McQuail entered the campaign with the lowest profile in the field, but his bona fides as a voice for rural environmentalism were clear from the jump.
What We’ve Learned
While McQuail has stayed within his expected lane, he hasn’t done much to move beyond it (again aside from the laudable mutual aid between his campaign and Tanille Johnston’s).
What He’s Proposing
For all the environmental messages in the campaign, McQuail stands out in emphasizing community-level projects which work within planetary limitations, rather than high-speed rail lines and national Crown corporations. And while I’d think both deserve discussion, the former seems to have particular potential to reach communities who don’t tend to be prioritized first for megaprojects.
What to Watch For
McQuail doesn’t appear likely to last past a first ballot. But his supporters could still be key in determining the outcome of the leadership race, while his ideas and organizing principles are worth including in the NDP’s future plans.
- Jo Lauder, Tyne Logan, Fran Rimrod, Alex Lim and Stacy Gougoulis discuss how a largely-forgotten 2009 heat wave is the deadliest natural disaster in Australia's recent history - and how the climate breakdown is threatening to undermine the work done since then to protect people from extreme heat.
- Hadrian Mertins-Kirkwood points out that Donald Trump's plans to push increased American fossil fuel extraction may make Canadian production into a money-loser even faster than anticipated. Mitch Anderson reports on CAPP president Lisa Baiton's abandonment of any pretense that Canada's oil sector will ever contribute to even net-zero emissions. But Robert Tuttle reports that an abject refusal to be part of any solution isn't stopping Imperial Oil from demanding tens of billions of public dollars for a carbon capture scheme.
- Oliver Milman reports on the U.S. climate scientists facing the reality of a denialist federal government. Ned Resnikoff writes that there's no reason to pretend the Republicans' plans to trash the any trace of a functional state will be anything but destructive to the general public. And Denny Carter discusses how people have been trained to think of any regulation as undesirable - while being open to recognizing the protectie function that regulations are intended to serve.
- Nora Loreto points out that the austerity pushed by parties who rely largely on rural voters is responsible for the erosion of smaller communites.
- Zoe Williams writes about the realities of life in the midst of a "quad-demic" even as most people operate in utter denial. Devi Sridhar discusses the particularly acute danger of a bird flu pandemic based on the foreseeable mutation of strains which have already been detected. And C. Alfaro et al. examine how it's possible to detect aerosolized COVID-19 - and how care homes and healthcare settings have the most dangerous concentrations.
- Finally, Edward Zitron discusses the corporate enshittification of everything, as the software systems underlying an increasingly large proportion of human activity become perpetually more focused on extracting profits at the expense of people.
- Noah Smith examines how even leaving aside such trifling considerations as human welfare, it's a better economic proposition to provide money to people with less money than those with more. And Matt McGrath highlights
how any hope of averting a climate breakdown requires that the
wealthiest people on the planet eliminate some of the extravagant
emissions from their lifestyles.
- But Umair Haque points out how far too many decisions are made by and for remorseless and malicious idiots (in the original sense of the term).
- On that front, Tavia Grant and Kelly Grant note that whatever Ontario is calling a "lockdown" is designed to do nothing to stop the spread of COVID-19 in workplaces which have frequently been the sources of outbreaks. And Jenny Kwan and Daniel Blaikie call for the Libs to avoid damaging clawbacks on CERB payments.
- Ian Sample reports on the conclusion of the President of the UK's Royal College of Psychiatrists that the coronavirus pandemic will have more severe mental health effects than any event since World War II. And Amanpreet Brar, Lawrence Loh and Basak Yanar highlight the unfairness of temporary low-wage workers being forced to accept the worst stresses and risks while making do with meager incomes.
- Finally, Frank Morris discusses how COVID-19 has exacerbated the exodus of medical professionals from small towns in the U.S. (even in the absence of governments actively driving them away).
Over 40,000 voters went to the polls in the first day of advance voting. But particularly for the many people who haven't yet cast a ballot, here's the latest from Saskatchewan's election campaign.
- Laura Sciarpelletti reports on Elections Saskatchewan's warning that it's facing a shortage of poll workers - making it all the more important that people who have the ability to do so get to the polls early.
- Nicholas Frew reports on the grades provided to Saskatchewan's parties by OUTSaskatoon and Saskatoon Pride - with the NDP ranking at the top, and the Greens just behind. And the Provincial Association of Transition Housing and Services grades the NDP with an A for its plan to deal with interpersonal violence - while lamenting that no other party has bothered to respond.
- Meanwhile, Danielle Chartier discusses the desperate need to strengthen Saskatchewan's mental health care system.
- Murray Mandryk offers somewhat of a reminder of the 2017 Sask Party budget which began their current term in office. But it's worth noting that the well-justified public backlash was based not on Mandryk's deficit-scolding, but based on the callous slashing of services - and as others have pointed out, SaskForward provided an indication of the choices involved:
- Finally, Adrienne Ivey discusses a few of the issues seen as most important to rural Saskatchewan, while pointing out how their impact is felt throughout the province.
- Tom Kibasi examines how the UK Cons' mismanagement - both before and during the COVID-19 pandemic - has resulted in disastrous public health consequences. And Denna Berg and Karin Taylor find that right-wing governments in general have seen far worse outcomes than parties which aren't hostile to the concept of state action in the public interest.
- Bruce Arthur questions Doug Ford's absolute failure to take signs of rapid spread in Ontario seriously, while the Globe and Mail's editorial board notes that a fall wave is somehow catching conservative governments by surprise as it arrives on schedule. And Oliver Moore reports on the additional measures taken by Toronto's city council while the provincial government wastes valuable time.
- May Warren shares stories and suggestions from some of the people who have suffered from the coronavirus. Andre Picard warns against getting complacent about COVID-19 based on recent death numbers which don't reflect the continuing risk from the virus. And Zeynep Tufecki highlights why we should pay more attention to dispersion effects from superspreaders (rather than averages) in planning to mitigate harm.
- Jillian Horton writes that mask wearing is the one free lunch available to us in limiting the spread of COVID-19. And that makes it particularly foolish of Scott Moe and his denialist crowd to be normalizing the anti-social choice to fall short of the bare minimum level of individual responsibility - particularly while refusing to respond adequately through public policy either.
- Finally, Bob Weber reports on new research in the Canadian Medical Associaion Journal showing how income inequality is reflected in health outcomes. Kendall Latimer reports on the Saskatchewan Party's utter refusal to deal with an outbreak of HIV, particularly among Indigenous people. And Moira Wyton discusses how shortages of rural health care impose high costs on people who are often unable to afford them.
- Kate Andrias notes that governments can ensure better jobs for everybody by fostering collective bargaining strength.
- John Favini writes that cooperation is deeply embedded in our biology - contrary to the spin that we naturally seek and require competition.
- Marc Edelman points out how the U.S.' laissez-faire governance has left rural areas in desperate need of development. And Mitchell Anderson writes that Jason Kenney has abandoned rural Alberta by imposing provincial funding cuts, strongarming municipalities into additional policing costs, and telling them never to expect to recover hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes and fees left unpaid by the oil sector.
- Louise Bradley discusses the importance of investing in mental health - and not only through corporate promotional campaigns. And Trish Hennessy offers her take as to how we should discuss the social determinants of mental health.
- Finally, Bill Curry reports that Canada's federal capacity to invest in people has been cut down by more than a billion dollars per year due to additional costs from the Libs' tax baubles.
- Jake Bittle writes about rural homelessness as a seldom-discussed issue which calls out for a strong policy response to ensure the right to housing is met regardless of whether one's community is urban or rural:
While the trigger events that cause homelessness are similar everywhere—foreclosure, unemployment, addiction, illness—small towns have far fewer job opportunities and mental-health resources. And although the housing shortage in rural areas is not as severe as in large cities such as New York City, Seattle, or San Francisco, rural houses are older and more dilapidated on average than urban houses, according to HUD data. As a result, even though the housing crisis left thousands of vacant homes in rural areas, service providers often have trouble finding housing that meets HUD’s standards. This leaves advocates with an uncomfortable choice: Work with the limited resources available in their area, or advise homeless individuals to relocate, which can mean leaving their families and social networks behind.
...
(U)nless the federal government makes an attempt to tackle rural homelessness as a distinct problem, the issue will only worsen. Roman said NAEH helped Congress sketch out a special HUD program to solve rural homelessness, but that Congress never actually gave the department money to set the initiative up. Under President Barack Obama, the department reversed a years long rise in homelessness, and homeless aid is one of the few parts of the HUD budget that the Trump administration has not slashed. Still, Roman says, without a concerted effort to tackle rural America’s “hidden homeless,” the question of shelter in the United States will only be partially answered.
- And Bernie Sanders notes that the gap between the rich and the rest of us applies to agricultural communities, as agribusiness giants are extracting massive profits from increasingly precarious farms.
- Luke Savage discusses how the real working class - as opposed to an all-white male version of the same - receives virtually no attention from the U.S.' media. Andrew Coyne comments on Quebec's blatantly discriminatory Bill 21, and wonders whether Canada's federal politicians will start talking about what can be done at the national level to restrain bigotry at the provincial level. And Salimah Kassam writes about the dangers of white supremacists and the politicians who enable them, while Chauncey DeVega highlights the connection between Donald Trump's campaign appearances and racist violence.
- Pamela Palmater points out how the Libs' budget has once again put off the urgent needs and glaring disparities facing Indigenous women and children.
- Finally, Lana Payne rightly calls out the Cons as being the most faux of feminists - though it's worth noting that their obvious lack of genuine interest in addressing inequality doesn't mean there isn't ample reason to criticize the Libs' track record.
- Yves Engler writes that the Libs' SNC-Lavalin scandal represents a fully expected consequence of a foreign policy based on acquiescing in corruption:
While the media has covered the company’s corruption and lobbying for
a deferred prosecution agreement, they have barely mentioned SNC’s
global importance or influence over Canadian foreign policy. Canada’s
preeminent “disaster capitalist” corporation, SNC has worked on projects
in most countries around the world. From constructing Canada’s Embassy in Haiti to Chinese nuclear centres, to military camps in Afghanistan and pharmaceutical factories in Belgium, the sun never sets on SNC.
...
SNC has been one of the largest corporate recipients of Canadian “aid.”
The company has had entire departments dedicated to applying for
Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), UN and World Bank
funded projects. SNC’s first international contract, in 1963 in India,
was financed by Canadian aid and led to further work in that country. In
the late 1960s the firm was hired to manage CIDA offices in African
countries where Canada had no diplomatic representation. In the late
1980s CIDA contracted
SNC to produce a feasibility study for the Three Gorges Dam, which
displaced more than a million Chinese. During the occupation of
Afghanistan CIDA contracted SNC to carry out its $50 million “signature project” to repair the Dahla dam on the Arghandab River in Kandahar province ($10 million was spent on private security for the dam).
...
Even SNC’s use of bribery has a made-in-Ottawa tint. For years Canada
lagged behind the rest of the G7 countries in criminalizing foreign
bribery. For example, into the early 1990s, Canadian companies were at
liberty to deduct bribes paid to foreign officials from their taxes,
affording them an “advantage
over the Americans”, according to Bernard Lamarre former head of
Lavalin (now SNC Lavalin). In 1991, Bernard, the older brother to SNC
Lavalin’s subsequent head Jacques Lamarre, told Maclean’s that
he always demanded a receipt when paying international bribes. “I make
sure we get a signed invoice,” he said. “And payment is always in the
form of a cheque, not cash, so we can claim it on our income tax!”
...
As the recent scandal demonstrates — and the Financial Post noted years ago — SNC has “considerable lobbying power in Ottawa.” Placing its CEO among the 50 “Top People Influencing Canadian Foreign Policy”, Embassy
magazine described SNC as “one of the country’s most active companies
internationally”, which “works closely with the government.” The
now-defunct weekly concluded, “whoever is heading it is a major player”
in shaping Canadian foreign policy.
And, as it turns out, in shaping the way things are now done at home in Ottawa.
- Brett Christophers points out the UK's massive selloff of public land, while recognizing that the result is the loss not only of common wealth but also of uses tied to public stewardship.
- Vaughn Palmer comments on the finding of a B.C. scientific panel that the province has failed to collect even basic information about the risks posed by an environmentally-destructive and poorly-regulated fracking industry. And Robyn Allan points out why whoever wins power in Alberta's provincial election needs to come to grips with the fact that the tar sands are a declining economic sector.
- Don Pittis writes about the prospect that small communities can serve as centres for technological development in order to avoid the further congestion of urban areas.
- Finally, Corey Robin discusses the need for a challenge to neoliberalism in the economic discipline to address philosophical issues as well as policy choices.
- Tom Parkin calls out the Libs' latest laughable excuse for breaking their promise of electoral reform - being the threat that a party like the one which just held power for 10 years might win a few seats. Andrew Coyne notes that we shouldn't accept Justin Trudeau's bogeyman as an excuse for doing nothing. And Abbas Rana and Derek Abma report that the focus of Lib MPs is to avoid political fallout from their party's betrayal of voters, rather than to try to live up to their commitment.
- Meanwhile, Susan Delacourt sees the electoral reform farce as a prime example of the Libs using a surface consultation process to paper over their basic lack of interest in actually listening to the public.
- Ellen Smirl examines the conservative voting patterns of many rural residents despite their commitment to co-operatives, credit unions and other collective alternatives to domination by the market.
- Conor Dougherty hypothesizes as to how our economy would be different - and fairer - if we didn't rely so heavily on housing as an investment.
- Finally, Carole Cadwalladr interviews Daniel Dennett about the costs of declining co-operation and trust. And Trevor Hancock comments on how increasing inequality eats away at both:
“When inequality becomes too great, the idea of community becomes
impossible”. If you want to create a healthier community, you need to
address this issue head-on.
...
It’s hard to imagine the super-wealthy, or even the wealthy, having
much shared understanding of the situation of their fellow citizens.
This is compounded by the deliberate strategy, coming from the right, of
labelling people as taxpayers rather than citizens. As taxpayers,
people focus on their taxes, and are encouraged to resent paying them;
this makes tax dodging and even tax-evasion socially acceptable.
Yet the whole point about community is a sense of shared identity and
interest. But when the gap between the wealthy and the poor becomes so
great there is no ‘we’, just ‘them’ and ‘us’. And pretty quickly ‘we’
don’t want to pay for ‘their’ children’s education, ‘their’ health care,
‘their’ public transit, roads or pavements.
But citizens, seeing themselves as part of a community, focus on
their shared interests, common purpose and the common good. They
understand, as US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes put it a
century ago, that taxes are the price we pay for civilisation.
Revolution is an understandable response to exclusion and
unacceptable inequality. Arguably, what we have just seen in the US is a
revolution, although in this case a revolution from the right, as was
the case in Germany in the 1930s. But it’s not the best or healthiest
way to change society. Here in Canada, we still have time for evolution
and reform. If we want healthier communities and a healthier society, we
need to embrace that opportunity.
- James Wilt writes that the PR campaign pushing pipelines is based largely on the false claim that the only other choice is to allow even more dangerous means of facilitating the burning of fossil fuels. And David Suzuki argues that the cost of addressing obvious environmental problems including climate change is only increasing as we delay acting on them.
- Jim Stanford notes that an intelligent response from Canada (as opposed to one based solely in free-trade dogma) could secure some advantages out of Donald Trump's expected trade policies.
- The CCPA's latest Monitor examines how tax reform is an essential piece in resolving fundamental economic problems.
- Kevin McKenna points out the efforts of Labour Councillor Matt Kerr to promote a basic income in the UK. And Debora Von Brenk reports on Ontario's move to start a conversation about rural poverty - which would seem to be well worth replicating in Saskatchewan.
- Finally, Doug Cuthand offers what seems to be a needed reminder that Canada's history goes back far beyond the 150-year mark being celebrated at great expense in 2017.
- George Monbiot writes about the absurdity of the right-wing choice to promote inequality in the name of competition among the wealthy when the ultimate results are worse for everybody:
The capture by the executive class of so much wealth performs no
useful function. What the very rich appear to value is relative income.
If executives were all paid 5% of current levels, the competition
between them (a questionable virtue anyway) would be no less fierce. As
the immensely rich HL Hunt commented several decades ago: "Money is just a way of keeping score."
The desire for advancement along this scale appears to be insatiable. In March Forbes magazine published an article about Prince Alwaleed,
who, like other Saudi princes, doubtless owes his fortune to nothing
more than hard work and enterprise. According to one of the prince's
former employees, the Forbes magazine global rich list "is how he wants
the world to judge his success or his stature".
The result is "a
quarter-century of intermittent lobbying, cajoling and threatening when
it comes to his net worth listing". In 2006, the researcher responsible
for calculating his wealth writes, "when Forbes estimated that the
prince was actually worth $7 billion less than he said he was, he called
me at home the day after the list was released, sounding nearly in
tears. 'What do you want?' he pleaded, offering up his private banker in
Switzerland. 'Tell me what you need.'"
Never mind that he has his
own 747, in which he sits on a throne during flights. Never mind that
his "main palace" has 420 rooms. Never mind that he possesses his own
private amusement park and zoo – and, he claims, $700m worth of jewels.
Never mind that he's the richest man in the Arab world,
valued by Forbes at $20bn, and has watched his wealth increase by
$2bn in the past year. None of this is enough. There is no place of
arrival, no happy landing, even in a private jumbo jet. The politics of
envy are never keener than among the very rich.
...
In order to grant the rich these pleasures, the social contract is
reconfigured. The welfare state is dismantled. Essential public services
are cut so that the rich may pay less tax. The public realm is
privatised, the regulations restraining the ultra-wealthy and the
companies they control are abandoned, and Edwardian levels of inequality
are almost fetishised.
...
Can we not rise above this? To seek satisfactions that don't cost the
earth and might be achievable? The principal aim of any wealthy nation
should now be to say: "Enough already".
- Meanwhile, Andrew O'Hagan writes about Margaret Thatcher ultimate legacy in leaving the U.K. a "greedier and seedier place". And Frances Russell points out the futility of a race to the bottom on taxes.
- Haroon Siddiqui and Stephen Gordon discuss the damage the Harper Cons have done to Canada's census. And Jennifer Ditchburn writes that rural Canada will be particularly hard hit by a lack of reportable data to allow for evidence-based policy.
- But then, Jonathon Gatehouse reminds us that Harper is generally eager to make sure that facts don't find their way into public debate - as evidence by his muzzling of federal scientists. And Andrew Coyne notes that the Cons' abhorrence of pure research makes little sense even from the most restrictive of libertarian viewpoints.
As Scott has already noted, Saskatchewan NDP's Swift Current leadership debate included plenty of familar themes:
And indeed, one of the more interesting issues facing both the candidates and the debate organizers is how to account for the difference between an audience which may be seeing the candidates for the first time, and the relationship between the contestants themselves based on regular responses to the same questions. My preference would be to ensure that the candidates face a wider range of questions during the course of the campaign, meaning that the pattern of maybe 2 new questions at each debate falls short of what would be ideal - but there are certainly sound arguments to be made in both directions.
That said, even with the questions largely echoing the previous debates there were once again a few relatively new developments worth pointing out - which I'll cover in a quick candidate-by-candidate review.
Cam Broten's performance wasn't quite as effective in the Swift Current debate as in some of the previous ones - which may be explained in part by his having to carry out double duty between the Legislative Assembly and the debate. But the most noteworthy part of his answers on a couple of questions (those related to revenue and free trade agreements) was a tendency to emphasize an undefined concept of "balance" first, then only afterward point out some of the problems with the Sask Party's current direction.
Of course, few candidates will want to argue for imbalance in those policy areas (nor indeed in any other). But it may be telling that Broten's instinct is to triangulate rather than emphasizing contrasts on issues where there's a strong case to be made that we're a long way from balance by any reasonable measure.
The most noteworthy development in Ryan Meili's performance was his most direct audition yet for the role of leading off question period against Brad Wall. Meili identified an issue of substantial ambiguity in Cam Broten's Saskatoon answer on uranium refining, and pressed Broten to explain why he would treat refining differently from reactor construction (which all candidates have ruled out altogether).
But Meili's style still looks to have some way to go: he's speaking more clearly and effectively in his opening and closing statements, but reverting to a softer, faster pace when answering questions (and still regularly running out of time in his responses). And future debates should tell us whether he'll be able to develop the same habits in speaking off the cuff that he's working on in his prepared speeches.
Erin Weir received the most significant gift of the debate in the form of a question from Trent Wotherspoon. So far, I've found Weir's strategy somewhat surprising: he hasn't entirely pivoted away from lumping all three of his opponents together in order to criticize a lack of focus on short-term costing and legislative priorities, leaving me to question how he'd expect to make up ground in later ballots.
But Wotherspoon positively invited Weir to speak in terms of broader principles rather than short-term proposals - which looks to me to be exactly what his campaign has all too often glossed over. And while Weir's follow-up response drifted back into policy detail, he'll be well served to focus on being able to demonstrate to other candidates' supporters that he can be as effective as anybody in motivating citizens to deal with the underlying principles that have mostly been endorsed by all sides.
Finally, Wotherspoon's own performance was somewhat improved from earlier debates. He was once again tripped up by relatively simple questions of policy detail - one from Weir asking him to choose how to pay for feed-in tariffs, and one from Meili on rural land ownership. But in each case the issue was more tied to a failure to choose among options than difficulty recognizing the choice presented to him. And in general the repetition of questions looks to have assisted Wotherspoon in developing more detailed answers as the debates have progressed.
In closing, I do disagree with Scott's view that the candidates "have all hit their strides", as each looks to me to have room to grow as the campaign continues. But all have certainly built from the first debate to the fourth - and there's ample reason for optimism that the result will be a strong set of choices for NDP members.
There's a common theme to the last few days' developments in the Saskatchewan NDP leadership race. While plenty of the campaigns are doing plenty worth talking about, they may have work to do in making sure interested members understand what's happening.
Perhaps most notably, there's the contrast between Erin Weir's focus as the campaign's resident policy wonk, and the focus of his website.
Weir followed up on his potash royalty policy last week with a similar plan for oil and uranium royalties - again offering a proposal to close loopholes which allow corporations to avoid paying royalties for resources extracted from Saskatchewan. But at least for the moment, you won't find Weir's issues section updated to take either of those policies into account.
In fact, unless you know to look for policy under the "news" section, you may be more likely to stumble onto Weir's blog post trumpeting a minor media gaffe than some of his signature policy ideas.
Similarly, the day before the Cannington NDP's annual general meeting (covered live on Twitter by both Nathaniel Cole and Samantha Twietmeyer and attended by three of the leadership candidates), Cam Broten tweeted a link to his vision statement for rural Saskatchewan. But that single well-timed reminder also makes for a contrast against the updated content of Broten's website - where aside from individual endorsements, very little has been updated or highlighted since his launch.
Finally, Ryan Meili's campaign has an important story to tell about its exercise in citizen participation, and gave it prime front-page real estate - but it's largely burying the lede in the process. Here's the description of Meili's Parking Day event from the front page of his website:
Parking Day is
an “annual worldwide event where artists, designers and citizens
transform metered parking spots into temporary public parks.” Saskatoon’s first Park(ing) Day was
held recently, on September 21st, 2012, with temporary parks set up by a
variety of groups and individuals on Broadway and 20th St W. The
majority of the parks and associated activities were between Avenues B
and C on 20th and in the gravel parking lot where the Barry Hotel once
stood. This block is home to the 220 co-working space, Collective Coffee and the Ryan Meili leadership campaign headquarters at 229 20th St W
And anybody who doesn't choose to "read more" based on that non-specific description will miss what Meili's campaign actually did for the event - including another noteworthy step in making sure that citizens' ideas are included in the leadership campaign:
The most exciting feature of the park for me, however, was a little
white box and a few sheets of paper. We had printed ballots asking
people to, rather than select a candidate, write down their idea for how
we could build a healthier Saskatchewan. This was a great way to start
conversations with people about the political issues of most concern to
them.
As ideas were collected, we’d open up the ballot box once in a while to
post them to the front windows of the office. By the end of the day
there were over 1,000 different ideas posted on topics as varied as
housing, city planning, transportation, the arts and nutrition...
...
Once we had a healthy number of ballots up on the walls, we started
handing park visitors coloured sticker dots that they could use to vote
for their favourite ideas on the wall. Some of the most popular ideas
revolved around building a more bike-, pedestrian- and
wheelchair-friendly city; food security; and affordable housing.
You can view the top ten issues here, or the entire list of Park(ing) Day ideas here.
Lest there be any doubt, there are few better problems to have (or easier ones to fix) than for a campaign to have generated worthwhile content which isn't yet as well-promoted as it might be.
But ultimately, each candidate's most important ideas and initiatives should be readily accessible to voters who may not be willing to dig through multiple directories or vague introductions to find them. And that looks like an area where several leadership campaigns have some room for improvement.
