Sunday Afternoon Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Linda Geddes discusses the problem with people approaching COVID-19 restrictions based on the question of what's permitted (or worse yet what they can get away with), rather than what choices are most likely to limit the spread of the virus.

- Richard Horton writes about the growing expert push for a no-COVID strategy, while Michael Baker and Martin McKee offer 16 reasons for any country to pursue that goal. Lynsey Chutel and Marc Santora point out the need to fight the pandemic everywhere for anybody to be safe from future spread and newer, more dangerous variants. May Warren wonders what ever happened to contact tracing as part of the plan to control community spread in far too much of Canada, while the Globe and Mail's editorial board laments the failure to use rapid testing as one means of identifying potential sources of transmission before symptoms have appeared. And Winnie Byanyima argues that it's unconscionable for vaccines developed largely at public expense to be turned into corporate profit centres at the expense of universal availability as a public good, while Reshma Ramachandran and Zoey Thill take note of the rhetorical sleight of hand involved in associating vaccines with pharmaceutical companies rather than public sources of research and support.

- Meanwhile, Scott Gilmore discusses how Canada's national response to the coronavirus ranks among the world's worst. Andre Picard notes that the latest federal announcements involving limitations on some type of travel figure to offer far more in terms of symbolism than substantial outcomes. Mike Blanchfield reports on the growing recognition that we need domestic vaccine production capacity. And Charles Shaver highlights the importance of paid sick leave, particularly for people working to keep the public healthy.

- AFP reports on Argentina's implementation of a wealth tax to help fund coronavirus relief. And Christian Paas-Laing interviews Miles Corak about the need to do more to rein in wealth inequality - including the fact that Chrystia Freeland earned much of her public reputation documenting and (at least implicitly) recognizing the need for greater equity which her government is choosing not to pursue.

- Finally, Zarah Sultana discusses how big money distorts the U.S.' political system beyond any reasonable definition of the term "democracy". And Umair Haque writes about the dangers of being satisfied with a return to the same normal which produced the rise of Trumpian fascism to begin with.

Monday Afternoon Links

 Assorted content to start your week.

- Scott Gilmore discusses how our elected leaders have failed us in responding to COVID-19. Shannon Devine offers a warning to the Ford PCs about their insistence in putting workers' lives and health at risk in the midst of a pandemic. And Christy Somos reports on a new survey showing that over two-thirds of Canadians support the ability to bar unvaccinated people from business premises.

- The Globe and Mail's editorial board highlights how the Atlantic provinces were able to contain the spread of COVID-19. And Caitjan Gainty and Agnes Arnold-Forster note that vaccines alone don't generally eradicate a disease in the absence of exactly the types of public health measures which have done the most to limit the spread of the coronavirus before a vaccine was available.

- Falice Chin examines Canada's worrisome literacy gaps - with one in six adults lacking even basic literacy skills, and fully half having difficulty processing complex texts in a world governed by them.  

- Lucas Edmond writes about the need for direct action to confront the attacks on labour by Brian Pallister (a point which of course applies to his ideological soulmates elsewhere as well).

- Finally, Noah Smith discusses how the vast majority of the economic profession has come to reject the corporatist dogma that higher minimum wages lead to meaningful job losses.

On jurisdictional barriers

Scott Gilmore rightly points out the need for a far more clear national response to COVID-19. But I'd think we can expand on the point with reference to a couple of other familiar jurisdictional disputes - even as those also highlight which provincial governments need to be called out as obstructing effective federalism.

First, we can treat the pandemic as reflecting a Canada-wide version of the type of jurisdictional finger-pointing which finally gave rise to Jordan's principle. 

In the case of First Nations children, the federal government eventually (if far too late) recognized that the appropriate sequence of action was to ensure that necessary services weren't denied to children simply because provincial and federal governments disagreed as to who might be responsible to pay for them. And there shouldn't be any doubt that's the fairest way to approach individual requests for service.

But the need is all the more compelling when the dispute involves measures to control the spread of a highly contagious virus. In the case of COVID-19, the entire country stands to lose out from insufficient public protection. And as Gilmore notes, the proper response from the federal government should be to ensure standards are in place, not to step aside and let irresponsible premiers choose death for their provinces.

That said, I'd think there is room for a bit more flexibility than would be required in Gilmore's preference to simply impose national standards. And that's where we can draw an analogy to climate change policy - both in what can be done, and what we should avoid.

In principle, the federal government could establish national standards while allowing provinces to apply their own plans - as long as those are equally effective in controlling COVID-19, and compatible with the national system. In that respect, if there are legitimate differences between provinces as to the restrictions which are seen as appropriate or necessary, those can be considered and given effect through an evidence-based review process.

Of course, the problem is that the petroprovinces have spent years blustering against exactly that type of system when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions; they've shrieked endlessly about the federal carbon tax, while refusing to implement equivalent reductions through any other means when that option has always been available to avoid the application of the federal tax.

COVID-19 might then serve as a immediate and vivid example of the problems with the denialist argument against the carbon tax. The melodramatic pushback against even minimal climate action with a readily-available opt-out provision may well have shaped the federal government's choices in response to what seems to be incontrovertibly considered an emergency beyond the scope of a single jurisdiction. 

But if that's the case, we should be looking to the federal government to push back even harder when the risk of inaction is so immediate, not to accept the argument as applied to a fast-moving calamity. And if the federal government can succeed in controlling the spread of COVID-19 where Jason Kenney, Scott Moe, Brian Pallister and Doug Ford are obviously failing, that should lay the groundwork for more effective national action elsewhere as well.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Scott Gilmore wonders whether we'll use the lessons of COVID-19 to set up our own "tsunami stones" to prevent future crises. But Tom McCarthy notes that the U.S. - thanks largely to an administration that has gone out of its way to avoid acting based on scientific information - is first set to be swamped by a second wave. 

- Sussanne Skidmore discusses the win-win outcomes that result when workers have access to paid sick leave.

- Nick Pettigrew writes about the life of an UK "antisocial behaviour officer" in a system designed to restrict access to the resources people need to live healthy lives.

- David Shukman writes about the impending threat that our climate breakdown could render summers too hot for humans. And Rakteem Katakey reports on Shell's announcement that it's fine with the UK imposing an outright ban on new gasoline-powered vehicles by 2030 - signalling the utter folly in building pipelines with no purpose other than to keep pushing oil into a nonexistent market for decades beyond that time.

- But Arthur White-Crummey reports that even as Scott Moe throws every nickel that isn't tied down at extractive fuel sectors, the Saskatchewan Party has destroyed the residential solar energy industry which represents the future of energy in the province. 

- Finally, Stephen Maher discusses how the RCMP may be broken (or obsolete) beyond repair. And Doug Cuthand highlights the need to make recompense for a history which was intended to exclude Indigenous people (and other minorities) from full involvement in Canadian life.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Joseph Stiglitz writes about the need to cultivate solidarity as an alternative to neoliberal selfishness. And Chuck Collins reminds us how the very existence of billionaires represents both a profound failure of public policy, and a cause of distortions at the whims of those who have far too much.

- Meanwhile, Pete Evans reports on the failure of a bond system to provide any effective response to the coronavirus. And Patrick Condon discusses how the influence of the financial sector is making housing unaffordable.

- PressProgress highlights the connections between Ford PC insiders and a (thankfully unsuccessful) smear campaign against Ontario teachers.

- Finally, Ralph Surette points out the inevitability that we can't go on subsidizing dirty and inefficient tar sands projects. Scott Gilmore writes that contrary to the spin from the right, the only people betraying Albertans are the fossil fuel fanatics who refuse to tell the truth about the need for a transition to clean energy. And David Climenhaga discusses the laughable Buffalo Declaration as just the latest round of faux victimhood.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Scott Gilmore writes about the glaring need for Canada's politicians to show more capacity for shame - through it's worth noting both a global pattern to the same effect, and the dangers of trying to draw "both-sides" equivalency (as Gilmore does) in circumstances where the problem is asymmetrical.

- Carrie Tait reports on Jason Kenney's foisting of additional policing costs on municipalities which are already suffering from the UCP's cutbacks elsewhere. And Jennifer Hamilton writes about the UCP's gross neglect of Alberta's social and infrastructure needs as it tries to wring out every possible cent for its corporate benefactors.

- Samantha Beattie points out how little progress Canada has made on the climate change front over the past decade. Cynthia Banham rightly argues that we can't accept politics as usual in response to environmental threats to our ability even to sleep or breathe. Joelle Gergis writes that we're seeing the most dire scientific predictions come true as our climate breaks down, while Linden Ashcroft notes that the panic in Mallacoota is merely what we can expect in the future. And Mike Foley discusses how Australia's wildfires are only amplifying the damage by releasing far more carbon pollution.

- Meanwhile, Jay Greene reports on Amazon's threats against employees who dare to question its contribution to the climate crisis.

- Finally, the Globe and Mail's editorial board highlights the reality that Canada can't expect added population in its already-congested urban centres to rely on car culture for transportation. And Mario Canseco discusses new polling showing strong support in B.C. for the province's speculation tax which turns secondary and/or investment properties into funding for improved housing.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Justin Fox writes that there are plenty of options available to push for the wealthiest few to pay their fair share toward a functional and compassionate society. And Christine Berry discusses the need for a progressive plan of attack to fundamentally restructure our economy to serve the interests of people rather than plutocrats.

- Meanwhile, Thomas Walkom suggests that Doug Ford's backpedaling should include revisiting his attacks on Ontario workers. Both David Climenhaga and Graham Thomson point out some of the glaring flaws in Jason Kenney's attempt to maximize the pain inflicted on public sector workers in Alberta. And Steven Greenhouse theorizes that the success of a widespread GM strike may encourage more collective action by workers.

- Michael Harris writes that it's obvious why Andrew Scheer should be done as the Cons' leader - but far less clear whether the Cons will actually be interested in avoiding the same problems in choosing a replacement. And Peter Loewen and Michael Bernstein note that the Con's refusal to offer any viable climate policy may have been a major factor in their election loss.

- Finally, Scott Gilmore rightly questions whether it makes sense for Canada to be deepening its dependence on the U.S. when its administration has proven to be both capricious and incompetent around the globe.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Scott Gilmore discusses how Canada is actually backsliding in some crucial development goals. And Colin Gordon writes about the inequality growing on multiple fronts around the globe.

- Kathy Tomlinson uncovers a Vancouver real estate market rigged to benefit developers and speculators. And Ryan Cooper points out the importance of a meaningful social housing policy to ensure that development can benefit the people who actually need a home:

Upzoning advocates argue that if we simply went on a wild private building spree, we'd eventually burn through all the luxury demand and actually reduce the price of midrange and affordable units (as opposed to only slowing the rate of increase). But that could take easily take decades, if it even works at all.

Great big new social housing projects, by contrast — say, one million in California for starters — are a way to efficiently cram in tons and tons of housing supply directly where it is most socially necessary, not where it is most profitable. And unlike traditional American-style public housing which is means-tested for poor people only, social housing could be largely self-funding by including many tenants paying market or somewhat subsidized rents (though a good fraction would be reserved for poor and working-class people, of course). That would have the side benefit of making projects socioeconomically integrated, not poor-only ghettos.
...
(B)ackers should abandon the neoliberal frame of this being a simple issue of free markets versus government over-regulation. Jonathan Chait, for instance, argues that while there may be complex sub-details, at bottom the housing crisis is explained by an "Econ 101 model of supply and demand." Gentrification is simply caused by "artificially constricted housing supply," and California progressives simply will have to choke down de-regulation and working with private developers if they want to solve the housing crisis. (It's a mark of how influential this frame is that both climate writer David Roberts and leftist Hamilton Nolan present the issue in much the same way.)

As we have seen, this is a terribly mistaken way of thinking about the issue. Neoliberal thinking is not just a highly sub-optimal way of addressing the problem, it is big source of the problem in the first place. NIMBY politics are bad, and often quite racist, but they are also in large part a natural outgrowth of the way the American housing market is structured. A great deal of NIMBYism is simply being a good capitalist by defending the value of one's major asset. (This raises the question of why so much American housing policy is dedicated to helping upper-middle class people put their money into a highly-leveraged, highly-illiquid speculative investment, but that's a subject for another post.)

Incoherent Republican-style notions about deregulation and the markets will be most convincing to the people dead-set against solving the housing crisis at all. Granting the reality that the state is inextricably part of all decisions about the ownership of property is more accurate, allows for better policies, and can then help create an anti-NIMBY coalition that might actually win.

- But if we needed another example of the Libs going in the opposite direction, Brent Patterson weighs in on their plans to turn public services into financial profit centres.

- Finally, Anna Mehler Paperny reports that Justin Trudeau has been trying to rewrite Canada's safe third country agreement with the U.S. - not to protect asylum seekers being denied a fair hearing under the Trump administration, but to further restrict when they're able to apply to be safe in Canada. And Brendan Kennedy and Michelle Shepard discuss how Canada is providing minimal aid to victims of war in Yemen while simultaneously arming the countries responsible.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Robert Jago comments on an all-white jury's acquittal of Gerald Stanley for the shooting death of Colten Boushie. Shree Paradkar notes that the issue of non-representative juries is far from a new one. Scott Gilmore recognizes that Boushie's death and its aftermath are just one more story in a far-too-long history of denying fairness and equality to Indigenous peoples, while Doug Cuthand also notes the social factors behind the tragedy. And Kyle Edwards writes that Stanley's verdict will only stoke distrust of the criminal justice system and government generally, while Dr. Dawg argues that it should lead us to push for reconciliation with far greater urgency.

- Sophia Harris writes about the raiding of Sears employees' pensions to enrich executive and shareholders - featuring the farce of the same shareholder whose control sucked the company dry somehow cared about nothing more than it it staying viable.

- John Atcheson points out how the U.S. stands to pay a steep price for an infrastructure scheme designed mostly to enrich wealthy investors. And Drew McMillin notes that Ontario's highways may not be maintained this winter due to the province's reliance on the collapsed Carillion to service them.

- Toby Helm reports on UK Labour's long-overdue push to bring public services back under public ownership. And Rob Merrick reports on Jeremy Corbyn's plans for a renewable energy revolution.

- Finally, Becky Bond, Adam Klug and Emma Rees discuss the hope of building a progressive movement in Canada comparable to the ones which have rallied behind Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders.

New column day

Here, on the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal's decision (PDF) finding that the failure to provide equal child services for First Nations is a human rights breach which requires federal action at law - rather than merely a moral failure which has too often been ignored.

For further reading...
- CBC reports on the decision, while Neil Macdonald places it in some context. 
- Tim Harper goes into more detail as to the history of discrimination given wider exposure by the decision. And I'll point again to Murray Mandryk's take on the lack of social resources facing La Loche and other communities.
- But in case we needed immediate evidence that a finding of discrimination will still leave plenty of people to be convinced that there's any problem to be solved, Jen Gerson belittles the decision and apparently the concept of human rights tribunals in general. And Scott Gilmore argues that the only solution is to push the residents of remote communities out of their homes, rather than making any effort to build healthy lives where they already live.

On decision points

I've previously challenged any attempt to pressure Thomas Mulcair to abandon the NDP's leadership. And I'll take a moment do so the same in response to Scott Gilmore's admonition to Elizabeth May.

As in the case of every party, the Greens should have every reason to evaluate whether they're achieving their goals. But there's no reason why getting rid of a current leader should be seen as either necessary or sufficient as a means of improving a party's standing.

And as the Greens decide what to do, May's track record is one which offers plenty of fodder for discussion on either side.

My personal impression is that May and her party spend an inordinate amount of time lobbying other parties and the media for debate positions and other attention, rather than building the type of broader popular support which would make exclusion impossible. And there's reason for question about results as well as strategy given the Greens' fading vote shares.

But the reality is that May is the only Green candidate to manage to get elected to Parliament (providing the party with resources it never would have had otherwise), and has done important work while she's been there. And more importantly, the upcoming Parliament offers her first chance to try to advocate for issues like environmental action and proportional representation before a government which isn't actively hostile to them.

In sum, there's a strong case to be made that May deserves the opportunity to show what she can do in a political climate which isn't defined by Stephen Harper. And it should be for her and her party to decide whether she's achieving more than a potential replacement could - not for outsiders to try to push her away.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- The Equality Trust reminds us that economic inequality leads to harmful health consequences even for the lucky few at the top of the income scale. And Matt Bruenig observes that a basic income would provide workers with far more scope to avoid employer abuses and other stressors.

- The Council of Canadians points out how the Trans-Pacific Partnership could block any path toward a national pharmacare plan and more fair prescription drug prices. And Andy Blatchford highlights the secrecy surrounding the agreement even as it should be the subject of electoral scrutiny.

- Following up on yesterday's column, Andrew Coyne, Naheed Nenshi and Peter Wheeland just a few of the many voices pointing out how appalled Canadians should be by the Cons' attempt to win votes by denying basic rights to minorities. And the Montreal Gazette reports on the expected consequences when politicians decide to start declaring groups to be something less than full participants in society. But BJ Siekerski reports that the Cons are hinting at making matters worse by looking for new areas in which to discriminate, including employment in the public service.

- Meanwhile, Desmond Cole writes that the Cons' Unfair Elections Act likewise strips Canadians of basic rights (in this case the right to vote) without serving any purpose whatsoever.

- Finally, Scott Gilmore points out that people are suffering unconscionable poverty and deprivation daily in an area of federal jurisdiction - and thus calls for leaders and voters alike to pay far more attention to the plight of Canada's First Nations in the election and beyond.