Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Lisa Young writes about the stark difference in how Alberta's main party leaders approach the role of women in politics and society. But Drew Anderson laments the lack of a meaningful willingness on the part of any substantial party to engage in an adult conversation on the climate crisis.

- On that front, Clifford Krauss reports on the fossil governments who are standing in the way of a needed clean energy transition, and in fact using their power and the public's money to keep pollution spewing.

- Damian Carrington reports on the IPCC's affordable and achievable path to meeting the promise to limit climate change to 1.5 C - with a shift to less expensive clean energy as the core task. And Nathasha Bulowski reports on the Canadian Labour Congress' push for an ambitious climate plan. 

- John Burn-Murdoch notes that while the pervasiveness presence of guns explains the difference in gun suicides between U.S. states, the rate of homicides also reflects differences in the social trust which Republicans have been working feverishly to destroy.

- Finally, Krista Hessey reports on the benefits of a right to repair - while noting that it's manufacturers who are standing in the way of ensuring products can be maintained and restored to use.

Sunday Afternoon Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Nazeem Muhajarine discusses the importance of a response to the coronavirus which recognizes how a virus can change course and pose new threats. But Scott Schmidt notes that Alberta - like Saskatchewan and Ontario - is insistent on staying the course even when it obviously leads to disaster. And Brooks Fallis warns that the public is sleepwalking into a dangerous third wave.

- Don Martin writes about the abject failure of most Canadian provinces to use rapid tests to help in the fight against COVID-19. And Jerry Dias weighs in on the need for paid sick days as part of the plan to reduce community spread.

- Moira Welsh reports that for all the outcry about the mistreatment of residents in long-term care homes, nothing has changed for the better since last year in Ontario. Erick Espinosa and Michael Talbot expose how one for-profit operator has gone so far as to turn its retirement home into a prison, removing interior door handles to trap residents in their rooms. And PressProgress rightly asks why workers and unions were left out of British Columbia's review of COVID-19 and long-term care, while also revealing that Ontario workers are being pushed back to work under the province's workers' compensation system while still experiencing symptoms.

- Aaron Wherry writes that Canada's political system is better off for at least having enough party discipline to prevent the most extreme and anti-democratic forces from systematically gaining power. And Paul Krugman notes that the U.S.' Democrats are finally responding in kind to the Republicans' determination to use every lever at their disposal to shape policy outcomes. 

- Finally, Taylor Lambert muses as to whether the Notley NDP did enough with the opportunity created by a majority government.

New column day

Here, wondering whether Alberta's lamentable election of Jason Kenney and his gang of regressive Conservatives might have been avoided if Rachel Notley's NDP had made an effort not to perpetuate the province's petro-politics.

For further reading...
- The Alberta NDP's 2015 platform is here (PDF), and doesn't so much as hint at the cheerleading for pipelines that eventually became one of Notley's main themes even as it strengthened the UCP's economic message.
- Carl Meyer reports on the massive carbon pollution being spewed out by the oil sands - including more than either of the provinces now under attack by Kenney and company. And Sharon Riley discusses what the UCP's election means for Alberta's long list of glaring environmental issues.
- Finally, while David Staples seems to have substantially the opposite take from my column, I'd argue that he helps to prove the point that absolutely no amount of self-flagellation and subservience to the oil industry was ever going to be enough for her right-wing critics - meaning that the lost chance to develop a provincial self-image as more than a petro-state looms all the larger.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Andrew Phung highlights how important it is for younger voters to be heard in Alberta's election. Travis Benson offers plenty of suggestions as to why even people who aren't always NDP supporters should be happy to re-elect Rachel Notley. And PressProgress rounds up just a few of the ways in which Jason Kenney plans to enrich corporations and their wealthy shareholders at the expense of workers, while Emma Graney examines how Kenney's plan to slash the minimum wage for younger workers has done nothing but undercut wage rates when applied elsewhere.

- Emma Simpson writes about the dangers of "presenteeism" in workplaces which don't allow workers to take care of their physical and mental health. And BBC News reports on new EU rules intended to offer at least some protection to gig workers.

- Bridget Yard reports on the growing debts being foisted on Saskatchewan university students due to a lack of public funding. And Eleanor Busby writes about the growing number of UK students avoiding school altogether due to the consequences of conservative-inflicted poverty. 

- Francine Kopun reports on the warnings the Ford PCs received - and ignored - about the long-term costs of pulling funding from public health.

- Finally, Robert Borosage discusses the possibility that Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn could jointly revolutionize the political economy of the English-speaking world.

Monday Afternoon Links

Assorted content for your year-end reading.

- Kenan Malik comments on the many forms of classism. And Roderick Benns examines how Ontario's basic income recipients were able to make use of their increased income security - including by spending more time with friends, with family and volunteering in their communities.

- Susan writes about the distinction between an Alberta NDP government which treats people with dignity and respect, and Jason Kenney's UCP which goes out of its way to try to strip anything of the sort from minority group members.

- David Leonhardt discusses the fundamental importance of climate change compared to every other area of public policy debate.

- Finally, Sonia Sodha writes that rather than accepting the food industry's spin on health regulations as reflecting an excessive nanny state, we should be concerned about the unhealthy diet we're pushed to eat by corporate giants:

“What about our free will?” the anti-nanny-staters will cry at the idea of forcing manufacturers to act. But we don’t see people with placards in the street protesting against the thwarting of our right to eat a slice of bread with as much salt as a packet of crisps. The beauty of food reformulation is that because it happens gradually, our palates adjust and we simply don’t notice that certain foods are 30% less salty than a decade ago.

The free-will question needs turning on its head. The dirty secret at the heart of the food industry is that the deliciously unhealthy stuff – fat, sugar, salt – is also cheap. Cram foods full of them and it’s not only consumers who love them, but shareholders. And this, together with changing eating habits, including the popularity of ready meals and eating out, has driven up the unhealthiness of our food over time. As the food that lines supermarket shelves gets fattier, saltier and more sugary, our palates are reconditioned to crave more of it. There’s no free choice about the industry reshaping our tastes to benefit its profit margins without us even realising.

That’s why it’s not just the usual suspects who are arguing for a compulsory approach, but some industry voices as well, including the British Retail Consortium. They know that unless all food manufacturers are forced to play by the rules, progress will be limited as even responsible manufacturers are held back by first-mover disadvantage.

That won’t stop the libertarians crying foul. Perhaps what motivates some of them is a belief that this is all about individual willpower, a disdain for people just too greedy to leave some of their dinner on their plate. But it’s not Christmas levels of gluttony primarily driving our obesity crisis. An irresponsible food industry has got a lot of lives to answer for.

On necessary measures

I've previously linked to columns by Paul Wells and Jen Gerson on the coordinated right-wing attack on carbon pricing. (And even the Notley government has made a show of withdrawing from a coordinated federal climate change plan, though without abandoning its own climate change policy.)

But let's not assume that what's being treated as a convenient political argument for now won't produce some blowback. To the contrary, the unilateral withdrawal of provinces from any federal system might ultimately favour the development of stronger federal climate regulation.

From a legal standpoint, one of the primary arguments around the federal government's power to price carbon (among other climate change measures) surrounds the question of whether fighting climate change can be categorized as a "national concern" which cannot effectively be dealt with by the provinces acting independently. On that front, see e.g. Manitoba's legal opinion (PDF) on a "backstop" strategy - particularly to the extent it relied on the assumed fact that a province planned to adopt equally effective measures which failed to receive federal recognition.

Saskatchewan's sad excuse for a plan is the most obvious example of a province falling woefully short of that presumption. But in assessing the necessity of federal action, there might have been some argument available that a single province continuing to stumble in the wrong direction wouldn't have an important enough effect to preclude the achievement of national goals.

With Ontario now on the climate denial side - ceding any claim to basing policy on evidence in favour of anti-tax bombast - there's now no question that the current set of provincial defectors is of a sufficient size to undermine any national action. And every province which adds its name to the list of objectors (and trashes its own climate change measures in the process) will only strengthen that position, making it more likely that courts will recognize a need for federal action in response to a provincial-level vacuum. 

What's more, that point may prove important in political as well as legal terms. In time, enough provincial recalcitrance might lead to a push for a federal plan which serves as a national governing system rather than a mere "backstop".

To be clear, such a system wouldn't necessarily need to represent a less cooperative form of federalism in the sense of failing to account for the position of provinces willing to act in good faith; instead, it could incorporate provincial preferences through a federally-applied system. And it's not out of the question that the provincial governments who retain a strong interest in fighting climate change could decide the best path toward that end involves a national system - which as a bonus could result in public pressure being directed toward the federal level.

Of course, it would be preferable to see provinces take climate change seriously on their own, particularly given the seeming preference of a Lib majority government to treat the issue (like most) as one of symbolism rather than substance.

But the more conservative premiers refuse to exercise their power responsibly when it comes to the planetary threat of climate change, the more likely it is that the federal government will see a need to increase its own level of responsibility. And the end result could be a national system that's both more consistent, and even more likely to survive whatever evidence-free arguments might be made against it in court.

Saturday Evening Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Joel Achenbach and Angela Fritz discuss how climate change is amplifying all kinds of extreme weather (with severe heat as only the most obvious example). And Umair Irfan examines some of the dangerous economic and social side effects of unprecedented heat waves.

- Matthieu Vincente highlights how the classification of workers can serve as a barrier to the exercise of collective bargaining rights and employment protections. And Tom Ayers reports on the large-scale use of foreign workers in Kameron Coal's Donkin mine at wages far beyond those offered to domestic workers - with few consequences for the operators who have breached the law to make that happen, even as the employer complains that even having its egregious violations reported publicly is too much.

- The CP and Leader-Post report on Rachel Notley's recognition that a responsible government can't simply leave rural residents stranded without transportation options - which is unfortunately in stark contrast to the Saskatchewan Party's apparent view.

- Brennan MacDonald and Vassy Kapelos point out that Justin Trudeau's decision to plow billions of public dollars into the Trans Mountain pipeline has served to give Donald Trump additional leverage in trade negotiations (among other worrisome consequences).

- Finally, Real Lavergne and Gisela Ruckert offer some vital background information for British Columbia voters about their electoral reform referendum.

On public interests

Plenty of others have pointed out the most direct lie in Jason Kenney's attempt to blame Alberta's NDP for the decisions of an Ontario court dealing with Carillion's Canadian bankruptcy. But it's worth taking a look at the much more fundamental lie at the core of Kenney's complaint.

As mentioned in the very article linked to by Kenney, the privatization of Alberta's highway maintenance operations took place under his Conservative predecessors.

It was the PCs who put a high-risk foreign operator in charge of maintaining a wide swath of the province's highways in the first place (PDF) due to their distaste for public services. And they further put the public at Carillion's mercy (PDF) just in time for the corporate house of cards to come toppling down. 

In response, Alberta's NDP has been criticizing (PDF) the PC's determination to push public-sector austerity as an excuse for privatization, and calling for decisions about infrastructure to be made by and in the interests of citizens.

Needless to say, that fault line remains between the two parties. The NDP continues to want public services to function under public control for the benefit of citizens and local businesses alike. And Kenney continues to be determined to undermine public services by selling them off or exposing them to corporate competition or control at every turn.

Of course, neither Kenney nor his corporate backers are about to let the facts get in the way of an attack on Rachel Notley. But voters in Alberta (and elsewhere) should note that there's only way to avoid having the public interest turned into an afterthought in business proceedings - and that's to make sure Kenney and his ilk don't get to lock governments into privatization scams.

On history repeating

I haven't yet commented much on Ontario's provincial election campaign - and readers interested in the race will find plenty of noteworthy observers on the blogroll.

That said, it's worth noting the parallels between this campaign and a couple of the NDP's other recent breakthroughs.

To start with, Ontario's 2018 election seems to be offering an answer to one of the more interesting hypotheticals about the 2011 federal election.

In that campaign, the NDP started out well behind the Cons and Libs - but with an experienced and trusted leader who was able to contrast his own image against that of two self-perceived frontrunners who spent most of the campaign attacking each other (or three in Quebec).

By the end of the race, Jack Layton had emerged as by far the most popular of the federal leaders, including by winning over a strong plurality of Quebec voters and expanding the NDP's potential voter pool from coast to coast to coast.

But he reached that position only well into the campaign. As a result, the Libs maintained some residual support from voters accustomed to their being the default alternative to the Cons - particularly in Ontario where strategic voting campaigns based on past electoral results actually helped the Cons win three-way races. And the result was Stephen Harper's one and only majority government - albeit challenged by a strong NDP opposition.

The great what-if for the NDP was thus what would have happened if the 2011 campaign had lasted just a couple more weeks. And we may be getting our answer. 

This year, Andrea Horwath's campaign is following in Layton's footsteps. She too was largely ignored at the start of the campaign as two highly-flawed parties and leaders tried to run only against each other; she too has expanded the NDP's potential voter pool far beyond what most outside observers anticipated; she too has managed to see an already-positive reputation improve in comparison to her opponents.

But after making her move in the polls somewhat earlier in the campaign, Horwath has had enough time for voters to get comfortable with the concept of an NDP victory. And yesterday's effective concession by Kathleen Wynne means that late-deciding voters will have no doubt as to which party is actually running to provide an alternative to a Doug Ford government.

For another historical precedent, that suggests David Climenhaga might be right on the money in his long-standing comparison to Alberta's 2015 election - right down to the divided and unpopular right-wing party whose only apparent late-campaign move is to hope that voters will defer to corporate insiders in casting their ballots.

Of course, there are still some important obstacles in Horwath's way - particularly the uncertainty as to the efficiency of her party's support. But it looks entirely plausible that Horwath's wave may have crested at the right time where Layton's fell just short.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Martin Lukacs offers a reminder that Doug Ford is nothing but a mercenary for his fellow children of privilege, while Andrea Horwath's NDP actually offers a platform which will benefit the 99%. And Michal Rozworski observes that Ontario's election is properly focusing on contrasting priorities rather than an obsession over deficit numbers. 

- David Climenhaga challenges Rachel Notley's attempt to scupper any discussion about pharmacare - even when it stands to save money for Alberta and the other provinces - in the name of putting pipelines first. And the Narwhal publishes an open letter challenging the approval of the Trans Mountain expansion in the absence of meaningful scientific support.

- Paul McKay notes that new rules governing sulphur content for shipping fuel may take a substantial bite out of the market for dilbit from the oil sands. And Damian Carrington reports on new research showing that the global cost of climate change will far exceed the price of reining in greenhouse gas emissions.

- Bridget Yard reports on the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission's survey of Saskatoon renters, including its finding of explicit discrimination against Indigenous people, single mothers and people receiving social assistance.

- Finally, Wendy Stueck reports on FSIN's newly-announced suicide prevention strategy - while noting the need for the provincial and federal governments to care enough about Indigenous people's lives to contribute.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- James Wallace calls out the Ontario Libs' track record of consistent cuts to health care and other vital public services (with the exception of election-year promotional items). And Tom Parkin contrasts that pattern against Rachel Notley's protection of public services from the cuts threatened by her competitors.

- Meanwhile, Andre Picard writes about the need to deal with social inequalities in order to bring a long-overdue end to tuberculosis in Canada:

The rate of tuberculosis among the Inuit is 300 times higher than among Canadian-born non-Indigenous Canadians not because they are more susceptible to illness, but because they lack adequate housing, malnutrition is commonplace due to a lack of affordable food and scant employment opportunities mean too many families have trouble making ends meet.

Going forward, we cannot underestimate the size of the challenge. But the way to tackle public-health problems is with precise goals and concrete plans and, to its credit, Ottawa is taking that approach.

...

Dealing with chronic housing problems, punishingly high food prices and financial challenges in the part of Canada with the fastest-growing population is going to require much more money and visionary plans that extend well beyond tackling one disease by 2030.

TB is a symptom of social inequity. It is also an opportunity to demonstrate what reconciliation means in practical terms.

The litmus test for success will not be if the bacterium stops spreading, but whether the conditions that have allowed it to spread for so long disappear.

- Eryk Bagshaw highlights the tens of billions of dollars Australia loses every year by electing not to get full value for resource extraction.

- Finally, Laurin Liu examines the new wage gap facing young workers. And Gaby Hinsliff points out that organized labour and citizen activism is already shaping a gig economy which to date had done little but make work more precarious.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Brent Patterson rightly worries about the prospect that Justin Trudeau will choose to emulate Donald Trump's anti-social agenda (just as he's too often done with Stephen Harper's):

At the time of last year's federal budget, Finance Minister Bill Morneau commented he would exercise prudence "to ensure that we have the capacity to deal with the environment that we find ourselves in". That was widely interpreted in the media as the federal government recognizing that Trump's corporate tax cuts were on the way and that those cuts would have implications for Canada.

There will also very likely be corporate pressure to cut regulatory protections for Canadians. Wudrick says, "It's not as if Canada can count on other advantages to mitigate being competitive on taxes; regulatory uncertainty, for example, helped kill large projects such as Energy East."

John Manley, the former Liberal cabinet minister who now heads the Business Council of Canada, says, "Initiatives such as tax reform, changes to environmental policy and deregulation [in the United States] could have serious consequences for Canada's economy." His prescription? Cut corporate tax rates to stay competitive, streamline the regulatory approval process, negotiate free trade agreements with Japan, India and China, and adopt less restrictive climate policies.

We'll see what the Liberals do regarding corporate tax rates in the upcoming federal budget (expected in March), but it has already signalled its intention to streamline the regulatory approval process, is pursuing 'free trade' agreements (including the Trans-Pacific Partnership that could be signed by March of this year), while its so-called "restrictive climate policies" have allowed for the approval of the 890,000 barrel per day Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline and the 760,000 barrel per day Enbridge Line 3 pipeline - that together would generate 39-52 megatonnes of upstream carbon pollution a year.

- Owen Jones discusses the knighting of Nick Clegg as a prime example of how utter failure is no obstacle to lionization within an elite political class.

- Andre Picard writes that Canada can learn from California's experience in managing the legalization of marijuana. But of course that would involve some level of governmental interest and competence - both of which are sorely lacking within Brad Wall's Saskatchewan Party administration.

- Meanwhile, Jeremy Barreto comments on Rachel Notley's success in developing affordable renewable power for Alberta.

- Finally, David Moscrop makes the case for an offer of guaranteed seats in the House of Commons for Indigenous representatives.

Saturday Morning Links

This and that for your weekend reading.

- David Climenhaga comments on the tendency of even progressive governments to unduly accept neoliberal frames and theories - with Rachel Notley's talk of "compassionate belt tightening" sadly serving as the latest example:

Premier Notley told reporters that her government spent money on infrastructure and services during the recession caused by the international collapse in oil prices, but now that the economy seems to be perking up at last, it's time to alter course.

This seems to make sense in a classic John Maynard Keynes, Economics 101, sort of way -- you know, spend in bad times, save in good. A couple of things are wrong with this explanation, however:

First, it's too soon. The recession isn't over. Spending is still needed to keep the economy off life support.

Second, and more important in the Alberta context, taxes here are artificially kept at nonsensically low levels -- too low to run a modern economy in a jurisdiction of this size and complexity -- because we refuse to tax individuals and corporations at a level that makes sense.

Everybody understands this. Certainly Notley does, as does her caucus. NDP supporters do too.
...
If ever there was a discredited economic doctrine, it's the harsh austerity, privatization, deregulation, government spending cuts, and lowest-common-denominator trade policies of the neoliberal counter-revolution that has sought to destroy the post-World War II welfare state, which resulted in the highest levels of prosperity in human history, and turn the clock back to the 19th Century.

And yet here we go again -- led by an NDP government no less -- down the rabbit hole of neoliberal prescriptions, which never work, always make things worse, and sow chaos and destruction for ordinary people while undermining democracy by making the uber-wealthy richer and more powerful.

It's a tribute to the success of the international neoliberal propaganda machine, I suppose, that doing the sensible thing and implementing modest increases to Alberta's taxes is simply not on, even for a well-intentioned social democratic government.
...
Alas, the modest common-sense tax increases Alberta needed from the NDP never came. Instead, the best we can hope for now is compassionate austerity, which when it doesn't work, risks becoming the conservative entrée to something harsher, and even less effective.

- And the Equality Trust offers its response to yet another UK budget which inflicts austerity rather than ameliorating inequality.

- Noah Smith writes about the crucial role of social redistribution in ensuring the prosperity is shared beyond the luckiest few. And Judy Paul writes that a basic income could go much further in allowing people to make positive life choices like finishing high school as adults, rather than being trapped by the need to scratch out subsistence-level incomes.

- Finally, Steven Greenhouse discusses the need for better scheduling protections for U.S. workers - and the developing movement to fight for them.

New column day

Here, on how several other provinces are setting new (and necessary standards) for worker protections while Saskatchewan falls further behind.

For further reading...
- Ontario's Changing Workplaces Review is here (in full), and here (in summary form). CBC reports on Kathleen Wynne's subsequent minimum wage announcement, while Sheila Block crunches the numbers on how it will reduce inequality. And Thomas Walkom points out how even Ontario's plan falls short of the mark in protecting people stuck in precarious work and allowing for labour to organize.
- Alberta's summary of its planned Labour Relations Code amendments is here.
- The governance agreement between the B.C. NDP and Greens is here (PDF), featuring the terms on labour and employment issues at 2(d) and (e).
- Finally, in contrast to all those current plans, the last substantial review of Saskatchewan's general labour and employment law took place in 2012, and resulted in this largely anti-worker set of provisions.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Tom Parkin writes about the growing opposition to a Lib infrastructure bank designed to turn public needs into private profits at our expense:

Paying higher fares, fees and tolls because of a political decision to use more expensive private capital would be a “massive transfer of wealth to the wealthy,” says [Guy] Caron.

Now the chorus of think-tanks voicing concern includes the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, Broadbent Institute, C.D. Howe Institute and the Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy, which is headed by former Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page.

The idea for the Bank followed a curious path. The Liberal-appointed advisory council which recommended a private Infrastructure Bank included executives whose investment funds stand to profit from it. That process is now subject of a conflict of interest complaint by Democracy Watch.
...

As more Canadians see the Infrastructure Bank as an inside job to drain their wallets and enrich the rich, the sharpness of opposition attacks continues to grow.

Perhaps Trudeau thought an Infrastructure Bank would hitch his star to powerful people. Maybe he’s anchored himself to a sinking sack of cement.

- And Randall Bartlett asks why Trudeau is so eager to privatize profits while forcing the public to bear the risks and costs of projects. 

- Meanwhile, Don Braid examines how Rachel Notley's NDP is establishing desperately-needed consumer protections in areas ranging from payday lending to homebuilding - and being challenged every step of the way by businesses who had grown accustomed to being able to exploit the public. And Rachel Reeves argues that now is the time for the financial transactions tax on offer from the UK's Labour Party.

- Claire Cain Miller discusses how motherhood contributes to the persistent pay gap between women and men. And Jordan Press reports on the wealth-based gap in access to child care outside Quebec, while Andrea Gordon points out how Ontario students (particularly in rural areas) are losing access to music programs due to austerity budgeting.

- Finally, Ian Bremner warns against treating the defeat of a couple of far-right leaders as an indication that we can afford to accept business as usual.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- In advance of this year's Progress Summit, Ed Broadbent writes that burgeoning inequality threatens our democracy:

Inequality matters. Promises must be kept. It’s not enough for our government to celebrate the diversity of our country but not enact policies that head off growing inequality. Mr. Trudeau, it’s time to deliver.

The underlying causes that produced the harsh politics of resentment and exclusion in the United Kingdom before Brexit, and in the recent U.S. election, are stirring here at home. According to a recent EKOS poll, the percentage of Canadians who identify themselves as middle class has dropped from 67 per cent to 46 per cent. And 70 per cent of Canadians believe – quite accurately – that almost all recent economic growth has gone to the top one per cent. Almost 60 per cent of Canadians said that they would not be surprised if violence broke out unless inequality was addressed.

This accurate perception of unfairness, that some make great gains but most do not, undermines democracy. As the statistics suggest, many Canadians feel the sense of alienation from the political process and from the economic system, which has fuelled the rise of the nationalist and intolerant political right around the world: Donald Trump in the U.S., UKIP in the UK, and the Front National in France.
...
A country’s true worth is not measured by how it enables the few but by how it provides for the many. Our country needs all the restless, creative energy we can bring to bear to create a brighter future.

- Meanwhile, George Monbiot warns against accepting a definition of "freedom" which is limited to allowing the wealthy and well-connected to exploit the public. And Matt Stoller discusses Simcha Barkai's research showing how bigger corporations are making workers poorer.

- Jessica Vomiero looks at the Conference Board of Canada's research showing that residents of Atlantic provinces are significantly happier than people elsewhere in Canada - based in large part on a stronger sense of community and greater affordability. And discussing the same study, Peter Zimonjic reports that Canada ranks fairly highly among comparable countries in overall life satisfaction, but near the bottom in terms of gender equality.

- Armine Yalnizyan discusses the importance of focusing on gender equality in developing and analyzing budgets. And Heather Cleland explains why the Libs' plan to extend maternal leave benefits only for those who have money to spare doesn't answer the real disparities which need addressing.

- Finally, Michal Rozworski interviews Charles Smith and Ian Hussey about the contrast between Brad Wall's destructive austerity and Rachel Notley's maintenance of needed services.

Monday Afternoon Links

Miscellaneous material for your Monday reading.

- Martin Lukacs argues that the way to avoid a Canadian Donald Trump is to ensure people have a progressive challenger to the corporate establishment:

Trudeau’s social liberalism has been partnered with the very economic policies that have cemented inequality and savaged people’s quality of life—and which are now fuelling such unprecedented rage at politicians. The Liberal government’s plan to privatize our world-class public sector, a pro-business trade agenda, tax loopholes for the rich, the short-changing of healthcare, and climate policies that go easy on polluting corporations: this is a sure-fire recipe to continue enriching the wealthy and pissing off the rest of us.

For four decades, the Liberals as much as the Conservatives have been shredding our social programs and starving state spending, showing through such neoliberal policies their true colours: subservience to the corporate elite. These kind of policies are what have created such fertile ground for the new right-wing populism that has viciously triumphed in the United States and is now emerging in Canada.
...
It’s long past time to direct anger in the right direction. A report produced last month by Oxfam revealed that two individuals—David Thomson and Galen Weston Sr—own as much wealth as the bottom 30 percent of Canadians, or 11 million people. Why is the New Democratic Party not broadcasting this scandalous fact from every conceivable pulpit? The rich are treated to off-shore havens and historic low tax rates rates, while the rest of us have to make do with less and less, roiled by anxiety that our children will have it even worse. Canada is practically screaming for a bold and unapologetic redistributive agenda.
...
There are no quick fixes, no easy way of stopping O’Leary or spurring Trudeau. It will take face-to-face organizing among hundreds of thousands of people in Canada, part of a task of fostering new momentum behind left-wing movements. But the country is as primed for it as it ever will be. You don’t want a Canadian Trump to ascend in Canada? Start building this progressive populist alternative.

- Meanwhile, Michael Laxer responds that the crucial part of that analysis is the presence of a genuine left-wing option. And Stephany Griffith-Jones offers her suggestions as to the alternative progressive policies needed to give voters a real choice.

- Noah Richler highlights how the Libs' sudden reversal on electoral reform reflects their contempt for Canada's voters (and associated sense of entitlement). And James Wilt examines just a few of the Libs' key broken promises when it comes to the environment and indigenous rights.

- Stephen Hume discusses how a meager, election-year trinket from Christy Clark falls far short of what's needed to ensure that British Columbians with disabilities can live with dignity, while the Star's editorial board is rightly skeptical about the federal Libs' delays on a national anti-poverty strategy. And Nick Falvo and Chidom Otogwu write that Rachel Notley's Alberta NDP offers an example of how to turn a commitment to poverty reduction into action - while also noting there's still plenty left to be done.

- Finally, Jordan Brennan discusses how corporate mergers serve only to enrich insiders at the expense of the broader economy. And Nick Dyrenfurth writes that it's long past time to stop pretending that self-regulation is an answer to excessive executive pay and inequality (among other problems which involve the corporate extraction of wealth from society at large).

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Dani Rodrik writes that today's brand of trade agreement has little to do with economic theory as opposed to political power:

What purpose do trade agreements really serve? The answer would seem obvious: countries negotiate trade agreements to achieve freer trade. But the reality is considerably more complex. It’s not just that today’s trade agreements extend to many other policy areas, such as health and safety regulations, patents and copyrights, capital-account regulations, and investor rights. It’s also unclear whether they really have much to do with free trade.
...

When trade agreements were largely about import tariffs, negotiated exchange of market access generally produced lower import barriers – an example of the benefits of lobbies acting as counterweights to one another. But there are certainly plenty of examples of international collusion among special interests as well. The WTO’s prohibition on export subsidies has no real economic rationale, as I have already noted. The rules on anti-dumping are similarly explicitly protectionist in intent. 

Such perverse cases have proliferated more recently. Newer trade agreements incorporate rules on “intellectual property,” capital flows, and investment protections that are mainly designed to generate and preserve profits for financial institutions and multinational enterprises at the expense of other legitimate policy goals. These rules provide special protections to foreign investors that often come into conflict with public health or environmental regulations. They make it harder for developing countries to access technology, manage volatile capital flows, and diversify their economies through industrial policies. 

Trade policies driven by domestic political lobbying and special interests are beggar-thyself policies. They may have beggar-thy-neighbor consequences, but that is not their motive. They reflect power asymmetries and political failures within societies. International trade agreements can contribute only in limited ways to remedying such domestic political failures, and sometimes they aggravate those failures. Addressing beggar-thyself policies requires improving domestic governance, not establishing international rules. 

- The Star rightly argues that Canada can't claim to have a plan to meet its greenhouse gas emission reduction targets without actually doing the math as to how to get there.

- Lynell Anderson, Morna Ballantyne, Martha Friendly set out a plan for a national child care system - though unfortunately there's no indication that the federal government has any interest in putting the idea into action. 

- Paul Dechene highlights the disingenuousness of Brad Wall's Twitter tantrums. And David Climenhaga spreads the word about Wall's Bradsplaining, while noting that Brad Trost is exhibiting exactly the same tendencies.

- Finally, Tara Katrusiak Baran discusses the dangers of threatening violence and suppression based on political disagreement - while pointing out that economic anxiety is no excuse for dehumanizing our fellow citizens. And Danny Quah and Kishore Mahbubani theorize that the rise of the authoritarian right has more to do with a perceived loss of control than with any economic factors.

New column day

Here, on the crisis of liberal democracy around the globe - and how we face our own obvious risks in Canada.

For further reading...
- Yascha Mounk's research into the precarious state of democracy is discussed here by Amanda Taub. And Andrea Kendall-Taylor and Erica Frantz trace how a seemingly secure democracy can fall apart incrementally. 
- George Monbiot highlights the connection between the rise of radical bigots and the perception that our previous elected governments have ceded meaningful political control to the corporate sector.
- The appalling "lock her up" chants directed at Rachel Notley by Ezra Levant's rally for hate have been discussed plenty, including by Tyler Dawson, the Globe and Mail, Chantal Hebert, Tasha Kheiriddin, Danielle Paradis, Brent Rathgeber and Don Braid.
- Sarah Boon warns of the risk that Trumpism could take hold in Canada. And Jim Carr's threat to send in Canada's military to attack environmental and indigenous activists offers an indication of the Libs' own tendencies toward strongman governance. 
- Finally, Terry Glavin also examines the real dangers to democratic governance developing around the globe - while noting that the Libs' actions in dealing with the core promise of electoral reform may represent a make-or-break moment for Canada's democratic future.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Chris Hamby's brilliant series on the effects of investor-state dispute settlement continues with articles on the shift in power from governments to corporations, as well as the developing market in settlement speculation.

- Gordon Laxer argues that if NAFTA is in fact up for renegotiation, Canada should see walking away as an important option. Linda McQuaig points out a few of the ways in which the CETA and other trade agreements serve to undermine democratic governance. And Nicole Sagener highlights a new study showing how the CETA would enrich multinational corporations at the expense of the citizens of participating countries.

- The Star makes the case for a readily-accessible child care program as one of the most important steps in closing the gender wage gap. And Roderick Benns argues that a basic income would fit with the overarching pursuit of health in all policies.

- Andrew Russell and Lee Vinsel comment on the dangers of prioritizing innovation (and its associated PR boost) over less-glamorous maintenance of vital infrastructure.

- Finally, Thomas Walkom discusses the establishment pressure on Rachel Notley to abandon principle in order to appease deficit scolds. And Brent Patterson reminds us of the need for a strong social movement to put pressure on all stripes of government to take the public interest into account:

The public wants a Canada that respects Indigenous rights, that expands public health care, that has sustainable and fair trade with the rest of the world, that protects water, that has a 100 per cent clean energy future, and that has a democratic electoral system. That has always been the core vision of The Council of Canadians. Let us hold onto this dream of transformation by asking the hard questions to get us there, mobilizing for better, and demanding systemic change.

Political honeymoons are ephemeral, but movements have always been the real catalyst for social justice.