Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Mariana Mazzucato discusses (JPG) the importance of an intelligent industrial strategy. And David Kotz argues that neoliberal capitalism has reached the point where there's no plausible path toward sustainable growth without a new economic model:

For several decades, neoliberal capitalism was able to bring a series of long economic expansions punctuated by relatively brief and mild recessions as well as a low rate of inflation. However, the programme of freeing markets and cutting taxes did not lead to a prosperity that trickled down to those in the middle and bottom. Rather than a rising tide that lifted all boats, neoliberal institutions brought stagnating or falling incomes for the majority and a remarkable upward income redistribution to the very rich.

Neoliberal transformation did not unleash the promised wave of investment, which has been sluggish compared to the era of post-war regulated capitalism, but the increasing inequality and rising profits it produced did stimulate initial economic expansion. However, a long economic expansion requires growing demand for output as well as profit incentives for expansion, and stagnating wages and state spending created a problem on the demand side. The demand problem was solved by two other features of neoliberal capitalism, large asset bubbles and a risk-seeking financial sector. Together those two features led to rising debt-fuelled consumer spending, which underpinned the long expansion of the 1990s and that of 2001-07 in the U.S.

However, under the surface the very same features that together promoted long expansions and low inflation — growing inequality, an increasingly risk-seeking financial sector, and a series of large asset bubbles – gave rise to trends that were unsustainable over the long run. In 2007-08 the unsustainable trends — growing household and financial sector debt, the spread of toxic financial assets, and increasing excess capacity in industry – interacted with the deflation of the U.S. real estate bubble to bring a financial panic and Great Recession, which quickly spread in various forms to the other developed countries.

Austerity policies in Europe and the U.S. can be interpreted as an effort to preserve the neoliberal form of capitalism. That form of capitalism has been very favourable for corporate profit and the income of the rich, and it is difficult for its beneficiaries to give it up. Austerity policies also follow logically from the dominant economic ideas of this era, which are difficult to dislodge despite the evidence that austerity only deepens the stagnation.

I argue that both theoretical considerations and historical precedents indicate that the neoliberal form of capitalism can no longer give rise to sustained economic growth.

- Kimberly Phillips-Fein discusses how a culture of fear created by U.S. employers led to a particular lack of solidarity and social strength at Ground Zero of the global economic meltdown, while Teuila Fuatai weighs in on Ontario's widespread violations of employment standards. And the New York Times editorial board points out that governments and their contractors should be expected to lead the way in ensuring fair treatment of workers.

- Rafe Mair writes that Justin Trudeau is following the Libs' traditional pattern of combining posturing about climate change with a lack of meaningful action. And Andreas Sieber and Pavlos Georgiadis point out how a new wave of trade agreements may prevent governments from giving effect to their climate change commitments.

- On that front, Brent Patterson asks why Justin Trudeau seems determined to push for the "provisional" application of CETA even when actual ratification seems unlikely.

- Finally, Elizabeth McSheffrey reports that Husky's North Saskatchewan River oil spill has predictably led to water quality failures. Jennifer Graham notes that the Provincial Auditor has long been calling for actual enforcement of pipeline regulations, only to be ignored by the Saskatchewan Party. And Brad Wall still refuses to talk about pipeline safety (and his government's associated neglect).

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Tessa Jowell writes that we need to treat inequality as a disease which can be cured through effective public policy, but the Star points out that the Cons have instead gone out of their way to make it worse. Fair Vote Canada interviews J. Peter Venton about the toxic effect of inequality on our political system. And Sean McElwee notes that in the U.S. at least, the right has managed to turn the middle and working classes against exactly the type of redistribution which best serves their interests.

- Yanis Varoufakis argues that it's long past time to start ensuring that our decisions about public policy are made with the interests of people in mind, rather than being based solely on calculations as to what elites can get away with:

The trouble with game theory, as I used to tell my students, is that it takes for granted the players’ motives. In poker or blackjack this assumption is unproblematic. But in the current deliberations between our European partners and Greece’s new government, the whole point is to forge new motives. To fashion a fresh mind-set that transcends national divides, dissolves the creditor-debtor distinction in favor of a pan-European perspective, and places the common European good above petty politics, dogma that proves toxic if universalized, and an us-versus-them mind-set.

As finance minister of a small, fiscally stressed nation lacking its own central bank and seen by many of our partners as a problem debtor, I am convinced that we have one option only: to shun any temptation to treat this pivotal moment as an experiment in strategizing and, instead, to present honestly the facts concerning Greece’s social economy, table our proposals for regrowing Greece, explain why these are in Europe’s interest, and reveal the red lines beyond which logic and duty prevent us from going.

...
How do we know that our modest policy agenda, which constitutes our red line, is right in Kant’s terms? We know by looking into the eyes of the hungry in the streets of our cities or contemplating our stressed middle class, or considering the interests of hard-working people in every European village and city within our monetary union. After all, Europe will only regain its soul when it regains the people’s trust by putting their interests center-stage.

- Dean Baker observes that political figures still pushing austerity even in the face of compelling evidence of failure should be considered the economic equivalent of creationists. And Louis-Philippe Rochon argues from a Canadian perspective that we're headed for even more severe economic trouble if we keep putting up with contractionary fiscal policy.

- Mark Schmitt discusses how supplementary public contributions might help to rein in the disproportionate influence of the wealthy in U.S. politics. But it's worth noting that Canada had a superior version of the same type of policy in the form of the per-vote funding eliminated by the Harper Cons.

- Janice Dickson looks into the background of the Halifax shooting plot. And Derrick O'Keefe sees Peter MacKay's response as yet another example of the Cons' politicizing issues of public safety, while Gary Shaul writes about the Cons' willingness to downplay violent extremism as long as it comes from their type of violent extremists.

- Finally, Rafe Mair worries that the politics of fear might well succeed - particularly if opposition parties and the media fail in their job of challenging the Cons' fearmongering. And while Karl Nerenberg may be right in recognizing some political risk in actually doing that job, I'd think there's even more to be lost if nobody takes it on.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

 - Emma Woolley discusses how homelessness developed into a social problem in Canada in large part through public neglect. Judy Haiven is the latest to emphasize that charity is no substitute for a functional society when it comes to meeting people's basic needs. And Ed Lehman is rightly concerned that Brad Wall and company are still determined to avoid acknowledging the fact that there are plenty of Saskatchewan residents trying to make do with nowhere near enough.

- Emily Badger reminds us how inequality early in life can shape - and block - opportunities for a lifetime to come. And on the subject of people getting far less than a fair chance in life, Robert Mendick and Robert Verkaik report on the latest anti-Muslim hysteria from the Cons' UK cousins - featuring an edict that nurseries and child-care providers inform the government of supposed extremism among the ever-threatening toddler set.

- Blacklock's exposes the Cons' orders forbidding federal employees from viewing news. And Michael Harris discusses how far too many Canadians seem willing to accept having our democratic institutions and constitutional protections negated by executive fiat.

- Meanwhile, Rafe Mair points out that proportional representation can go a long way toward ensuring that one leader doesn't exercise power so recklessly.

- Finally, Dan Leger suggests eight steps to improve Canada's democracy.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Monica Potts responds to the big lie that increasing inequality and perpetual poverty are necessary - or indeed remotely beneficial - as elements of economic growth:

Hanauer and Piketty inspire these broadsides because they are challenging, in a far more aggressive way than plutocrats and economists usually do, the conservative economic orthodoxy that has reigned since at least the 1980s. Under Ronald Reagan, we called it trickle-down economics, the idea that the men who can afford their own private jets—they’re usually men—deserve gobs of money because they provide some special entrepreneurial or innovative talent that drives the American economy.

That’s well known. Far less often discussed is the flipside of this belief: that helping the less well off will dampen the American money-generating engine—that it will hurt growth, because the only thing that inspires the “job creators” to work so hard is the promise of insanely vast financial rewards. Poverty is a necessary evil in this worldview, and helping the less well off creates a “culture of dependency,” which discourages work.
...
Conservatives have dominated discussions of poverty for a generation with arguments like this one. It’s completely wrong. It’s more than that—it’s just a lie, concocted as cover for policies that overwhelmingly favored the rich. But it took the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression for many economists, liberal or not, to finally say publicly what many had long argued: Inequality is bad for the economy.
...
An S&P report released August 5 says that rising inequality—gaps in both income and wealth—between the very rich and the rest of us is hurting economic growth. The agency downgraded its forecast for the economy in the coming years because of the record level of inequality and the lack of policy changes to correct for it. The report’s authors argue against the notion that caring about equality necessarily involves a trade-off with “efficiency”—that is, a well-functioning economy.

- William Wolfe-Wylie points out the massive profits being made by corporations cutting in line to use and resell drinking water. And Kamil Ahsan discusses how the business sector has co-opted the very notion of science:

(L)iberals have been remarkably uncritical of the scientific establishment’s blind spots. Left-of-center outlets generally frame scientific issues in one of two ways.

The first is to expose conservatives who fail to accept evolution and climate change, and to extol the virtues of science popularizers. The second is to blame Big Ag, Big Pharma, governmental regulatory agencies, and oil drilling companies for tragedies ranging from pesticide poisoning and farming and seed monopolies, to oil spills and nuclear waste disasters.

Yet much of the scientific establishment, the very same one liberals oppose to Republican “crazies,”  is complicit in the second set of acts liberals so loudly condemn.
...
If the history of science has one lesson, it is that much of what we know about the world today, our ability to care for it, and the our existence as a species, is a direct result of the scientific discoveries of many pioneering women and men — many of whom, like Rachel Carson, embodied social consciousness.

A robust commitment to scientific exploration and advancement is incomplete without a cognizance of the social consequences of scientific results, and the ways in which financial incentives can debase the scientific process.

The subordination of science to profits, walled off from public scrutiny, is just as damaging as any creationist dogma.

- Sadly, a preference for corporate impunity is all too often entrenched in law as well, as Maura Forrest notes that the mining industry represents just one of the corporate recipients of immunity against the consequences of its own actions. And David Sirota reports on Republicans' efforts to tear down anti-corruption rules intended to ensure that political donations don't get converted into massive contracts to manage pensions funds.

- All of which leads to Errol Sharpe's review of Richard Swift's SOS: Alternatives to Capitalism:

Swift leads us on an exploration of our pre-capitalist roots pointing to the historical reality of different ways of living without falling into the idealistic trait of simply glorifies the past. Following Polanyi he points to an earlier time when the economy was embedded in, and thus in service to, the society. This is in contrast to the present day era of advanced capitalism where society is embedded in and thus in service to, the economy. "Advocates of an alternative to wasteful capitalism," says Swift, "have their roots in past human experience."
...
It is pointed out that "since the birth of capitalism there has been a constant pressure to transfer the ownership and control of common resources into private hands." Therefore alternatives to capitalism involve defending and expanding the commons. The commons "represents a space between the private market and the political state in which humanity can control and democratically root our common wealth."

Swift also speaks of 'the democratic emergency', the rolling back of the 1960s and the embedding since then of a concept of democracy where representatives are elected only to be subject to a 'disciplined obedience' between elections when the market rules supreme. As Swift in his colourful phraseology puts it "Any sense of the common good was buried in the shopping malls and online boutiques."
...
In the end, Swift does get it right when he cautions that scenarios for the future must not been seen as blueprints but as a process, an ongoing movement toward 'living well'. It is for a better understanding of this process that we need to turn to Indigenous thought.

SOS is a book that should be read, not only read, but also seriously contemplated by all who are concerned about the present state of affairs. In this book we are both challenged to rethink where we have been and are provided much fodder to stimulate our collective imaginations as to where we need to go.

- Finally, Gregory Beatty comments on the Cons' war on charities. And Rafe Mair discusses why it's long past time for a renovation of Canada's government:

Canadians must get used to the idea that minority or coalition governments are not bad things. We are told, by those who prefer the current system, that minority governments and coalitions bring uncertainty and wobbly decision-making.

Dictatorships are always very popular with those who do the dictating. But many democracies in the world have minority or coalition governments most of the time — and they do just fine.

Minority or coalition governments do not crumble and fall regularly. There is a strong sense of self-preservation in every MP, and elections are very expensive to both members and parties.

What does happen — what must happen — is that minority or coalition governments actually consult all MPs before bringing in budgets or legislation. A revolutionary idea: The people elected to govern the citizens’ affairs actually get a voice in how those affairs will be conducted. And through them, voters actually know what the hell is really going on. Supporters of our current system somehow find this idea unattractive.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Plenty more commentators are weighing in on the Harper Cons' enemy list, including the Star, the Globe and Mail, and Lawrence Martin. But Robyn Benson makes the most important comment about the Harper with-us-or-against-us mentality that's being applied to the federal government apparatus just as much as the Cons as a political party:

The common denominator here is a fundamental lack of trust in other people, approaching paranoia, combined with a mean authoritarian streak that defines anyone who thinks differently, not as a fellow-citizen, but as an enemy to be eliminated. Such people, once in power, display a cynical shrewdness and a fetish for secrecy. They instinctively prefer the dark to the light. And theirs is an iron rule, or at least as iron a rule as they are permitted to get away with.

Those of us who are fundamentally opposed to the values and philosophy of the current government, or even question them, are not “enemies.” We believe in the democratic process: spirited debate, the exercise of our Charter rights to dissent, strong and organized political opposition. A government that defines us as enemies is itself an enemy of democracy.

And democracy in Canada is fragile enough as it is. The Prime Minister is granted powers that a US President would envy—the unilateral right to appoint members of the Senate, judges, and members of various boards and commissions, for example. Or to shut down Parliament when it gets inconvenient. With the increasing concentration of power in the Prime Minister’s Office, the consequent lack of democratic accountability to the electorate becomes more and more a fact of Canadian political life. And when it reaches the point that the PMO becomes more or less an arm of a specific political party, running dirty tricks against opposition leaders, a line has been crossed, and it will not be easy to walk that one back.

- Meanwhile, CTV reports on the latest in the Cons' Clusterduff - an apparent refusal to provide central records to the RCMP. (And no, "you didn't ask for exactly the right document in exactly the right way with exactly the right secret password" isn't a valid excuse, especially from a PMO shouting from the rooftops that it's cooperating with the investigation.)

- Andrew Livingstone reveals the use of impoverished and hungry First Nations Canadians as lab rats to determine what food and health services people could do without. And Dr. Dawg diagnoses part of the problem as being the perception of people as objects for experimental purposes.

- Rafe Mair notes that in trashing B.C. Hydro, the Clark Liberals are destroying what should be a proud part of that province's legacy of responsive right-wing government.

- And finally, George Monbiot discusses how the tobacco lobby is merely channeling money and PR into other forms to evade restrictions on direct advertising and warp the political system in its favour.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your weekend reading.

- Stephen Maher reminds us that the Harper government now lecturing us about the need to attack social programs because of a federal deficit is the same incompetent group that caused the deficit in the first place through reckless tax slashing and vote-buying trinkets. But then, Bruce Johnstone points out that the cost of Old Age Security (which the Cons want to cut) is lower than that of similar programs in nearly any other comparable country, while Thomas Walkom also notes that cost of OAS can easily be met by a government which isn't determined to pull the rug out from under its citizens.

- Susan Delacourt points to Martin Goldfarb's observation about the state of the Cons (which doesn't look to have changed much in the past year):

Harper is still searching for the big idea that will establish his brand promise for himself and his Conservative party.... A series of attributes unconnected to a big idea, or a brand promise, will not attract people.

And presumably we'll see that change over the next few years as the Cons face both ample time in which to define themselves, and a primary opponent which doesn't lack a coherent vision of its own.

- And no, repetition of the word "major" doesn't figure to count - though it will likely signal what the Cons ultimately select. Meanwhile, putting trade above all else probably qualifies as a brand promise, but I'm not sure the Cons will want to have to defend it against an alternative based on individual equality.

- Finally, Rafe Mair tears into Joe Oliver over his contempt for anybody concerned about the Gateway pipeline, while Marc Lee documents the odious profits that look to be paired with environmental degradation as the two main effects of having it built.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- In case anybody held out hope that the Harper Cons might follow up on their residential school apology with some concrete action to change First Nations relations for the better, here's the predictable result: a gratuitous ultimatum on land claims which seeks to force First Nations to take whatever is on the table now or risk being left with next to nothing.

- Ellen Russell comments on how the corporate right has turned financial crisis into a way of life for its own benefit:

Because the appetite for risk is so pervasive (#4), financial instruments and practices are so complex (#5), regulations are so inadequate (#6), and markets are so interdependent (#7), the "contagion effects" of a panic in one market or country can spread to far-flung and unexpected places. Thus the problems in Greece may spread to other EU countries, to the banks and other investors holding the debt of eurozone countries, to those exposed directly or indirectly to these banks and other investors, to any entity that provided financial "insurance" on anything sucked into the crisis, and anywhere else that financial panic touches down.

Awareness is growing that the arcane workings of financial markets have big impacts on their lives. No one is exempt from the devastation once a financial tsunami gathers momentum -- especially since economic contractions and government downsizing often follow closely behind the financial wreckage.

Financial crisis do not have to become a way of life. Ultimately, financial crisis is a political problem. It will take a massive shift in political mobilization to counter the current hegemony of financial interests.

Democratic financial reform must be a cornerstone for all of our agendas for economic change. Since we ultimately bail out these financial titans when crisis hits, we are entitled to make sure that finance is serving the public interest. Neoliberalism has made financial crisis a way of life. To move beyond neoliberalism, we need crack down on the financial sector so that a different way of life is possible.

- Yes, the shift to an HST model is all about benefitting the well-connected. But it's quite thoughtful of the B.C. Libs to serve up Exhibit M just in time for the referendum.

- Which offers all the more reason to answer "Absolutely!" to Rafe Mair's rhetorical question.

- Finally, Digby reminds us of the dangers of cult conservatism.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that (with a B.C. flavour) for your Tuesday reading.

- Yes, the CCPA's report showing that taxes in British Columbia are downright regressive is stunning enough on its face. But the real story may lie in the response of the province's finance minister:

Finance Minister Kevin Falcon said he didn't put much stock in the study's numbers, and suggested his staff would find problems with the report.

"They keep coming out with these reports, and I rarely agree," said Falcon.

In other words, Falcon is determined to keep on making the tax system ever more regressive - and will pre-emptively ignore any study showing that doing so will only make for even more unfair treatment of most of the province in order to justify continued steps to favour the wealthy over the rest of the population. And it's not hard to see how that attitude can lead to exactly the outcome that Falcon refuses to consider possible.

- Meanwhile, Falcon's declaration that any study showing an unfair tax system should also thoroughly undermine can be ignored based on nothing but his ideological leanings should also call into doubt other politically-motivated spin from the B.C. Libs - such as, say, their government's attempt to shut down any discussion of poverty in the province by quibbling over the definition of the poverty line.

- But then, Rafe Mair notes that there's plenty more reason for concern about the B.C. Libs' lack of integrity:

Campbell and Hansen supported the 2009 budget in that year's election almost certainly knowing it was false, and then added well over a billion dollars to it after they won. If they did not know, the entire finance ministry ought to be fired, because they knew trouble was coming because of falling sales tax and stumpage receipts.

They had to know. The stock market failures were another sign and were sufficient for two fiscal ignoramuses, my wife and me, who cleared out of the market before the crash.

If Hansen, and through him Campbell, didn't know what was happening in the world when they went to the polls based on a phoney budget, they were bungling incompetents. As one who was in cabinet prior to the 1981 recession and saw the finance minister predict it by assessing diminishing receipts, I can tell you that Campbell and Hansen knew. These sorts of deals don't come together overnight, and if you believe that the government wasn't negotiating with Ottawa long before the '09 election, I have a bridge for sale you might want to have a look at.

Campbell and Hansen denied during the '09 election that the HST was even on the radar screen, and then safely elected, implemented it. Hansen had a full and damning finance ministry report on his desk two months prior to the election.
...
We will be asked, in an election...likely to be called in advance of the set day, to support a premier who was there for most of the Campbell scandals, and now wants us to save the province from the NDP!

If we don't give a damn about corruption, cronyism, hypocrisy and falsehoods, we will approve that conduct and let the Liberals go at it again for another four years.

- Finally, I'll echo those pointing to Ryan McGreal's post as the definitive commentary on what the Cons' attack on CUPW means not only for Canada Post, but also for the wider economy:

I also want to comment on what I've come to regard as revenge egalitarianism among those people who are incensed that the decent wages and benefits letter carriers enjoy haven't yet been stripped away.

There was once a time when public sentiment on wages and benefits turned around the idea that they should trend upwards. You know, for everyone - not just a thin crust of the deserving rich.
...
(Since 1980), (o)ur economy has generated strong growth in overall wealth, but most of that wealth has accrued to the very wealthy, while the wealth of Canadians below the median has actually fallen in real terms.

It's no coincidence that this trend coincides with two major changes:

* A steady flattening of our income tax structure that lowered tax rates for the wealthy and extended exemptions and tax shelters for the wealthy, while actually increasing tax rates on the poor.

* The rate of unionized workers fell from 34.6 percent in 1997 to 29.3 percent in 2009. Unionized workers tend to earn more than non-unionized workers, so a falling unionization rate is a drag on overall median incomes.
...
The bottom line is that every time a corporation (or government) breaks the back of another union, we all lose out. The median income further stagnates, and the workers whose wages and benefits have been cut have less money to inject into the economy.

Finally, the labour market in general shifts more bargaining power from employees to employers, resulting in downward pressure on wages right across the broad middle class.

- And Andrew Jackson notes that the link between the attack on unionization and increased income inequality is backed by solid evidence.

Wednesday Morning Links

Content goes here.

- Linda McQuaig's latest column builds on the inequality theme of The Trouble With Billionaires, pointing out how wealth turns into other forms of power as well:

The wealthy exert influence not just through campaign contributions, but at every stage of the political process: in the forming of political parties, the writing of party platforms, the selection of candidates, the drafting and amending of legislation, not to mention the shaping of public opinion through think-tanks and media ownership.

The wealthy also often employ a form of blackmail, either directly or indirectly threatening they'll leave the country if governments don't capitulate to their demands for lower taxes. While it's hard to imagine political leaders caving in to similar threats from other groups -- say, electricians or teachers -- the sheer economic power of the wealthy seems to quickly bring governments to heel.

- Which would surely make for yet another point of confusion for Rafe Mair's Man from Mars:

Our Man from Mars would look at how we run our business affairs and would be struck by the way large pools of capital form themselves into corporations that can't be controlled. How would we expect them to be controlled when the people who want nice comfy laws finance the governing party which makes up the rules?

MFM would note that corporations spend huge sums anaesthetizing the public with full paid ads on every aspect of life telling the bumpkins what wonderful corporate citizens they are and how all their decisions were for the good of all. These ads make no reference to the fact that their only obligation is to make money for the shareholder and their good behaviour is in the hands of a friendly, indeed compliant, government.
...
Our Man from Mars, writing his report, would conclude that western democracies call themselves democracies much like communist countries once did. On being questioned about the liberties of citizens as compared to places like China, he would be bound to conclude that these Canadians have more freedom but that's steadily eroding and that, besides, the free speech in this country is about as effective as going out in a boat by yourself and shouting damnation on the powers that dictate and enforce.

- And as if to prove Mair's and McQuaig's points, here's Neil Reynolds predictably beating the drum for tax cuts even when they contradict his own data:

Canadian tax-collection statistics suggest that this supply-side law may well be operative here – only more so. On average, we remit to the federal government only 16.6 per cent of GDP in taxes regardless of rates. In the 1960s, it was 15.9 per cent of GDP. In the 1970s, 17.3 per cent. In the 1980s, 15.5 per cent. In the 1990s, 17.7 per cent. (From 2001 through 2009, reflecting a serious recession, revenue from all tax sources fell to 14.3 per cent.)

For those keeping track, that would make for a 3.4% difference between the 1990s (when taxes were hiked in order to balance budgets) and the 2000s (when taxes were lowered as the first order of business once deficits were brought down) - included in Reynolds' column in support of the theory that tax rates don't affect revenue. But fortunately, he's on the right side of the corporate media, so he'll be taken far more seriously than those of us who actually look at the numbers.

[Update: For a more thorough debunking, see Erin's post.]

- Meanwhile, Colby Cosh is right to note that "disappearing middle class" isn't necessarily the right term for extreme wealth inequality, and that "between neighbourhood" comparisons probably aren't the best way of analyzing the disparity. But can we also agree that it's worth doing something to address the danger of a "new Gilded Age, a realm of pervasively low marginal taxes and new deregulated industries" once we've removed those less-obvious problems from the picture?

- Finally, Ned Franks nicely connects the dots between the Cons' unproductive Parliaments in terms of the number of bills passed, and the fact that they've used omnibus budget bills to pass major changes without serious review:

n terms of productivity, Parliament has reached a new low. According to Franks, only 45 per cent of the bills introduced by the Harper government thus far have actually made it through the entire legislative process to royal assent.

And that can't all be blamed on the tribulations of running a minority government. Franks' records show the minority government of Lester Pearson during the 1960s managed to see 86 per cent of its bills through to royal assent.

The Trudeau government (both minority and majority) managed 72 per cent, Mulroney's majority government hit 83 per cent and Chretien's majority batted 69 per cent.

Since the Second World War, the number of bills receiving royal assent each year has declined steadily from an average of 67 a year during the King-St. Laurent era to 27 under Harper.

That doesn't necessarily mean the Harper government is legislating less. Franks said the government pushed about half of a normal year's legislation through in a single bill — this year's massive budget implementation bill which included varied measures dealing with all manner of subjects from environmental assessments to the post office to the future of Canada's atomic energy industry.

Franks finds the trend to omnibus bills particularly worrisome since it short-circuits the whole point of parliamentary scrutiny in a healthy democracy.

An educational opportunity

The Globe and Mail suggests that the opposition parties respond to the Cons' plan to call "ordinary citizens" (who are willing to read their talking points) to the next Industry Committee meeting on the census by matching the Cons in kind to show how census data which the Cons would axe plays a positive role in the everyday lives of Canadians. But I'll go a step further based on the most unfortunate addition to the list of people currently taking the Cons' side.

Before I answer a lot of personal questions, under penalty of prison if I don't (ed. note - which of course won't be the case in any event), just tell me, question by question, why you want this information.

Of course, the questions axed by the Cons already underwent constant review for relevance and utility. Which means that it shouldn't be too difficult to pair an expert explanation for including the question in the long form with a familiar practical application for each.

So rather than stopping at finding "ordinary Canadians" willing to talk about the census generally (which makes the issue seem more abstract than it should be), why not use the committee hearings as an opportunity to look specifically at the questions on the long form and educate Canadians about why it matters to have accurate information?

On secret votes

Rafe Mair offers up his own suggestion to empower MPs in Parliament. But it's worth noting the new difficulties which Mair seems willing to create in order to potentially change the culture of party discipline:

The easy (solution) is to give MPs the great protection that electors have -- a secret ballot. Now, that would put the cat amongst the pigeons. The rule would remain that the government would only be obliged to resign on a budget matter or one accepted as a "confidence" motion. And what's the argument against this again?

It has been pointed out that under this option, we won't know how our MPs voted. But we only know that under our present system because the MP must always vote as he is told.

If we, as a society, consider that regular people ought to be able to cast their votes free from outside pressure, promises of rewards, and penalties, why would we deny that same protection to those we elect to speak for us?

Now, Mair's argument is itself somewhat inaccurate. Parliamentary votes are recorded regardless of whether or not a particular MP follows the party line, and there are circumstances where MPs do wind up voting contrary to orders. (Indeed, one of the best indicators as to how a party treats a plurality of views can be found in its handling of whipped votes.)

The more important point, though, is Mair's calculation as to the relative priorities of top-down and bottom-up influences on MPs. In his view, it's worth trading off the ability of Canadian voters to hold MPs accountable for their votes in Parliament if that means simultaneously removing the power of party leaders to do the same. And I can certainly see reason to wonder whether the net result would be an improvement on the status quo.

But it's worth asking just what that trade-off means. Have we really reached the point where we're better off sacrificing our own ability to make informed decisions about our MPs in the hope that they'll produce better results if they don't have to answer quite as directly to party leaders? And if so, then isn't there some serious need to change the party system for its effects both inside and outside of Parliament?

In addition, there are serious questions as well as to what results would come of secret-ballot voting in Parliament. Isn't it likely that such a system would make party leaders all the more controlling at the candidate nomination stage in an effort to ensure party loyalty when it comes time to vote? And wouldn't such a system be ripe for manipulation by candidates who could get elected promising to vote one way in order to put themselves in a position to secretly vote the opposite?

Fortunately, there are some means available to restrict party leaders' ability to impose discipline from on high without simultaneously eliminating any ability on the part of citizens to hold legislators to account for their votes. And I for one would much prefer to be able to reward any legislator who casts his or her vote in favour of such an effort - rather than having to wonder whether an MP's words on the campaign trail bear any resemblance to his or her votes in practice.

The reviews are in

Rafe Mair's latest column features enough provocative statements and theories that few readers will have trouble finding something to disagree with. But it also raises some noteworthy possibilities - especially if the HST remains as powerful an issue in B.C. as it's been so far to go along with Mair's proposed focus on environmental issues:

We may be seeing what no person in his right mind would have dared speak of just a handful of years ago. I speak of the chance that the NDP may overtake the Liberals as the government in waiting. It could happen. Indeed it may already have happened.
...
Under Jack Layton the last three elections have show some promise for the NDP. In his first election he got 19 seats. This moved to 29 in 2006 and 37 in 2008. The fact remains that the NDP has a long way to go in order to be the opposition but with some luck and skill it could happen.
...
Layton faces an uphill struggle and if he's to move up the ladder and pass the Grits he must do better in Quebec and Ontario, make headway in Atlantic Canada and really do well in B.C. In order to do that, the federal NDP must do better -- much better -- in rural B.C., which has become a Tory stronghold. This is where Carole James comes in.
...
Our environment isn't a casual chip to be used in the great game of making money for money's sake. We're dealing here with a moral and ethical issue. Do we sacrifice our waters and our fish not even for our own profit but for others who have no stake in our province?

This is where Carole James comes in...My sense of it is that James knows that and, if she is listened to, will provide the boost for Layton’s campaign that it will need. She's liked and respected, personally is a good campaigner and unlike most of her caucus, understands these issues.
...
Layton will learn, if he listens, that the best weapon Kim Il Campbell has going for him is that people are reluctant to believe that any government could be this insensitive and indeed stupid. They are that insensitive and stupid and I offer as proof, as if proof were necessary, Mair's Axiom I, namely that you make a very serious mistake if you assume that those in power know what the hell they're doing.
...
Layton might find comfort from Mair's Axiom II, namely that you don't need to be a 10 to win in politics, you can be a three if everyone else is a two.

At the worst, Jack Layton is a three in a sea of twos and with a little self-education on the Fraser Institute-inspired ravaging of our bountiful home could turn that into a big plus both for him and for the British Columbia we love.

On disengagement

Michael Ignatieff plays to his B.C. audience by mentioning the disastrous drop in wild salmon stocks:

We’ve just seen an entire Fraser River sockeye run evaporate. Millions of salmon just didn’t show up.

Ask upstream communities about the consequences. Ask Aboriginal communities. Ask fishers. Experts are already talking about a connection with climate change.

We need an urgent, independent public inquiry, using the best ocean and climate scientists to figure out what happened, and how we can to keep it from happening again.

Of course, it's certainly worth mentioning the vast array of potential impacts of climate change. But Ignatieff seems to have rather glaringly omitted a far more important explanation:

Morton's new research has begun to reveal that the lice and disease problem is huge in B.C. Her research indicates that sockeye smolts migrating up Johnstone Strait from the Fraser River have been infected with lethal numbers of infected lice as they swim through the Campbell River area. Little wonder this year's run of Fraser sockeye was one of the poorest on record -- and the problem will continue unless we do something.
...
Morton has now found lethal levels of fish farm sea lice in chinook smolts from the Megin River that flows into Clayoquot Sound, meaning all the United Nations World Heritage 650,000-acre Site salt-waters are a gauntlet of sea-lice death for all species of salmon migrating through the narrow fjords near Tofino.

Morton and others have discovered viral outbreaks from now antibiotic resistant infected lice from the Johnstone Strait all the way up to Bella Bella on the mid-coast.
...
From 2001 to 2003, 12,000,000 farmed Atlantic salmon died in B.C. from the infectious haematopoietic necrosis epidemic. The first problem was more than 15 years ago in B.C. Even Canada's highly regarded -- and DFO's own scientist -- Dick Beamish, has published research showing that when Atlantic salmon are removed wild salmon smolts thrive.

See also Rafe Mair, passim - but particularly his advice that Ignatieff take on the harmful effects of fish farming directly.

So why is it that Ignatieff doesn't apparently see fit to mention sea lice and other issues related to fish farming as factors in the loss of salmon? There are two obvious explanations, but it's hard to see either reflecting well on Ignatieff or his party.

On the one hand, it could be that Ignatieff is planning to label anything even remotely environmental as a matter of climate change in order to justify building a campaign on the Libs' "green energy" theme. But it's no more honest for Ignatieff to try to ram every environmental issue into a climate change-shaped hole than it is for the Cons to deliberately confuse other types of pollution with reducing greenhouse gases.

On the other hand, it could be that the decision not to even mention one of the more glaring recent examples of corporate intrusion on the Canadian environment is based on a desire to avoid stepping on any toes in the fish-farming industry. But again, it's hard to see how the Libs can expect to be trusted if they're trying to patronize British Columbia by paying lip service to the decline in salmon stocks while ultimately planning to put corporate interests first.

Either way, though, Ignatieff's wilful omission looks to speak volumes as to whether he can be trusted to take environmental issues seriously. And neither the cause of combatting climate change nor the broader environmental movement figures to be better off if the Libs continue to distort the facts to support their policy plans rather than actually recognizing the problems which need to be solved.

Power to the people

I've dealt with a few of the obvious pitfalls of tying Saskatchewan's future to private nuclear power in a couple of previous posts. But since it can never hurt to look at the effects of similar policy choices elsewhere, let's see what Rafe Mair has to say about the effects of privatized power generation in B.C.:

The Campbell government is issuing water licenses for privately owned power plants on rivers and streams all over B.C., creating power. BC Hydro is compelled by the Campbell government to buy this power at a price that will bring enormous profits for the private producers.

Before the Campbell government took over, BC Hydro, a Crown corporation, produced and distributed 90 per cent of our power requirements, giving B.C. homeowners and industries the lowest power costs in North America.

When BC Hydro made money it went to the government as dividends providing money for schools, hospitals and the like. Under the Campbell government plan, we will pay amongst the highest costs in North America and all the profits will go to shareholders, most of whom don't even live here. Not only is this a license to print money, but the rivers and streams will be badly abused, fish will be at great risk, roads will be built and transmission lines erected and the wilderness will no longer be a wilderness.

These private companies aren't competing in the market place -- they are private monopolies on the dole, big time, from taxpayers' money.

While the type of power generation rumoured for Saskatchewan may be different, the likely results would be substantially the same: less accountability for how power is generated, less Crown revenue streams to fund the province's social priorities, and inflated prices to the government's industry cronies borne by the province as a whole. Which can only add Saskatchewan residents concerned about any of those issues to the list of citizens with strong reasons to oppose any private intrusion onto SaskPower's territory.