Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Alex Hemingway reviews the evidence on two-tiered medicine from around the developed world, and concludes that a constitutional attack on universal health care would only result in our paying more for less.

- Marc Lee takes a look at the national climate change framework released last week and finds it to fall short in both its insufficient goals, and a lack of a clear plan to achieve them. 

- Erika Shaker examines the difficulties families face as a result of unavailable and unaffordable child care. 

- Martin Regg Cohn nicely highlights the two-faced Ontario PCs, who are denouncing social conservatism publicly while proclaiming it to be a top priority behind closed doors. And both Michael Den Tandt and Michael Harris point out that the NDP is nicely positioned to fill the federal vacuum created by a combination of disappointing corporatist Libs and ineffective Cons.

- Finally, Dave Seglins and Rachel Houlihan report on Dennis Molinaro's discovery of a secret 1951 Canadian cabinet memo authorizing RCMP spying against "subversives" in perpetuity. (And judging from the federal government's response complaining that disclosure would affect ongoing operations, there's reason to suspect that it's still being applied.)

Just so we're clear...

Making any move to push out a still-respected interim leader just as he returns to the Parliamentary setting where he does his best work would be foolish.

Abandoning a long-term base of voters who want to see sustainable choices in both environmental and economic policy in an attempt to take second place in the Most Mindless Opposition Pipeline Cheerleader Awards would be no less so.

There's plenty actually worth focusing on this fall as a matter of both principle and political opportunity - including threats to health care and civil liberties, as well as the possibility of a more fair electoral system. And party members and Canada as a whole need the NDP to live up to the challenges, rather than letting anonymous backbiting get in the way.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Duncan Cameron discusses how deficit hysteria has overshadowed the far more important issues raised by the Trudeau Libs' inaugural budget:

Ottawa deficit spending is not big enough to stimulate an economy lagging since the oil price collapse. The Canadian economy has suffered a major external shock, with Alberta taking a big hit.

The rise of precarious work indicates serious disguised unemployment.

A slack economy with many people wanting full-time work calls out for additional spending. Governments need to boost their own contribution to general well-being.
...
The Trudeau Liberals have postponed infrastructure spending and reneged on promised social spending. The NDP have identified 10 ways in which the 2016 Liberal budget falls short in meeting election promises, including not delivering on promised home care.

Importantly, the Trudeau budget does not say how the Liberal government plans to address the elimination by Stephen Harper of annual six per cent increases in health-care transfers to the provinces.

Indeed, the 2016 budget raises problems for both municipalities and provinces. Federal-provincial financial arrangements need to be updated after years of neglect by Ottawa of co-operation with other levels of government.

- Andy Blatchford points out another broken promise in the budget, as funding to encourage the hiring of young workers is nowhere to be found. Tim Harper writes about the Libs' turnaround on providing personal information to the IRS. And Thomas Walkom notes that the Libs are secretly encouraging employers to import temporary foreign workers despite the growing number of Canadians in need of work.

- Sujata Day discusses the Libs' glaring rejection of meaningful public consultation on the Trans-Pacific Partnership. And even Michael Den Tandt pauses briefly from cheerleading for corporate control to point out their failure to make any case for the TPP.

- Josh Eidelson highlights the move toward increased minimum wages as a key example of the labour movement reasserting its strength in the U.S.

- Finally, Andre Picard argues that our current lack of social supports for seniors is unacceptable. And Ryan Meili examines the party platforms on offer in Saskatchewan's election from the standpoint of healthy politics.

New column day

Here, with my take on the factors NDP members should take into account in evaluating Tom Mulcair's leadership.

For further reading...
- I've written numerous previous posts on the future of Mulcair and the NDP which expand on the points made in the column.
- Michael den Tandt offers his view of Mulcair. Chantal Hebert and Tim Harper serve as examples of the knee-jerk "dump the leader!" reaction which I see as calling for pushback. And while Justin Ling is somewhat alarmist about the NDP's past actions, his analysis deserves a serious look for the future. 
- Finally, I'll reiterate my view that the NDP's long-term focus needs to be grassroots-driven and inclusive rather than relying on yet more central control - meaning that limiting a review to the party's executive (or putting MPs alone in charge of assessing Mulcair's future) doesn't look to be a useful response.

Pop quiz

Michael Den Tandt and John Geddes are convinced that Tom Mulcair's speech to the Economic Club of Canada yesterday represents both a massive sea change in Canadian politics, and a response to the NDP's newfound lead in the polls. So let's offer a pop quiz to see if that theory holds up to scrutiny.

The following passages are from speeches Mulcair delivered:
(a) to the Economic Club of Canada in April 2012;
(b) to the Calgary Chamber of Commerce in February 2013;
(c) to the Economic Club of Canada in January 2015; and
(d) to the Economic Club of Canada in June 2015.

Can you match the date with the passage to determine which speeches represented the unremarkable status quo ante, and which "willy-nilly upset the apple cart" and represented a new "aim...to forestall a worried reaction to his emergence as a serious challenger"?

1:

As New Democrats, we believe in a vision for sustainable, long-term growth that will create wealth and prosperity here...

Not just for today, but for generations to come.

That means building a diversified economy that includes value-added jobs and thriving export industries.

It means upgrading and refining our own natural resources...instead of building pipelines to ship raw bitumen overseas.

It means making polluters pay for the pollution they create rather than leaving that cleanup to future generations.

And it means developing a coherent and strategic vision that creates the right environment for foreign investment… while ensuring a well-defined “net benefit” to Canada.

Industry has also begun to realize that we can no longer disconnect principles like these from the bottom line.

2:

I don't believe budgets balance themselves, nor do I believe they become balanced just because you pass a law – zap (you're) balanced.

But I do believe that it is fundamentally important that the federal government live within its means.

In the NDP, that idea goes back to the beginning.

I come from the school of Tommy Douglas who balanced 17 budgets in a row while he ushered in Medicare.

Or Roy Romanow, who rescued Saskatchewan from bankruptcy with prudent fiscal management.

Or Manitoba’s Gary Doer, who has the best track record of any Premier in the modern era for balanced budgets.

And you don't have to take our word for it.

The federal Department of Finance’s own reports show that NDP governments are the best at balancing the books when in office.

3:

Our first task, therefore, must be to convince Canadians that New Democrats will be competent public administrators.

Not the most exciting campaign slogan, I know, but with nearly 35 years in public service, when it comes to public administration, I have a record to run on.

Beyond restoring basic competence, we must also conduct ourselves with a genuine respect for the role of government.

Government can’t do everything. But while maintaining a healthy respect for its limitations, we should also acknowledge that government is the place we come together to build the better, fairer Canada we all want.

4:

I believe in growing the economy through prudent, strategic investments and sound fiscal policy. Policies that attract investment and stimulate the creation of stable, full-time jobs.

For example, the New Democratic Party has an open and progressive approach to international trade. We support the free trade agreement with South Korea, and the agreement in principle with Europe.

The goal is to put the emphasis back on sustainable economic growth. Growth that will help not only today’s middle class, but our children and grandchildren. This means building a diversified economy that focuses on the creation of value-added jobs.

When we consider recent events – the job losses, the closures, the withdrawing of investment, and skyrocketing of household debt I believe that the focus of our response must be on the hard-working families who feel the effects of these events day-in and day-out.

Their struggles will always guide my priorities.

With strategic investments and a concrete plan, we can provide the squeezed middle class with a stronger economy and better shock absorbers to ensure they weather the storm in the coming months and years ahead.

The correct answers are : (a)-3, (b)-1, (c)-4, (d)-2.

Feel free to peruse the speeches as a whole to see if there's some difference missed in the above passages. But it's certainly worth asking: is there any truth to the claim that there's a radical difference in the NDP's economic message? Or is that simply a matter of pundits changing their own emphasis to suit a narrative or outright ignoring what Mulcair has said before, even as Mulcair (possibly unlike some of his opponents) stays broadly consistent?

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.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Paul Rosenberg writes about the high-priced effort to undermine public institutions and the collective good in the U.S. And Paul Krugman highlights how the Republicans' stubborn belief in the impossibly of good government (regardless of large amounts of evidence that such a thing is possible and desirable) has produced the U.S.' combination of waste and gridlock:

On issues that range from monetary policy to the control of infectious disease, a big chunk of America’s body politic holds views that are completely at odds with, and completely unmovable by, actual experience. And no matter the issue, it’s the same chunk. If you’ve gotten involved in any of these debates, you know that these people aren’t happy warriors; they’re red-faced angry, with special rage directed at know-it-alls who snootily point out that the facts don’t support their position.

The question, as I said at the beginning, is why. Why the dogmatism? Why the rage? And why do these issues go together, with the set of people insisting that climate change is a hoax pretty much the same as the set of people insisting that any attempt at providing universal health insurance must lead to disaster and tyranny?

Well, it strikes me that the immovable position in each of these cases is bound up with rejecting any role for government that serves the public interest. If you don’t want the government to impose controls or fees on polluters, you want to deny that there is any reason to limit emissions. If you don’t want the combination of regulation, mandates and subsidies that is needed to extend coverage to the uninsured, you want to deny that expanding coverage is even possible. And claims about the magical powers of tax cuts are often little more than a mask for the real agenda of crippling government by starving it of revenue.

And why this hatred of government in the public interest? Well, the political scientist Corey Robin argues that most self-proclaimed conservatives are actually reactionaries. That is, they’re defenders of traditional hierarchy — the kind of hierarchy that is threatened by any expansion of government, even (or perhaps especially) when that expansion makes the lives of ordinary citizens better and more secure. I’m partial to that story, partly because it helps explain why climate science and health economics inspire so much rage.

- Meanwhile, Joe Oliver seems determined to sell the same Tea Party hand-me-down lines in Canada. And Michael Spratt discusses Peter MacKay's efforts to make sure that factual research doesn't get in the way of the Cons' tough-on-crime zealotry.

- Michael Harris writes that the Cons' election-year task is once again to push voters to forget the policies they actually support when they go to the polls - or at least to undermine their view of democracy to the point where they'll stay home. And Michael Den Tandt highlights the absurdity of the Cons running on their disastrous economic record.

- Danica Kirka reports on Oxfam's latest study on inequality showing that by next year, the global 1% may own more than half of the wealth on the planet. And the Guardian makes the case for immediate action to reverse the concentration of income and wealth, while recognizing how much work remains to be done in even defining the problem.

- Finally, Barry Eichengreen discusses the blanket of financial regulations which was shredded to ribbons in the name of easy profits over the last few decades - and the fact that restoring economic stability means more than simply undoing one set of cuts.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Dennis Raphael and Toba Bryant write about the devastating health effects of income inequality in Canada:

Imagine the response, from industry, government and the public, if a plane was crashing every day. If there were something that killed as many people in a day as this kind of disaster, you’d expect it to provoke a similarly concentrated response.

A recent report by Statistics Canada highlights a preventable cause of premature death that is having exactly that kind of impact. This study demonstrates that income inequality is associated with the premature death of 40,000 Canadians a year. That’s equal to 110 Canadians dying prematurely each day. To put that into context, imagine a Bombardier CS-100 jet airplane full of passengers falling out of the sky every day for a year.
...
The Statistics Canada report also makes clear that these differences in health outcomes are primarily due to the material living circumstances and the associated psychosocial stresses associated with not being as well off as the wealthiest 20% of Canadians: “Income influences health most directly through access to material resources such as better quality food and shelter.” Income inequality is not only bad for our quality of life and economic productivity, it is directly related to the deaths of Canadians on an almost unimaginable scale.

Canadians are increasingly concerned about growing income inequality and are becoming more aware of its health effects. It’s time for a serious response from policy-makers, media and the public. Otherwise we’ll simply continue to watch 110 Canadians falling out of the sky every day, each day, 365 days a year.

- Meanwhile, Seumas Milne notes that the UK Cons are continuing to push pointless austerity even as its damage to the economy becomes inescapable.

- And we shouldn't be suckered into believing that austerity happens only through relatively transparent budgeting processes. In fact, recent reports show that the Cons have simply chosen not to bother with approved funding both for veterans at home, and for the world's poorest people abroad - imposing massive cuts from the amounts approved by our elected representatives without any debate.

- Carol Goar discusses how Canada is losing allies around the world due to the Cons' obstinate refusal to do anything - or even allow anything to be done - to meaningfully fight climate change.

- And finally, Michael Den Tandt comments on the Cons' disreputable politics - with Michael Sona's sentence (and the Cons' refusal to acknowledge jail-worthy wrongdoing within their own ranks) serving as just the latest example.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Jonas Fossli Gherso discusses the unfortunate (and unnecessary) acceptance of burgeoning inequality even by the people who suffer most from its presence. And Ryan Meili interviews Gabor Mate about the ill health effects of an economic system designed to keep people under stress:

(T)he very nature of the system in which people live their lives is a significant source of illness. Now there are obvious factors like environmental pollution, toxins, and then of course there are the social determinants of health that you write about in A Healthy Society: the impact of poverty, the impact of inequality, the impact of history and continued racism. There’s an article in the Saskatoon Star Phoenix today about sentencing practices in the courts of Saskatchewan. People who are identified as Aboriginal are likely to get double the sentences of people who are not identified as Aboriginal. That’s going to have a health impact.

But I’m going to go beyond even that and say that even the people who are not on the wrong end of economic inequality or systemic racism are still made ill just by how we live our lives. The stress that we live under, the competition, the aggressiveness, the uncertainty, the loss of control that we experience in our lives. The gender inequalities, these are not just social phenomena, they have an actual impact on community health. The isolation people are experiencing.

- Meanwhile, Charles Smith points out how young workers are losing out as a result of policy choices designed to maximize employer leverage at their expense:

Canadian young people are among the most educated in the world. According to the Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development, in 2014 Canada had the highest percentage of university or college trained population in the world. Recognizing that, Statistics Canada reported in 2010 that most OECD countries were more successful than Canada in employing individuals with university or college education.

In other words, the problem with finding full and meaningful employment is not necessarily a problem with individual young people, but a broader problem of government and private sector employers.
...
Outside the classroom, students are demanding social change, pushing our organizations in new and exciting directions, challenging traditional pedagogy, and creating a new generation of community and ecological awareness.

At the University of Saskatchewan, young women are challenging traditional forms of power by creating new organizations and demanding justice in public and private life. Indigenous students are reclaiming space and demanding greater access to opportunities long denied to them.

All of this suggests that today's students are multi-talented, skilled and ready to lead. It is time that government and private employers recognized this by promoting an industrial policy designed to create meaningful full employment.

- Alan Kors reports on Stephen Lewis' advice in advocating for child care as a public good, not a benefit limited to those who immediately find spaces. And Jeffrey Simpson highlights how much work there is to be done in fixing a tax system built around the Cons' trinkets and baubles.

- Finally, Michael Den Tandt recognizes that the Cons' interest in Canadian troops goes no further than using them in photo ops. And Michael Harris notes that a direct clash between the Cons and the veterans they've left behind may make for an important piece of Canada's next election campaign.

Saturday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your weekend reading.

- Lana Payne examines the Cons' economic record and finds it very much wanting:

Inequality has deepened under Mr. Harper’s watch, job quality has declined, wages have stagnated, economic growth has been anemic, social protections have been reduced while corporate profits and CEO pay soar.
...
(E)mployment and labour force participation rates are lower today than they were in 2006, part-time employment is up, corporate taxes are significantly lower (22.1 per cent in 2006, 15 per cent today) business capital investment saw no increase and has been static at 19.1 per cent of GDP, business R&D spending as a percentage of GDP has declined, exports as a percentage of GDP from 2006 to today have dropped significantly from 36.7 per cent of GDP to 30.8 per cent.

Not exactly great economic numbers. Add to this the over $600 billion in cash being hoarded by corporate Canada and Mr. Harper is heading into a federal election with more than a few economic weak spots.

Throw in the fact that wages are stagnant and inequality is growing and the only folks doing better are those at the top who are accumulating more and more wealth under Mr. Harper’s failed economic policies.
...
Inequality and poor jobs are not inevitable. Nor are they just because of technological change and globalization, as some would want us to believe. We can, with good economic policy, make a difference for the citizens of Canada, but we have to first believe that government has a role to play.

- And Bill Curry reports on the Cons' latest moves to undermine the Canada Revenue Agency when it comes to "aggressive tax planning" and other abuses at the top end of the wealth scale - which of course only figure to make inequality worse.

- Meanwhile, Larry Haiven discusses the utter failure of corporate social responsibility as a check on business abuses. And Molly McCracken questions the point of a one-night "sleep outside" event which will mostly figure to provide cover for a complete lack of public inaction to combat homelessness.

- Jesse McLean reports that the Cons' strategy of letting drug companies decide for themselves whether their products are safe (rather than, say, meaningfully regulating them) has led to the distribution of ingredients found to be unfit for U.S. consumption. And it's hard to see how a name-and-shame approach to health and safety will do any particular good when it's directed at utterly shameless corporations.

- Finally, Jeffrey Simpson highlights the Cons' continued wilful ignorance about Iraq. And Michael den Tandt and Thomas Walkom both note that the NDP is right to challenge the deployment of troops when the Cons have no clue what they're supposed to accomplish.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Michael Den Tandt and Jonathan Kay both point out the willingness of conservative (and Conservative) supporters to brush off the obvious misdeeds of their political leaders. And Glen Pearson rightly concludes that the responsibility to elect deserving leaders ultimately lies with voters:

We are guilty of asking to little of ourselves. We find it remarkably easy, natural even, to blame our representatives and yet we put them there. They have no real answers to our unemployment situation, but we either continue to support them because of the party we serve or because we have just given up altogether. We turn away in disgust at all the corruption trials, the hanging around with nefarious types, and the constant role-playing to populist politics, and in that very act of walking away we poison the wells for our children’s future. We will continue to dote on our kids at Christmas, providing what they require, but we won’t fight for their cheaper post-secondary tuitions, their future healthcare requirements, their ability to purchase their own homes or to have meaningful jobs. Our children will be entrusted with billions of dollars in public infrastructure deficits and our way of dealing with it is to walk away from the public space instead of fighting for it – for them.

Apathy is a kind of public trap, with no challenges and therefore no rewards. It just is and the consequences are inevitably bone chilling. Most of us care, just not enough, and if we maintain that attitude then we need to prepare ourselves for more mini-tyrants overrunning our public space. This isn’t about Left or Right, is it? It’s about competence and our ability as a people to overcome our challenges and build on our past successes.

The simple reality is this: it’s not really about Rob Ford and his ilk; it’s about us, and how much incompetence we are willing to endure. We got what we voted for and now we’re paying for it. We need better politicians, but our only way of achieving that target is to be better citizens.

- Meanwhile, Frances Russell writes that any attempt to hand more power to the Senate only figures to render the federal government ineffective in responding to Canadians' needs.

- Josh Eidelson discusses McDonald's instructions to employees to break their food into pieces and stop complaining (as an apparent alternative to being paid enough to avoid hunger and stress). And Jillian Berman finds Walmart going a step further - holding a food drive for its own employees who plainly aren't paid enough to feed themselves.

- Which leads nicely to Alexandre Boulerice's view of the proper role of government in allowing workers some recourse in dealing with employers whose strategy includes grinding them into poverty:

But how do you better advocate for those people who are working at Walmart?
I think as legislators our responsibility is to let the workers decide by themselves. I’m not saying that it’s the role of the government to create unions but it’s the role of government to create an environment where it's possible to create a union when you want it -- you can have legal capacities to fight back if you are against an employer like Walmart or McDonalds that clearly doesn’t accept a union in their workplaces.

- CAUT studies how corporate funding is warping Canadian university research projects.

- Finally, Paul Adams contrasts the NDP's clear position on referendum standards against the Libs' well-practiced ignorance.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Jordon Cooper writes about the dangers of growing income inequality in Saskatchewan and around the world:

Income inequality is driven largely by market forces. Technology has changed the job market, and globalization has moved markets overseas or driven down wages.

It's also driven by actions of governments. They have tried to weaken organized labour for decades, which hurts the workers unions represent. Other institutional factors include stagnating minimum wage rates that hurt those at the bottom, while decreasing marginal tax rates are credited for the increases of top wage earners.

The problems are well known, but politicians struggle with the solutions. Whenever I ask an elected official what can be done, I get a couple of moments of awkward conversation about education being a big part of the solution to market problems (and something we have to improve in Saskatchewan), but that is it. No one wants to mention the institutional solution, which is to transfer money from the rich to the poor through personal income taxes and social programs.

Countries who have closed the gap on income inequality, such as the Nordic nations, have more generous social safety nets. By distributing the money over a wider population, the economy does better and those at the bottom have better options to be upwardly mobile.

- But while Cooper also worries that any interest in addressing inequality might be seen as a negative in a political party, Murray Dobbin writes that a strong push by the labour movement may help to change that assumption at the federal level. And Paul Adams suggests that we should be looking for our federal opposition parties to find common ground on progressive policy issues - contrary to Michael den Tandt's demand that Thomas Mulcair sing from the oil baron hymn book in order to gain admittance to the Very Serious Persons Society.

- Meanwhile, Richard Blackwell interviews Canada Without Poverty's Leilani Farha about the role employers should play in ensuring a living wage:

Is there a role for the business community in decreasing poverty in Canada?
Business has a very important role to play. On a practical level, employers need to pay their employees a living wage, and they need to do this without waiting for provincial governments to increase minimum wages. The bottom line is that it is not cheap to live. Employers need to take that into consideration.

Why do employers have that responsibility?
When I ask the business community to pay a living wage, I am actually asking them to stand in the shoes of their employees. What are their employees’ daycare costs? What are they paying for a loaf of bread? What are they paying in rent or what do their mortgage payments look like? What is the cost of Internet, cable TV, or whatever?


Are there economic benefits from reducing poverty?

It makes good business sense. If people have money, they will spend money. That will benefit employers and business, ultimately. It is expensive to run homeless shelters. [And poverty is a] huge tax on our health-care system.

- Finally, Susan Delacourt rightly suggests that Stephen Harper's legacy as Prime Minister has already taken shape - and that it consists mostly of social destruction.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Eric Dolan discusses Paul Piff's research showing that wealth tends to lead to antisocial behaviour - and that even the beneficiaries of a rigged Monopoly game are quick to take on an air of entitlement:

Across multiple studies, researchers at the University of California at Berkeley have found that being in the upper-class predisposes individuals to acting unethically.

Studies conducted by psychology professor Paul Piff found those who drive luxury cars were less likely to stop for pedestrians, those with more money were more likely take candy from children, and the wealthiest among us were more likely to cheat in a game with a $50 cash prize. Researchers at UC Berkeley have also found lower-class individuals are more physiologically attuned to the suffering of others than their middle- and upper-class counterparts.
...
Though some might assume the wealthy gained their riches due to their unethical behavior, the effect appears to work in the opposite direction. Being wealthy is what drives the unethical behavior.

Piff manipulated the rules of a Monopoly game to show even lower class people began to take on the traits of the wealthy when provided with unfairly favorable circumstances. Those given an unfair advantage surprisingly believed they deserved to win the game. They attributed their successes to their own individual skills and talents, rather than their highly favorable circumstances. A higher class person put in an unfavorable position, on the other hand, began to take on the traits of the poor.

- And we're not lacking for examples of the treatment of those who dare to question their social betters. For one, Brian Haas reports an attempt to shut down discussion about water quality by labelling any concerns as "acts of terrorism". And Save Our Connaught discusses the refusal of most of Regina's public school board to so much as allow a citizen's group to test the accuracy of its assumptions in deciding to replace Connaught School.

- But it seems fairly clear that an informed public becomes duly skeptical of any claims to elite entitlements - with both Michael den Tandt and Tim Harper noting that the Clusterduff has broken the seal on serious questions about the Ottawa culture of secrecy cultivated by the Harper Cons. 

- Finally, Jim Stanford makes the case for a greater public role in shaping economic development. And Don Weisbeck criticizes the deception involved in hiding public debt through P3 schemes.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content for your Friday reading.

- Michael Moss writes about the amount of time and money spent by corporate conglomerates to push consumers toward eating unhealthy food:

The public and the food companies have known for decades now — or at the very least since this meeting — that sugary, salty, fatty foods are not good for us in the quantities that we consume them. So why are the diabetes and obesity and hypertension numbers still spiraling out of control? It’s not just a matter of poor willpower on the part of the consumer and a give-the-people-what-they-want attitude on the part of the food manufacturers. What I found, over four years of research and reporting, was a conscious effort — taking place in labs and marketing meetings and grocery-store aisles — to get people hooked on foods that are convenient and inexpensive. I talked to more than 300 people in or formerly employed by the processed-food industry, from scientists to marketers to C.E.O.’s. Some were willing whistle-blowers, while others spoke reluctantly when presented with some of the thousands of pages of secret memos that I obtained from inside the food industry’s operations. What follows is a series of small case studies of a handful of characters whose work then, and perspective now, sheds light on how the foods are created and sold to people who, while not powerless, are extremely vulnerable to the intensity of these companies’ industrial formulations and selling campaigns.

- Thomas Walkom comments on a new CCPA study theorizing that the tar sands are just the latest example of Canada's history of "staple traps":

Vast quantities of money would be spent (usually by government) on infrastructure needed to extract whatever resource was in demand. And then, suddenly, things would change.

Maybe the commodity would fall out of fashion — as did felt hats made from Canadian beaver pelts. Or maybe technology would make the staple irrelevant, as the steamship did to masts made from Canadian white pine.

In all instances, Canadians would be left paying the costs.

The Bitumen Cliff applies this analysis to the tarsands. Again, vast quantities of money are required, not just to extract the heavy oil but to transport it by rail, pipeline or ship.
Again, other economic activities are given short shrift. In this case, the high dollar created by Canada’s soaring oil exports has eaten into the ability of manufacturers to compete abroad.

And again, the political system wraps itself around the staple, with Ottawa’s Conservative government gutting environmental laws for fear that they might interfere with pipelines and resource extraction.

Can this last? Unless tarsands oil is a very unusual staple it cannot. Prices rise; prices fall. Tastes change; things happen. We are beginning to see some of that now.

- Meanwhile, Michael den Tandt wonders whether the Cons' over-the-top anti-environment spin is one of the main reasons why Canada's shameful climate change record is attracting attention abroad:

Why then, Conservatives ask plaintively, would U.S. VIPs such as Ambassador David Jacobson, or Secretary of State John Kerry, doubt Canada’s climate bona fides?

Hint to Harper brain trust: It may have something to do with the daily, mind-numbing effluvium emanating from your backbenches, vis-a-vis a “$21.5-billion, job-killing carbon tax,” ostensibly planned by Mulcair’s New Democrats. The “carbon tax” was in fact a cap-and-trade plan, proposed by the NDP in the 2011 campaign, not materially different from one offered by the Conservatives themselves in 2008. Implicit in both plans, as well as Dion’s Green Shift, was that a price be set on carbon, something every economist acknowledges is necessary to change consumer behaviour.

In beating this drum so vehemently, therefore, the Conservatives have cast themselves as do-nothing, care-nothing laggards. Environmental provisions in their 2012 budget, which gutted protections for lakes and rivers, haven’t helped.

- Bruce Johnstone writes about Jim Farney's theory that the tendency toward top-down government has made outside lobbying ineffective and restricted policy influence to political staffers.

- And finally, speaking of ill-advised policies imposed without consultation or apparent thought, Paul Orlowski points out why the Sask Party's focus on standardized testing figures to do nothing but damage to Saskatchewan's education system.

New column day

Here, on the Cons' choice to start charging emergency-stricken communities for disaster relief work by the Canadian Forces.

For further reading, see the initial report from Lee Berthiaume, as well as Michael Den Tandt's criticism of the move.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- David Suzuki makes the case for evaluating our well-being through Gross National Happiness rather than GDP alone:

There’s more to happiness than just having a clean environment – and Bhutan has yet to get there. According to research for the UN Conference on Happiness, “The happiest countries in the world are all in Northern Europe (Denmark, Norway, Finland, Netherlands).” Although these countries are wealthy, the study points out that money isn’t the only factor, as happiness is decreasing in countries like the U.S. “Political freedom, strong social networks and an absence of corruption are together more important than income in explaining well-being differences between the top and bottom countries,” the researchers write. “At the individual level, good mental and physical health, someone to count on, job security and stable families are crucial.” Note that the happiest countries all have healthy economies and robust social programs.
...
There’s an old saw that says the definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing over and over expecting different results. In the case of leaders who focus almost entirely on economic growth and corporate interests, it’s a recipe for disaster. As George Monbiot recently wrote in the U.K.’s Guardian, “In return for 150 years of explosive consumption, much of which does nothing to advance human welfare, we are atomising the natural world and the human systems that depend on it.”

As light gradually returns to the north and we celebrate a season of sharing, our leaders could brighten all our lives by considering what really makes our societies strong, healthy and happy.

 - Don Lenihan discusses how the Cons' F-35 debacle represents a classic example of the type of government capture that flourishes when decisions are made without transparency:

Purchasing a fleet of fifth-generation fighter jets, for example, is an extremely complex and technical task. On files like this, expert advice not only informs policy, it usually drives it. For a minster who may not know a cockpit from a wing flap, this can be a challenge.

While bureaucrats, lobbyists and vendors may call themselves advisors, too often they turn out to be the real decision-makers on the file. There’s a term for this in policy circles: capture. If the reports are right, the F-35 story looks like a textbook case.
...
Secrecy plays a big role in capture. It is supposed to give the inner circle (and the government) a critical advantage over opponents. If your opponents know what you know, they can challenge you on it, perhaps publicly. If the issues at stake rest on technical knowledge and expertise — as in the case of the F-35 file — there is always a risk that your opponents’ analysis will be better than yours, or that they might be better at persuading others that it is. If they win, you lose.

Secrecy counters this. It positions the inner circle for battle and helps ensure they are in control of the process.

Ministers and advisors alike find this kind of argument convincing and reassuring. For ministers, however, it has a fatal flaw. The minister’s role in the policy process is fundamentally different from that of the advisors. Ministers must account publicly for their decisions.

 - But Michael den Dandt has a few more terms for the Cons' disastrous excuse for government in addressing the F-35 purchase:

No matter what happens now, the F-35 episode will stand as a spectacular example of how not to manage an important public project. One can call it ramshackle, slipshod, inept, dishonest and incompetent, and not even begin to do events justice. Had they deliberately set out to spiral-dive their reputations for sound management and probity into the ground, Peter MacKay & Co. could not have done a better job than the record shows these past three years.
...
In unveiling their new-new process, chastened ministers will shelter beneath Ambrose’s personal Harry Potter invisibility cloak, which she has earned by not engaging in the asinine talking-point babble that has become a substitute for reason in this House of Commons. They will continue to exploit Alexander’s reputation, until it too no longer functions.

What they cannot so easily address is why MacKay, Fantino, the apparatus of the Prime Minister’s Office, and Harper himself, ignored so many credible warnings, which came from so many credible quarters, that sole-sourcing the F-35 was a terrible idea. Nor can they undo that, for months on end, they met these legitimate voices, such as that of Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page, with contempt. Page, who was just doing his job, was proven almost exactly right. The government, which was not doing its job, was proven almost exactly wrong.

The jet purchase they can fix, with a competition. The cast of mind that got them here, not so much. Absent a radical overhaul of cabinet, and a miraculous transformation in their approach to wielding power, they will wear it. It’s too colossal a bungle to set aside.

- Finally, Stuart Trew writes that there's predictably one part of the TPP that the Cons are trying to eliminate - as any enforceable labour standards are once again intolerable to the Harper Cons.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Steven Hoffman highlights the Cons' utter refusal to recognize that foreign aid - as defined by global treaties - doesn't mean the same thing as corporate giveaways:

Reports and commentary on Canada’s new foreign aid policy reveal the extent to which international development means different things to different people. Some see it as public charity, others as the way a country projects its values to the world. Still others, including International Co-operation Minister Julian Fantino, argue that it’s “a part of Canadian foreign policy” and the fulfilment of “a duty and a responsibility to ensure that Canadian interests are promoted.”

These are all valid perspectives – international development can be any one or all of these things combined. But, unfortunately, official development assistance, to which we have made international commitments, can’t. This system, in effect since 1969, defines aid as official financial flows that are concessional in character and intended to promote the development and well-being of developing countries. Excluded are grants intended to advance donor countries’ interests, including admirable objectives such as economic growth or security from terrorism. Grants to private for-profit companies are also excluded because, by law, they primarily serve commercial objectives.

Donor countries such as Canada can’t walk and chew gum at the same time, despite skill or best intentions. Our government’s new foreign aid focus on private-sector partnerships and self-interest – which, in Mr. Fantino’s words, is for “Canadian values, Canadian business, the Canadian economy, benefits for Canada” – deserves reconsideration. It unwittingly represents a dramatic departure from the established global development system and brings Canada out of sync with the rest of the world.

- Which means Tim Harper may only be understating matters in arguing that the Cons are gutting Canadian foreign policy alone, rather than trying to attack basic international principles.

- pogge highlights a few more sad examples of the Cons' government by ill-fated improvisation, while Michael den Tandt reports on the most glaring example as the F-35 debacle is apparently wound down. And the Cons are still trying to cover up everything they do - with the latest example being their stonewalling against Kevin Page's request to see shipbuilding contracts in order to be able to assess them.

- But while Bob Hepburn may be right in his assessment of MPs when it comes to most of the Cons as being enemies of democracy, we should be careful not to tar all of our elected representatives with the same brush. After all, an unduly sweeping, "they all do it" message (in contrast to recognition where MPs represent their constituents properly) will only make it easier for the worst offenders to avoid answering for their wrongs.

On precedence

There's not much doubt that Canada's debates over the FNOOC/Nexen takeover bid and FIPPA investor privilege treaty with China have become intertwined. But it's worth noting that some observers seem to be misreading how the two will relate to each other - and we should be wary of confusion on both fronts.

Let's take for example Michael Den Tandt:

There are legitimate questions, as I have noted before, about both the detail of the FIPA, and the CNOOC-Nexen deal. The Harper government should have addressed these up front. Instead, it has played catch up. Its likeliest way forward now is to approve the takeover, but with stringent conditions. Bloomberg News reported Tuesday that CNOOC has accepted a requirement that the acquired company have 50 per cent Canadian representation on its board and in management.

If true, that is fascinating: Article 7 of the Canada-China FIPA says that “a contracting party may not require that an enterprise of that Party ... appoint individuals of any particular nationality to senior management positions.” The agreement allows that a majority of a board of directors be “of a particular nationality or resident of the territory of the Contracting Party,” but only if that does not “materially impair the ability of the investor to exercise control over its investment.”

For CNOOC to accept a 50-50 board and executive-suite split, therefore, would denote appreciable flexibility in the interpretation of the FIPA, to Canada’s benefit — perhaps driven by knowledge on both sides that the deal has become a hot potato.

Apparently, Den Tandt assumes that CNOOC's agreement to accept restrictions on its board and management will supersede the terms of the FIPPA. But there's another possibility as well: that CNOOC is perfectly willing to publicly accept a restriction which won't actually be effective.

After all, FIPPA contains no exception for restrictions on board and management entered into by agreement - only for ones already in place by the time the FIPPA enters into force. And so CNOOC may well be happy to go along with the Cons' desire to draw out the approval process, push to have the FIPPA approved first, then avoid any public commitment through the operation of a treaty which supersedes its promise.

Of course, there's a separate issue that a one-time restriction will do nothing to affect the interpretation of the FIPPA once it's put in place. And as Don Davies has noted, any ability to further monitor CNOOC's operations will be lost as soon as a one-time takeover is approved.

But while it's bad enough that we're being told yet again to accept one-time assurances in exchange for long-term fetters on public policy, there's a real risk we we'll end up getting neither.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content for your Friday reading.

- Timothy Noah writes that since Republicans haven't been able to convince the American public that inequality is desirable or acceptable, they're taking another angle: engaging in inequality denialism to try to pretend a growing problem doesn't exist.

- Tim Harper discusses the importance of Kevin Page's attempts to get accurate fiscal information out of the Con government. And Andrew Coyne points out that the federal government's budget bears little relationship to the estimates which are supposed to keep MPs and the public informed as to what's going on - with even government ministers having little idea how their (nominal) decisions actually affect Canada's finances.

- Meanwhile, Don Lenihan provides an overview of the arguments to suggest Canada's democracy is in crisis. And Michael Den Tandt adds his voice to the mix.

- Finally, Don Braid writes about the revelation that Daryl Katz' massive donations to the Alberta PCs at the end of the last provincial election - and notes that the Katz story is merely a by-product of lax donation laws. Needless to say, this should give us reason to ask questions about whether Saskatchewan's elections rules should be changed to prevent similar (or worse) abuses - and whether Brad Wall's Saskatchewan Party intends to preserve a flawed system for its own benefit.

Monday Morning Links

Assorted content to start your week.

- In the surest sign yet that the Robocon scandal involved a calculated decision by political operatives rather than having anything to do with mere overzealous volunteers, the Star reports that call centre staff hired by the Cons to perform live calling actually tried to correct the false information supplied to them by the party. [Update: And Susan Delacourt rightly zeroes in on the script as a major piece of the puzzle.] Meanwhile, Exigenomicon distinguishes between the two scams at play; Scott wonders whether there's any prospect of outright dismissing Stephen Harper from office; the Star, John Ibbitson and Michael Den Tandt all say that however much Harper tried to insulate himself from the fraud itself, he'll bear full responsibility if he tries in the slightest to cover up or deflect from the scandal; and Lawrence Martin fits the electoral fraud in with the Cons' pattern of behaviour.

- Meanwhile, the revelation that the Cons may not have won a valid mandate in the first place should surely lead to far more question about their legitimacy in trying to ram harmful legislation through Parliament. And Danny Graham suggests that their omnibus dumb-on-crime bill would be a great place to start with some serious debate.

- Michael Geist points out that online surveillance involves some intersection between a government which wants to be able to intrude on citizens' privacy without accountability, and private-sector profiteers who see the potential to make money off of state-mandated snooping. Which is just one more reason we should be glad to know the Cons are running scared on the issue.

- Finally, Michael Marin and Anouk Dey note that greater equality serves as an important part of encouraging the education and innovation that all parties see as necessary to our future economic development. And Ricardo Fernholz and Robert Fernholz contemplate the need for ongoing equalization to counteract a natural tendency toward the concentration of wealth.