Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Michael Harriot writes that the U.S. is past the point of being able to talk about mere threats to democracy, and needs instead to start from the reality that it's operating under a fascist regime. Hamilton Nolan warns that the most comfortable and privileged people aren't about to lead the resistance. Jill Lawrence talks to Phil Satre about the long-standing recognition among his business and social peers that Donald Trump is incapable of dealing with people in good faith. And Daniel Schuman discusses the Trump regime's plans to effectively eliminate the legislative branch of government, while Bo Erickson reports on the choice of compliant Republicans to eliminate their own authority to reverse Trump's tariff madness. 

- Courtney Kube, Gordon Lubold and Carol Lee report on Trump's steps to take military control of the Panama Canal, while Robald Diebert writes that Justin Trudeau's initial attempt at accommodation is giving Trump what he wants in putting Canada under the control of a police state. And the National Review weighs on why Trump's attempts to take Canada by force are utterly reckless, while David Moscrop discusses why that doesn't mean he'll abandon them anytime soon. 

- Robert Reich writes about the need for a renewed free speech movement which takes up the mantle of civil rights. And Christopher Holcroft writes about the need to push back against the Trump regime's propaganda machine machine in Canada, while the Canadian Press reports on new Manitoba legislation aimed at holding parties responsible for election disinformation. 

- Finally, Steve Lambert reports on another new Manitoba bill to treat people with communicable diseases as patients rather than prisoners. And in a particularly noteworthy advancement worth emulating elsewhere, Carol Sanders reports on the Kinew government's introduction of legislation ensuring an active focus on the psychological well-being of workers. 

Parliament in Review - March 29, 2012

There's been much ado about the NDP's position on trade agreements based on the Cons' recent publicly-funded cheerleading for free trade at any price. But for anybody looking for the NDP's actual view on trade, the House of Commons debates from March 29 offer a rather thorough indication.

The Big Issue

That's thanks to a Parliamentary debate on the Cons' legislation to implement a free trade agreement with Panama. And the NDP made clear that it's willing to reasonably review and support trade agreements in general - but that it won't be bullied into backing deals that give preferential treatment to tax havens and serve to attack international labour rights.

Hoang Mai and Laurin Liu emphasized the former concern when it came to Panama. Helene Laverdiere focused on the Cons' refusal to insist on a tax information exchange agreement as part of the package, while noting that the NDP didn't have similar concerns about a deal with Jordan. (Incidentally, Con MP Mike Wallace recognized that distinction as well - which only shows how dishonest the Cons have been in their recent push to claim the NDP opposes trade of any kind.) And Jinny Sims rightly pointed out that if we're interested in doing anything about tax havens, we need to incorporate that concern into a free trade agreement at the outset - rather than rewarding a bad actor with preferential treatment then hoping for something to change without our doing anything.

On the labour side, Lois Brown pointed to a checklist of as labour rights attached as an unenforceable schedule as justifying pushing through the deal without any further review. But Chris Charlton rightly shot back that a statement of principles isn't the same thing as the binding investor rights forced into the agreement. Jean Crowder pointed out that workers in both countries stand to suffer from the deal, while Dennis Bevington lamented the Cons' determination to lead a race to the bottom.

But the best overall statement of the NDP's position came from Don Davies:

Trade allows goods and services that are within the productive capacity or local expertise or resources of one country to be exchanged with those of another. That is why I can say certainly on behalf of the New Democrats that we believe trade is good. We believe it is desirable. We believe it is critical to our economy.

 

The question that should be raised with respect to any trade deal is the terms on which that trade ought to be conducted. Are there any principles, policies or rules that should be applied when Canadians consider the exchange of goods and services out of our country and the entrance of goods and services into our country?

...

(W)e believe that we should have a policy that pursues well-managed trade, not free trade, not a closed approach to trade, but fair trade. That is the approach to trade this party has taken every since the free trade debates opened up in this country some decades ago.


Why do we take this position? We believe that Canadians do not want goods and services that use child labour to enter Canada. We do not want goods and services that are the product of destructive environmental practices to enter this country. Canadians do not want goods coming to this country from countries that have very poor human rights records. Canadians do not want goods and services to enter this country when those goods and services come from an economy that is so fundamentally different from ours, with such lower standards that it actually hurts Canadian employers' ability to compete.

Meanwhile, Elizabeth May noted that the Panama deal figured to influence only a minimal amount of trade, then commented on the dangers of investor-state provisions which allow wealthy corporations to dictate government policy. Megan Leslie wondered whether the dealings between Canada and Panama would set up an exploitative relationship. Pat Martin observed that to the extent there is a disparity in influence, Canada's clout should allow it to help to elevate conditions in the smaller country rather than accepting that our employers will have to compete with Panama's wages and living conditions. Mathieu Ravignat noted that some Canadian companies have exploited workers and countries around the world, and that there's no value in defending the indefensible based on misplaced patriotism. Crowder criticized the Cons' secrecy in negotiating free trade agreements generally. Sims proposed a focus on multilateral rather than bilateral trade agreements. And Chris Charlton neatly summed up the Cons' position as "having espoused the principles of...robber barons".

In Brief

The other legislation debated on the day was the Cons' military justice bill. Jack Harris pointed out that the Cons had once again shredded agreements reached between multiple parties in the previous Parliament in order to dictate the terms of the legislation, while Chris Alexander then had the nerve to demand that the NDP approve the unilaterally-dictated legislation without debate. And Raymond Cote raised a concern about summary trials for minor offences resulting in a criminal record, while the Cons' "dumb on crime" posturing - including a refusal to distinguish between military and civilian crimes - apparently took precedence over "support the troops" when it came to their position on the rights of military defendants.

Meanwhile, Sean Casey rendered Steven Blaney redundant by anticipating his talking points to try to excuse repeated violations of veterans' privacy. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe and Wayne Marston both noted that the OECD, the PBO and the Government of Canada's chief actuary had all rejected the Cons' spin that there was any need at all to cut Old Age Security, and asked why the Cons would plunge seniors into poverty by choice. In light of the Cons' plans to push through a pipeline owned by PetroChina, May asked when we could expect a national security test for foreign investment. Joe Comartin's Thursday question nicely framed a few of the bills which hadn't found their way before Parliament for some time. And finally, while Jim Flaherty's budget speech received plenty of attention, his attempt to excuse OAS cuts based on their being "far away" rather than, say, remotely justifiable as a matter of public policy looks to have deserved a bit more.

Parliament in Review: December 12, 2011

Monday, December 12 saw two main topics of debate. But perhaps most striking was the introduction of the Cons' newest tactic to dictate the terms of discussion in the House of Commons.

The Big Issue

Much of the day's discussion focused on the Cons' copyright bill. And Paul Calandra started proceedings by moving that question be put in order to prevent any amendments to the legislation at the last stage where the bill could be amended in substance; naturally Scott Simms among other lamented the fact that the Cons had started using yet another means to shut down discussion of any alternatives.

Calandra also grandstanded about how our corporate overlords would never be anything less than benevolent in deciding what rights consumers should hold, only to be met with Charlie Angus' example of Sony CDs containing spyware (which the Cons want to give precedence over any consumer rights). Jean Rousseau discussed the history of fair dealing. Philip Toone noted that the Cons' scheme could only be explained as an example of trickle-down theory run amok, while Andrew Cash highlighted the Cons' propensity for listening only to corporate interests. Cash then criticized the destruction of existing revenue streams for artists and noted that blanket licenses - unlike an undue focus on digital locks - would actually allow for more income for creators. Angus commented on the value of the digital commons which the Cons are attempting to make subject to corporate interests. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet and Matthew Dube discussed the value of the course notes the Cons want to make subject to involuntary self-destruction. And with the Cons unwilling to debate or answer questions about their own bill, Kevin Lamoureux and Jose Nunez Melo could only muse as to how nice it would be to get some assurance that consumers won't find that they've bought much less than they've bargained for due to digital locks.

No Such Thing as a Free Trade Agreement

The other bill debated was legislation on a free trade agreement with Panama - with Lisa Raitt likewise moving that the question be put to prevent the opposition from being able to offer any amendments to the bill as foisted on the country. Mathieu Ravignat, Wayne Easter, Robert Chisholm and Brian Masse pointed out Panama's status as a tax haven and money-laundering centre. Masse reasonably suggested that we shouldn't be seeking trade deals that would force Canada to try to compete with child labour. Elizabeth May pointed out some of the (possibly) unintended consequences of NAFTA in limiting governmental action. John McKay pointed to the Cons' consistent pattern of proclaiming themselves "surprised and disappointed" at international events that would have been known to anybody paying the slightest bit of attention. Simms asked whether Panama was similarly eager to avoid debate on the treaty, with Raitt's answer serving only to confirm that the Cons' steps to limit debate have nothing to do with any timeline to implement the treaty. And in a question that particularly resonates this weekend, Chisholm wondered whether we should actually know what's in a treaty and its implementing legislation before ramming them through.

Choose Your Side

As an added bonus, the House of Commons voted on the Cons' seat redistribution bill and related motions. And while the Libs lined up with the Cons to provide a larger cushion than usual for the complete lack of change to the government's wording, it's noteworthy that Elizabeth May joined the Bloc in support of the NDP's motions.

In Brief

Joy Smith's bill on human trafficking received all-party agreement at second reading. Pat Martin warmed the crowd up for question period by pointing to Bruce Carson's sordid history as a Con adviser and beneficiary. Nycole Turmel and Peter Julian questioned the Cons on their suppression of economic and trade data. Matthew Kellway helpfully provided Julian Fantino with his talking points on F-35s after having heard them a few dozen times already; Fantino apparently didn't have enough self-control to avoid sticking with them even after being rightly mocked in advance. Helene Laverdiere pointed out the Cons' continued secrecy about the terms of a new Afghan transfer agreement. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe questioned why the Cons have handed billions of free dollars to banks rather than helping the many Canadians living in poverty. May asked whether Parliament would at least have the chance to debate withdrawal from Kyoto that it had in acceding to the treaty in the first place. Mylene Freeman commented on a committee report on violence against aboriginal women by noting that the Cons had refused to either acknowledge the problem or take responsibility for any solutions. And in adjournment questions Irene Mathyssen followed up on the Cons' mismanagement of Service Canada which has led to the point where most callers can't even get through to a machine, while Jean Crowder asked whether the Cons will support the NDP's bill for a national anti-poverty strategy if they can't be bothered to deal with the problem of their own volition.

Monday Morning Links

I'm pretty sure the tabs are multiplying on their own...

- Erin rightly slams Michael Ignatieff's complete reversal on EI - from threatening an election over it just last year, to voting with the Cons to keep the status quo this fall:

(A) modest decline in the unemployment rate reflects an increase in employment, rather than any decrease in unemployment. In both September 2009 and August 2010, 1.5 million Canadians were officially unemployed. By this measure, Ignatieff is flat wrong to claim that “the situation has changed.”

The Liberals had championed lowering the entrance requirement to 360 hours to make EI benefits more accessible. For that proposal, the issue is not total unemployment, but the number of unemployed workers who cannot access benefits.

In September 2009, there were 818,000 EI recipients among 1,549,700 unemployed workers, leaving 731,700 without benefits. In July 2010 (the last month of EI data), there were 672,200 EI recipients out of 1,493,100 unemployed workers, leaving 820,900 without benefits.

So, the problem that the Liberals said they wanted to address has actually gotten worse. Ignatieff’s claim that EI improvements “are no longer required” lacks credibility.

For more from Erin, you can check out his personal blog at Beer with Weir.

- Alison rightly criticizes the Cons and Libs for pushing a free trade agreement with Panama. But while I fully agree with her critiques, let's note that one of them isn't one that the Cons are the least bit concerned with: far from being concerned whether any of our trading partners are seen as tax havens, the Cons want Canada to be branded as one as well.

- Predictably, the Cons' dumb-on-crime measures are doing particularly significant damage to poor and Aboriginal communities. One can practically hear "Yes! Two for two!" echoing from the closed-door meetings.

- And similarly, pogge's criticism of Jason Kenney misses the genius of the Cons' combination of a constant PR campaign about Kenney's busy schedule of political appearances, and an overburdened immigration department which is forcing requests to go through MPs' offices instead. What better way to both keep one's political opponents busy, and set up an argument for junking large swaths of the civil service as ineffective while claiming to personally be doing everything possible?

- Finally, Dan Leger nicely criticizes right-wing parties and politicians in general for offering nothing but simplistic non-solutions to complex problems:

Beyond the anger and cynicism, perhaps the most troubling trend is a growing belief in simple solutions to our confounding problems. Ban the immigrants. Cut taxes. Lower power rates. Dumb down government. Round ‘em up and hang ‘em high. Build more jails. Cut everything except my personal entitlements.

But we should be leery when politicians promise simple solutions to the complex problems of our communities and our country. Complicated matters are rarely sorted out by simple solutions. Yet it’s an undeniable trait of the political right to claim simple solutions for just about everything.

Problem: the long-form census is annoying. Simple solution? Kill it and label anyone who disagrees an elitist. Problem: the long-gun registry is intrusive. Solution? Kill that, too.

Crime on the streets? Build more jails. Not really more crime on the streets? Build the jails anyway. Planet heating up? Close your eyes and it will just go away.

We have all these real-life problems. Do we really think they’re going to be fixed by simplistic solutions, accompanied by lots of screaming?

Sadly, you don’t get rid of a deficit by cutting taxes. You can’t tackle economic stagnation by creating phoney crises over guns and census forms. Any adult can tell you that yelling won’t pay any bills or solve any problems.