Saturday Afternoon Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Adam Hunter reports on the increasingly public campaign by Saskatchewan doctors to have public health taken seriously in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. And Marshall Ross, Leona Morris and Robert Tanguay write about the trauma front-line healthcare workers are facing - and the need for a system to support them. 

- Meanwhile, Stephanie Nolan highlights how there's no reason why developing countries can't produce their own COVID vaccines other than the refusal by the corporate beneficiaries of massive amounts of public research to share the information needed to do so. 

- Matthew Halliday reports on New Brunswick's alarming decision to suppress research into an unexplained cluster of a severe and unknown neurological disease.

- Braxton Brewington writes that the resonance of Squid Game is based on the debt being systematically placed on the shoulders of the working class. And Steven Greenhouse wonders whether the show of worker strength reflected in the U.S.' Striketober will lead to lasting change.

- Finally, Andrew Kurjata reports on a court's refusal to order the violent destruction of camps of homeless people in Prince George - though the victory in preserving a poor substitute for a human right only highlights the need to make sure people receiving the housing they actually need. And Julia Peterson reports on Regina's Camp Marjorie which is likewise serving a vital stopgap role for people who deserve far more.

New column day

Here, expanding on this post about New Brunswick's failed attempt to become a corporate tax haven - and why Brad Wall's attempt at a similar scheme for Saskatchewan is similarly doomed.

For further reading...
- Again, the outline of Shawn Graham's scheme to win over corporations as a tax haven is found in Daniel McHardle's report. And CBC reported on the eventual demand from the New Brunswick Business Council to reverse the cuts (which, like Wall's, seem to have been purely the product of government ideology rather than any meaningful analysis or consultation).
- Statistics Canada has provincial GDP numbers here (CANSIM table  379-0030), showing New Brunswick's stagnation after Graham's 2009 announcement. And Heide Pearson reported on New Brunswick's population drop in the most recent census.
- Finally, Alex MacPherson's report on multi-million-dollar payments to CEOs in Saskatchewan's slumping resource sectors offers yet another example of how the people at the top never seem to sacrifice when everybody else is told to pitch in.

The race to nowhere

Following up on in the Saskatchewan Party's budget plan to benefit the rich with tax cuts (with the explicit aim of making corporate taxes lower than any other province) while soaking everybody else, it's worth offering a reminder what happened to the last Canadian province to try the exact same gambit.

New Brunswick's 2009 budget included both severe cuts to the public sector, and a much-trumpeted intention to undercut other provinces on corporate taxes. And of course, the latter were supposedly justified by the claim that lower corporate taxes would lead to more growth and jobs.

So how did that work out?

Well, neither the offer of immediate tax slashing nor the promise of more to come actually did anything to improve the province's economy. In fact, within a few years, even the New Brunswick Business Council - a group consisting effectively of the corporations who gained the most from the cuts - publicly admonished the province to raise corporate taxes back to a more sensible level. (That's exactly what it eventually did.)

And that wasn't even the worst-case scenario. At least the fact that nobody else followed New Brunswick's reckless lead meant that there was no particular fallout when the province went back to a more typical rate. But if other provinces had felt compelled to implement the same cuts, the result would have been less revenue for all of the affected provinces in perpetuity.

Of course, providing less for people and more for corporate donors seems to be the primary goal of the Wall government. And we shouldn't believe for a second that slashing corporate taxes will have any other effect.

On public goods

New Brunswick's PC government is the latest to launch an all-out attack on public pensions. And the usual reasons look to apply, with the official press release hinting at a combination of eagerness to foment resentment against the civil service in order to ensure that benefits can be slashed to the lowest common denominator, and a desire to allow the financial sector to take a greater cut of citizens' retirement savings.

But the news also offers a nice opportunity to put forward another theory as to the effect of institutional pension investors - which might serve as another important reason why they're under a constant assault from the corporatist right.

After all, public pension funds - particularly those with a local base of operations - provide a reliable source of capital eager to take up the best opportunities available within their home province. Which means that they serve as a formidable counterweight to any threat of a capital strike: to the extent the corporate sector tries to punish a government for being insufficiently compliant with its demands by pulling out its investment in otherwise viable projects, pension funds can both offer an alternative flow of funds, and reap the rewards from abandoned business investments.

So might part of the goal of undermining public pensions be to make sure that private investors face far less risk in dictating policies to governments under threat of gratuitous punishment?

On regional effects

The NDP's provincial surges in Canada's Atlantic provinces has received some attention already. But it's particularly worth noting how the provincial numbers figure to relate to the recent federal election results.

On the one hand, it does seem that the federal campaign managed to catch the attention some voters who otherwise weren't considering the NDP as a possibility - with at least some of those voters now expressing their support.

But perhaps more noteworthy is the fact that the NDP's provincial results in each province other than Nova Scotia still have a ways to go to catch up to the party's federal vote share. And if a higher profile nationally can make those numbers converge, then it looks entirely possible that the NDP could emerge as the leading challenger for government throughout a region that's historically been almost entirely barren territory.

On unshared sacrifices

The decree has gone out: voters in the Atlantic provinces have no choice but to accept a decline in public services in order to cut down on government deficit and debt. But surely they can take solace in that fact that everybody is pitching in, right?

On resource imbalances

There's some sad news coming out of New Brunswick, as Roger Duguay has resigned as leader of that province's NDP even after an election that saw the party post its second-best share of the vote ever. And the NDP will surely appreciate Duguay's contribution as leader - even if it has to be disappointed to see him leave after accomplishing nearly everything imaginable short of winning a seat.

But without knowing exactly why Duguay chose to step down, it's also worth noting how New Brunswick's political financing system may have influenced his decision - and considering how the same effect might play out elsewhere in Canadian politics.

New Brunswick actually does have some public financing for political parties, with the following amounts paid out based on the previous election's results:

The Grits won 47.3 per cent of votes in the 2006 election and receive $312,180 from the province each year, based on the allocation formula.

The Tories won 47.6 per cent of votes in the last election and receive $314,160 a year, slightly more than the Liberals.

The NDP won 5.1 per cent of votes and receives $33,660 a year.

The Green Party did not win enough votes to receive a proportion of the annual allowance payments, which total $660,000 for the province, plus audit fees.

Presumably the NDP's funding would have roughly doubled like its share of the popular vote. But that still seems to have left some question as to whether it can afford to pay its leader a salary, particularly when one considers how the annual funding compares to the amount of money flowing into parties' hands through other means:

The Liberal dinner held Saturday in Moncton raked in about $400,000 after expenses, about double the $200,000 that was raised by the Conservatives on Friday night in Fredericton.

The cash will be added to the parties' war chests and spent during the 30 days of election campaigning on expenses such as advertising, office space, travel, wages, meetings and rallies, up to the $925,000 limit set by Elections New Brunswick.
...
As of last June, the New Brunswick Liberal Association had $1.845 million in the bank and no debt.

The Progressive Conservative Party of New Brunswick had $288,915 in cash but also a debt of $409,000, mostly related to the purchase of a building in Fredericton, which houses the party's headquarters.

Meanwhile, the New Democratic Party had $19,531 and the Green Party had $253.

So all indications are that for the Cons and Libs, a single dinner can bring in as much money as a year's worth of annual allowance. And indeed the Graham Libs - despite being unpopular enough to lose the election - were nonetheless able to have enough retained cash on hand to run two elections if they needed to. And that's in addition to the salaries, pensions, research funding, and other resources available to the two parties represented in the Legislature.

On the other hand, the NDP's funding over four years amounted to...an eighth of the amount needed to run a full election campaign, assuming no expenses in the meantime. And even after approaching its highest share of the vote ever, the NDP still looks to have limited resources for next time out barring some significant change in the meantime.

And it's worth asking whether such a change might well be needed.

So far, led by the Cons' attack on per-vote financing, most discussion of public funding for the political process nationally has attacked exactly the amounts that serve to reflect actual voter preferences, while leaving untouched the larger payouts allocated based on the vagaries of single-seat results.

But New Brunswick seems to offer an ideal example of how the gap between funding based on winning seats and funding based on winning votes can serve to severely limit the choices available to voters. And if we can't expect to change the voting system in the near future, the next best thing may be to highlight the comparison between direct party funding and the funding that goes to political offices through other means, and demand a system that better supports the operations of parties with enough public support to justify it.

New Brunswick Goes to the Polls

We've finally reached election day in New Brunswick, with plenty of potential for some highly interesting results as little seems to have been decided so far. Most of the projections have the NDP at 1 or 2 seats, with the main question being whether the party is able to build on its momentum from this year's campaign or whether a past trend of losing support late in the campaign continues. But nbpolitico has a full list of ridings which are particularly worth watching from the NDP's perspective:

The NDP is in play in somewhere between 2 and 4 ridings (Tracadie-Sheila, Nepisiguit, Bathurst and Tantramar) according to my analysis. They may also be in play in Saint John Harbour, Saint John East and Fredericton-Silverwood, though my analysis says no.

Note that nbpolitico has also modeled a series of "surge scenarios", leading to a fascinating set of possible outcomes.

Of course, there's still a day's worth of GOTV efforts to determine who will win out in the end. And we'll look forward to finding out whether voters are frustrated enough with a campaign of wilful self-delusion from the Graham Libs and Alward Cons to give the NDP an unprecedented presence in New Brunswick's legislature.

(Edit: updated link.)

Thursday Morning Links

Assorted content for your perusal...

- Dr. Dawg picks up on a stunningly evasive answer from Gérard Latulippe of Rights and Democracy about the "forensic audit" which was supposed to have been made public six months ago. But I'm not sure that I agree with his description of the answer as "bafflegab": isn't it more of a flat-out declaration that he refuses to talk about the main issue facing his organization?

- Donald Savoie continues to be thoroughly unimpressed with the empty promises coming from Cons and Libs alike in New Brunswick's ongoing election. But while I can understand his not wanting to be seen taking any party's side, wouldn't it be worthwhile to mention the alternative which is actually talking honestly about the province's fiscal mess?

- Meanwhile, the federal NDP's push to make the Cons look completely out of touch with rural Canada seems to be proceeding nicely thanks to a concerted focus on issues that matter more than the long gun registry. Though as I noted yesterday, the especially fun part will come when the Cons get to stand up to try to defend keeping the registry as it stands as the NDP works to improve it.

- Finally, the Cons' distrust of evidence-based government has taken its most extreme form yet: apparently it's too intrusive to bother keeping track of how many health inspectors are actually monitoring livestock transportation.

New Brunswick election reading

As the New Brunswick provincial election campaign enters its home stretch, here's a quick survey of a few sources worth reading to get a handle on the campaign.

Let's start with Alice's customary detailed look at the state of party nominations at the the Pundits' Guide's New Brunswick page - with links to all candidates' websites serving as a particularly useful resource for those looking to track down information in a hurry.

For those looking for a quantitative analysis of the state of the campaign, the place to go is once again Three Hundred Eight, whose multi-poll projections figure to be particularly useful in a tight campaign where single polls can be found to support almost any possible outcome. (ThreeHundredEight's NDP projection has slipped from two seats to one based on a campaign-period drop from the teens to lower double digits.)

Meanwhile, if you're looking more for a subjective riding-level analysis and projection, NBPolitico makes up for relatively infrequent posts by serving up plenty of material at every turn. NBPolitico now projects two seats as "lean NDP" (leader Roger Duguay's riding of Tracadie-Sheila as well as another northern riding in Nepisiguit) - but based on my own limited contribution to the race, I'm particularly interested to note that Saint John East has been downgraded from "safe Liberal" to "lean Liberal", signalling that it's looking to be more in play as the campaign progresses.

As for media outlets, newspapers to check out include the Telegraph-Journal, Daily Gleaner and Times & Transcript, while CBC New Brunswick also has regular updates and analysis.

If I've missed any sources worth including, please feel free to point them out in comments - as the campaign looks to be well worth following closely from here on in.

Beyond the echo chamber

It remains to be seen how the rest of New Brunswick's election campaign will play out - and particularly whether either the Libs or the Cons will try (however implausibly) to adopt a theme of responsible management for themselves. But for now, it's hard to imagine the NDP's chosen message fitting more perfectly into the broader campaign.

So far, even the national media is dumbstruck at the Graham/Alward bidding war for votes in a province whose fiscal mismanagement already looks to raise some serious long-term issues. But rather than following suit with its own package of baubles, the NDP is not only promising to hold the line on taxes but even highlighting practical ways to save hundreds of millions of dollars without affecting program delivery.

Which means that New Brunswick's citizens have an obvious choice other than to keep voting for the same old empty promises and irresponsible government. And if enough voters learn that they do have that option, then what already looks to be a potentially historical breakthrough for the NDP may get even bigger.

Update: The Chronicle Herald seems to agree.

On reinforcement

The latest reporting on New Brunswick's election this fall includes an interesting parallel between Roger Duguay's message and that of some disaffected federal Cons - as both are rightly pointing out the problems with funnelling public money toward corporate interests. Here's Duguay:

NDP Leader Roger Duguay said his priority would be to stabilize deficits and stop "wasteful government spending," adding that he would eliminate grants and forgivable loans to companies for the next five years.

"Most of the time it's not the best place to put our money," he said.

Needless to say, the proposal to shut off the taps to the corporate sector makes for a rather useful explanation as to what the NDP would do differently than its competitors to ensure that New Brunswick's provincial budget is managed responsibly.

And it only helps that Duguay's message is nicely paralleled by someone who's not normally an NDP ally, as Tasha Kheiridden has picked an opportune time to level criticism at federal Libs and Cons alike for wasting federal money to subsidize the likes of J.D. Irving:

(The Harper) government is all too happy to dole out regional cash, whether through Canada’s Economic Action Plan or outright make-work projects (witness last week’s announcement of a payroll centre in Miramichi, N.B., to replace jobs lost there if the gun registry goes belly-up).

So where does this leave Canadian taxpayers? Playing angel investor to businesses that don’t pay back money, while...the government turns a blind eye.

Of course, it remains to be seen how well the theme will resonate at both levels of government. But the reinforcement of Duguay's message in the national press has to help matters as the New Brunswick NDP looks to win over voters who may not have considered the party as an option before. And the more citizens ask the question of whether governments should be looking out for corporate interests at their expense, the easier it will be to persuade them that it's worth voting for a party who won't.

On strong openings

Kevin Bissett's CP overview of this fall's New Brunswick election seems to confirm what I'd suspected: the NDP has managed to generate the most enduring message of the summer with its pension pitch, earning top billing over anything the province's two historical governing parties have had to say.

But Bissett is right to note that the other parties seem to have followed up the NDP's cheeky presentation without linking their attacks to anything of substance, raising the question of whether voters will hear much about what can be done in the face of the province's budget crunch:

(Donald) Wright said he hopes the parties will focus on the important issues, but doesn't expect that to happen until the final weeks of the campaign.

"No party seems to be able to come to terms with the fiscal crisis coming down the pipe," he said. "As a result they're trying to deflect, they're scrounging, they're desperate, trying to find a target on their opponent without much success."

Of course, the NDP has already started laying the groundwork to talk about the party's history of responsible management as a contrast to how the province has historically been governed. But the question now is whether the NDP can grab just as much attention in sending that message as it's been in criticizing the other parties' supersized benefits - and the answer will likely determine whether the NDP can turn its strong initial position into enduring change on New Brunswick's political scene.

Short-sighted

Shorter Tim Powers:

It's madness - MADNESS, I say! - for a province to sign away control over its own ability to set long-term policy in exchange for a single lump sum payment. That is, unless it's Jim Flaherty handing out the money.

On pushback

It didn't receive the attention it probably deserved when first announced. But in another sign of just how politically toxic the federal Cons are at the moment, one of the provincial governments which had previously been seen as relatively friendly to Harper's regime is now organizing opposition to a corporate giveaway which the Cons would presumably prefer to keep away from the public eye:

New Brunswick is calling for a united front of provinces and territories to oppose Ottawa’s plan to extend the patent life on a number of popular and costly prescription medications.

Health Minister Mike Murphy said Thursday that generic drugs save provincial drug programs millions and he accused the federal Conservative government of bowing to the "greed" of the brand-name drug industry.

"There is only so much greed that can be supported with regard to this industry," he said in a statement in the New Brunswick legislature.

Murphy also described the move as "a cash grab" by big drug companies...

Murphy said New Brunswick spent $14.5 million last year on just three brand-name drugs for which generic versions may be delayed.

He said Ottawa’s new regulations, which would postpone some generics by at least two years, would cost the province an additional $4 million per year.

Murphy's current push looks to be aimed at building a united front at the provincial and territorial level. But there shouldn't be much doubt that there will be at least one national voice also working to keep prescription drug costs affordable - not just by pushing back against the latest attempt to hand out freebies to brand-name pharmaceutical manufacturers, but also by leading the charge for the universal access to prescription drugs which the provinces have already agreed to pursue.

While the NDP looks to have another opportunity to build connections at the provincial and territorial level, the effect for the Cons is just the opposite. Instead, the evergreening issue also offers yet another example of how the Cons' corporate giveaways are damaging the interests of Canada's provinces. And the less shy the provinces are about making that case, the more likely they'll be able to look forward to a federal government whose goals better match their own.

(H/t to contratianna at Babble.)