Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Bandy Lee discusses the need to treat inequality as a social disease which calls for immediate treatment:

Residents of countries with higher income inequality have worse health, not just of the poor but of the rich (Subramanian and Kawachi, 2006). Greater income inequality is also associated higher levels of mental illness (Burns, Tomita, and Kapadia, 2014); murder and assault (Hsieh and Pugh, 1993); obesity and obesity-related death (Pickett, 2005); as well as drug abuse, teenage pregnancy, racism, incarceration, and a number of other societal problems (Wilkinson and Pickett, 2009). Such countries also have more sociopolitical instability in the form of assassinations, coups, and riots (Alesina and Perotti, 1996); worse institutions in terms of less efficient governments, higher regulatory burdens, and weaker rule of law (Easterly, 2007); and more corruption (Jong-Sung and Khagram, 2005). The wealthy have stronger motivations to minimize redistribution while at the same time having more power to influence institutions, given the relatively higher share of their resources (Buttrick and Oishi, 2017).

Economic inequality may further put the world at risk of both environmental and nuclear harm. Taming the planet’s climate or reducing nuclear weapons requires trust and cooperation, but these are difficult in the setting of economic inequality and exploitation. Income and wealth gaps accelerate the environmental crisis (Martinez-Alier, 2002), with increasing local and global conflicts over the sharing of the burdens of pollution and access to natural resources. Previous failures to reach consensus in climate summits have been attributed to, among other factors, conflicting policies of rich and poor countries, which disagree on the implementation of mitigation measures (Vasconcelos, Santos, Pacheco, and Levin, 2014). When there is greater income and wealth inequality between nations, there is an erosion of trust due to the ensuing social and cultural differences, and greater perceived need for military defense, including nuclear weapons for nations that can afford them.

Social and economic inequality is linked to disease, death, and other forms of harm. To better understand these societal ills, we must look at inequality as a disorder in itself.

- And Sanjutka Paul examines how a bias toward top-down, property-based decision-making has systematically stacked the deck against workers, particularly in service-based sectors.

- The Trade Justice Network rightly criticizes the Libs for abandoning the concept of progressive trade by implementing the TPP. And Nicholas Caivano and Richard Elliott argue that if Justin Trudeau is going to give in on anything to renegotiate NAFTA (however unnecessary that may be), we should expect him to defend fair drug prices rather than fighting to protect corporate-friendly arbitration structures.

- Karina Roman points out that the Libs' privatized Infrastructure Bank is sucking up millions of public dollars without apparently accomplishing anything.

- Finally, Stephanie Taylor reports that SaskPower is backing away from plans to relocate operations to the Global Transportation Hub - but that the public is already on the hook for the land purchased as part of the previous attempt to portray the GTH as something other than an utter failure. And Adriana Christenson reports on the Saskatchewan Party's hidden selloff of SaskEnergy gas plants.

Saturday Afternoon Links

This and that for your weekend reading.

- Dave Coles comments on Brad Wall's attempts to erase a century's worth of gains when it comes to labour rights, but recognizes that we instead have an opportunity to again lead the way toward social progress:

During this moment of relative prosperity in the province, Saskatchewan is perfectly placed to once again lead the way towards greater equality for families, youth, seniors and all members of our communities. Rather than moving backwards, this overhauling of labour legislation should be a moment to advance workers' rights.

How about making Saskatchewan the first province to bring its minimum wage up to the poverty line and to tie it to a cost of living allowance? Or why not make Saskatchewan the first jurisdiction in North America to reduce the work week to 35 hours? Even better, the new labour code should entrench the idea that all workers deserve collective bargaining rights and a say over workplace decisions?

Short-sighted people will say "this can't be done, business won't survive". But, those same people argued that universal health coverage wasn't feasible. On the fiftieth anniversary of Medicare, Canadians across the country are thanking Saskatchewan for proving otherwise.

- Meanwhile, Bruce Johnstone points out the utility sector as another area where Saskatchewan's commitment to functional public services rather than blind faith in markets has paid off handsomely compared to chaos faced by Alberta:

Saskatchewan energy prices are competitive with, or lower than, those in Alberta. What about security of supply?

You may have heard about the rolling blackouts that hit Alberta last week. Four coal-burning power plants went down without warning last Monday, and backup natural gas-fired generation wasn't sufficient to make up the difference. With a fifth coal plant already out of commission, the province was caught 1,200 megawatts short, causing power outages in Calgary and Edmonton.

This is the second major supply shortfall to hit the province in last 10 years, which is two too many for most Albertans. Meanwhile, Saskatchewan has been coping with its usual spate of local power outages due to storm damage, but nothing like the rolling blackouts that Alberta had to implement to prevent the entire power grid from crashing.
...

This is not to say that our more regulated energy system is perfect, But when you look like the track record of our energy Crowns, SaskPower and SaskEnergy , they've been able to provide more reliable service at relatively low cost compared with our bigger, wealthier, deregulated sister province to the west.

- The Canadian Press and Dr. Dawg both discuss Carleton University's willingness to trade off any semblance of academic freedom to an oil magnate in exchange for a multi-million donation.

- Finally, I generally see Elections Canada as deserving the benefit of the doubt when it comes to its choices in how to enforce the law. But as Saskboy notes, the sheer absurdity of its refusing to enforce rules against foreign electoral interference because the perpetrators aren't in Canada to be investigated looks like a rather worrisome sign.

Saskatchewan NDP 2010 Resolutions - Affordable Warmth Benefit

Let's fit in one more of the resolutions for discussion this weekend, this time an idea to help mitigate against the costs of one of the more obvious costs of Saskatchewan living:

SD1. BE IT RESOLVED that a New Democrat government would create a two
part Seniors’ Affordable Warmth Benefit. The first part would be a universal benefit paid to all seniors during the months requiring heating designed to cover a significant portion of heating costs for senior households. The second part would be an income-tested benefit paid to low-income seniors during the months requiring heating designed to cover the remainder of heating costs for low-income senior households.
- University of Saskatchewan Young New Democrats

Now, I'm not sure that a standalone payment would be my first choice of policies to deal with affordable heating - as targeted funding for actual heating measures (particularly environmentally-friendly ones which may reduce future costs) would seem to promise more return on the province's investment. But it's definitely worth discussing what the province can do to lower the basic cost of living - and the resolution looks to make for a good starting point.

A chance to be heard

For anybody interested in appearing before the Standing Committee on Crown and Central Agencies to talk about Saskatchewan's energy strategy, the witness guide is here (warning: PDF), and the deadline to let the committee know you're interested in speaking at the round of hearings from the 6th to the 19th is noon today. So now would be the time to make a request if you haven't already.

Unfortunately, the process doesn't provide any guarantee that any particular witness will be heard by the committee, which will put together its own witness list based on the requests it receives. But this still looks to be one of the few ways in which the Wall government will ever hear from anybody outside its corporate bubble - so I'll encourage anybody interested to make that known.

On underlying assumptions

Shorter Bruce Johnstone:

The idea of having SaskEnergy own natural gas reserves is an interesting one. But if we can accept as articles of faith that Crown corporations (a) shouldn't try to act in the public interest and (b) will fail miserably at anything they attempt in contrast to the infallible private sector, then I'm sure we can agree to dispense with it.

On interventions

Naturally, yesterday's revelations about how the Sask Party may have driven up energy bills through political interference in SaskEnergy can't pass without comment. But it's far too soon to say for sure exactly what may or may not have happened in terms of Sask Party intervention. So let's stick to two points which would seem to be beyond dispute: first, the decision which was actually made by SaskEnergy, and second, Dwain Lingenfelter's choice to make the issue public.

Here's what apparently happened with SaskEnergy's supply contracts:

Lingenfelter said the Crown corporation’s decision to lock in a majority of its gas supply last summer when natural gas prices were at an historic high had cost ratepayers $55 million in comparison to spot prices as natural gas costs have tumbled.

And the former deputy premier alleged that the move was made against the advice of SaskEnergy officials at the behest of Crown Investments Corp. (CIC) vice-president Iain Harry, a former communications director of the Saskatchewan Party Opposition and former special adviser to Wall as premier.
...
SaskEnergy rates of $8.51 a gigajoule since Oct. 1 have been generally higher than the market price for natural gas — currently around $4.50 a gigajoule — but Cheveldayoff said that was a circumstance of timing.

“What happened last year was that we had very high prices in the middle of summer. SaskEnergy traditionally hedges in the middle of summer and it was looking like prices would continue to rise at that time,” said Cheveldayoff...

What stands out to me about SaskEnergy's decision isn't the question of whether there was any political interference in the actual hedging, but instead the fact that it relies on a complete disconnect between SaskEnergy's interests and those of the province.

After all, it's well known that increased oil and gas prices had boosted the province's coffers to the point where Wall and his party didn't even know what to do with all the money at their disposal. So it would seem to have been a relatively easy matter for the province to coordinate with SaskEnergy to ensure that increases in market prices didn't have to be passed along to Saskatchewan residents who couldn't afford them.

But then, keeping utility rates affordable is apparently seen as part of the NDP's brand rather than the Sask Party's. Which means that SaskEnergy instead saw a need to enter into a hedging transaction which led to a twisted set of risks and rewards for the province at large.

If prices had indeed kept going up, then the hedging would have provided a benefit at the least useful time possible, adding more money to the pile which the Sask Party still hadn't figured out how to deal with. But instead, the precipitous drop in prices meant that SaskEnergy took a loss from the hedging transaction just as Saskatchewan's economy slowed down and the provincial balance sheet started to look precarious again.

In other words, while the early purchases may have been seen as mitigating risks within SaskEnergy as a distinct entity, they also served as a risk amplifier for the province as a whole. And the fact that Saskatchewan citizens are seeing the downside of that move should offer a reminder of the dangers of a view that detaches our Crowns from the best interests of the province generally.

Turning to how Lingenfelter's announcement will affect the leadership race, I'd draw two main points from the intervention - one a significant positive, the other less so.

On the plus side, Lingenfelter is apparently avoiding the usual front-runner's trap of simply trying to keep his head down and coast to the finish line. Instead, he seems to be entirely willing to take some political risks - which in turn should make the race more lively and more likely to find its way into the public consciousness.

The flip side, though, is that it may be a concern that Lingenfelter's first major public presentation since his competitors entered the race was aimed at criticizing procedure by the Wall government, rather than drawing any principled lines in either the leadership race or the wider political scene. While there can't be much doubt that all of the contestants will get their shots in at the Sask Party, the NDP ultimately needs more of a unifying vision than "tear down that Wall" - and if Lingenfelter plans to focus his efforts in the leadership race on opposition rather than party development, that figures to hurt both his chances in the race and the party's chances of renewal.

(Edit: fixed typo.)