senate is an anachronism in a modern democracy which will only become more dangerous if it's given more of a claim to legitimacy, while also duly mocking the Cons' assertion that it's in any way independent of the directions of the Harper PMO. Matthew Kellway echoed Davies' concerns, pointing out that Stephen Harper had previously declared the Senate a relic of the 19th century while noting that its anti-democratic tendencies actually date back much earlier. Alexandrine Latendresse noted the discriminatory age restrictions which limit access to the Senate. Frank Valeriote pointed out that the Cons' scheme - like so many of their policies - downloads costs to the provinces for no apparent benefit.

And oh yes, Peter Stoffer pointed out directly that the Cons weren't bothering to defend their own legislation.

Meanwhile, the Cons put in somewhat more of an appearance to discuss their copyright legislation - though as per usual they didn't bother responding to any of the opposition's substantive concerns. Andrew Cash criticized the Cons' decision to favour media conglomerates over consumers by declaring that digital locks trump all other rights, while Geoff Regan pointed out that the Cons actually had the gall to suggest we shouldn't worry about an appallingly imbalanced law because big business might not bother enforcing it. Laurin Liu and Scott Simms highlighted the need to ensure that creators benefit from the use of their creations. And Peter Julian read the portion of the bill which required distance education students to destroy their class materials.

In Brief

The NDP focused on aviation, transit and trucking safety issues in question period, culminating in Olivia Chow's introduction of a bill to require truck side guards which have been mandatory in Europe for 25 years. Meanwhile, Regan moved second reading of a bill to raise awareness of epilepsy, with the lone concerns from Djaouida Sellah having to do with the Libs' translation of the bill. Megan Leslie and Claude Gravelle both cited the Cons' Keystone XL failure as evidence that they're not accomplishing anything in dealing with Canada's closest neighbour. Pierre-Luc Dusseault presented one of the NDP's sharper members' statements in criticizing the Cons' own ad scam, while Jack Harris and Alexandre Boulerice followed up in question period. And Francoise Boivin slammed the Cons for their embarrassing gender imbalance in judicial appointments.

Maximizing partisanship

Plenty has already been written about the Cons' move to stack judicial advisory committees with Con partisans and right-wing ideologues. What's worth remembering in addition, though, is that one of the major legal controversies about the Cons' first year in power was their refusal to appoint enough judges to fill even the number of existing vacancies within Canada's courts, let alone assess the number of judicial positions actually needed. (That point earns a brief mention in CanWest's coverage of the current issue.)

At the time, there didn't seem to be any substantial reason for that omission other than general hostility toward the judiciary. But it makes a lot more sense if the Cons wanted to leave as many judicial posts as possible open for the fruits of their one-sided committees - which can only exacerbate the problem with the new committee composition.

Suing the homeless

Somewhere, a Republican candidate search committee is saying "jackpot".

Update: Or maybe is instead an example of the just how little difference there is sometimes between the two American parties, as the individual responsible is apparently a Dem donor.