This and that for your Thursday reading.
- Mark Rice-Oxley points out the observations of the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Health as to the stress and mental illness caused by austerity. Robert Booth reports on the recognition that yet another round of giveaways to the rich and clawbacks from everybody else would represent a needless tragedy for the UK. And Frances Ryan discusses the inhumanity involved in a cap on benefits intended to control family sizes for people receiving social benefits.
- Tom Metcalf reports on a call for a wealth tax from multiple American billionaires who recognize that everybody ends up worse off when a wealthy elite isolates itself from the population at large. And Damian Carrington reports on the imminent risk of "climate apartheid" as concentrated wealth is used to shield the main contributors to a climate breakdown from its most severe effects.
- Jeff Berardelli points out the connection between climate change and the increased frequency and severity of heat waves. And Sarah Wesseler discusses how the increased use of air conditioning in response to higher temperatures only stands to exacerbate our climate crisis.
- Lisa Friedman reports on the latest revelations from the longstanding Taylor Energy oil leak, which include the underreporting of the scale of the leak by a factor of a thousand. And George Monbiot reminds us that we shouldn't buy the attempts of Shell and other oil giants to present themselves as planetary saviours when they've been knowingly destroying both our planet and our ability to act collectively to preserve it.
- Finally, Andrew Coyne notes that unelected Senators are again preventing our elected representatives from doing their jobs in passing legislation in the public interest - and this time merely through filibustering rather than any consideration of bills on their merits.
Showing posts with label senate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label senate. Show all posts
Thursday, July 04, 2019
Friday, June 21, 2019
Friday Morning Links
Assorted content to end your week.
- Lawrence Mishel points out that Donald Trump's giveaways to the rich actually resulted in a sharp decline in bonuses paid to workers.
- Robert Plummer reports on the precarity facing lower-income workers in the UK. And John Clapp writes from experience about the catch-22s standing between people and desperately-needed housing in Toronto.
- Gerald Kutney comments on the utter lack of content in the Cons' saw excuse for a climate change plan. Jasper Jolly discusses the role a shift toward electric airplanes will need to play as part of a transition to a sustainable economy. And Nicole Mortarillo writes about Canada's certain role as a haven for refugees driven from newly-uninhabitable areas as our climate crisis worsens.
- Jim Stanford points out a new report from the Conference Board of Canada showing how investment in education pays off many times over - even as right-wing governments across the country slash from students to give to the rich.
- Finally, Cam Holmstrom duly criticizes the Cons' unelected Senators who took it upon themselves to block legislation to implement UNDRIP. And Graham Thomson discusses what Jason Kenney's decision to hand earplugs to his trained seals to avoid even hearing the opposition in Alberta's legislature says about his attitude toward democracy.
- Lawrence Mishel points out that Donald Trump's giveaways to the rich actually resulted in a sharp decline in bonuses paid to workers.
- Robert Plummer reports on the precarity facing lower-income workers in the UK. And John Clapp writes from experience about the catch-22s standing between people and desperately-needed housing in Toronto.
- Gerald Kutney comments on the utter lack of content in the Cons' saw excuse for a climate change plan. Jasper Jolly discusses the role a shift toward electric airplanes will need to play as part of a transition to a sustainable economy. And Nicole Mortarillo writes about Canada's certain role as a haven for refugees driven from newly-uninhabitable areas as our climate crisis worsens.
- Jim Stanford points out a new report from the Conference Board of Canada showing how investment in education pays off many times over - even as right-wing governments across the country slash from students to give to the rich.
- Finally, Cam Holmstrom duly criticizes the Cons' unelected Senators who took it upon themselves to block legislation to implement UNDRIP. And Graham Thomson discusses what Jason Kenney's decision to hand earplugs to his trained seals to avoid even hearing the opposition in Alberta's legislature says about his attitude toward democracy.
Thursday, May 30, 2019
Thursday Morning Links
This and that for your Thursday reading.
- Jeff Stein reports on Bernie Sanders' plans to transfer power from capital to people. And PressProgress highlights the Saskatchewan Party's continued reliance on corporate funding from outside the province.
- Ron Walter recognizes that Scott Moe's carbon tax posturing is purely a matter of politics rather than any rational policy. Luke O'Neil reports on the Trump administration's push to take carbon cultism to new depths. And Kim Phillips-Fein points out how discussion of the Green New Deal in the U.S. has been met with reactionary Republican rhetoric at its worst.
- Meanwhile, both S. Clay Steell and Emma Jackson and Paige Gorsak make the case for a Green New Deal as a necessary alternative to continued petro-politics in Alberta.
- Brendan Frank writes that any talk about "innovation" in reducing greenhouse gas emissions is utterly meaningless in the absence of meaningful targets to pursue. And Richard Perez and Karl Rabago suggest that the path toward a full transition to renewable energy involves overbuilding renewable generation rather than relying more than necessary on storage.
- Finally, Gloria Galloway reports on the obstruction by Conservative senators against the effective implementation of Indigenous rights in Canada - which of course says far more about the Cons' real attitude toward minority groups than Andrew Scheer's empty words.
- Jeff Stein reports on Bernie Sanders' plans to transfer power from capital to people. And PressProgress highlights the Saskatchewan Party's continued reliance on corporate funding from outside the province.
- Ron Walter recognizes that Scott Moe's carbon tax posturing is purely a matter of politics rather than any rational policy. Luke O'Neil reports on the Trump administration's push to take carbon cultism to new depths. And Kim Phillips-Fein points out how discussion of the Green New Deal in the U.S. has been met with reactionary Republican rhetoric at its worst.
- Meanwhile, both S. Clay Steell and Emma Jackson and Paige Gorsak make the case for a Green New Deal as a necessary alternative to continued petro-politics in Alberta.
- Brendan Frank writes that any talk about "innovation" in reducing greenhouse gas emissions is utterly meaningless in the absence of meaningful targets to pursue. And Richard Perez and Karl Rabago suggest that the path toward a full transition to renewable energy involves overbuilding renewable generation rather than relying more than necessary on storage.
- Finally, Gloria Galloway reports on the obstruction by Conservative senators against the effective implementation of Indigenous rights in Canada - which of course says far more about the Cons' real attitude toward minority groups than Andrew Scheer's empty words.
Monday, May 27, 2019
Monday Morning Links
Miscellaneous material to start your week.
- CBC examines the obscene corporate subsidies doled out by Canadian governments - with Alberta ranking as the worst offender even as it also takes in less revenue than other provinces. And Jeff Gray reports on the growing gap between Doug Ford's budget promises and the revenue available to keep them - even as he hastily backtracks on a few of his most antisocial cuts.
- Meanwhile, Michael Ungar points out how resilience depends on social supports, rather than being a matter of individual choice or merit as it's so often portrayed.
- Murray Mandryk discusses the Saskatchewan Party's telling refusal to evaluate the effect of its much-criticized "lean" program imposed on the province's health care system - as well as the research confirm that it was an utter waste.
- Stuart Trew highlights how spin about "Good Regulatory Practices" in the new NAFTA serves only to limit the ability of governments to act in the interest of citizens and workers.
- Finally, Andrew Coyne points out that the unelected Senate's interference in bills dealing with preventing oil spills and ensuring effective environmental assessments represents just another instance of obsolete political structures thwarting the will of Canadian voters.
- CBC examines the obscene corporate subsidies doled out by Canadian governments - with Alberta ranking as the worst offender even as it also takes in less revenue than other provinces. And Jeff Gray reports on the growing gap between Doug Ford's budget promises and the revenue available to keep them - even as he hastily backtracks on a few of his most antisocial cuts.
- Meanwhile, Michael Ungar points out how resilience depends on social supports, rather than being a matter of individual choice or merit as it's so often portrayed.
- Murray Mandryk discusses the Saskatchewan Party's telling refusal to evaluate the effect of its much-criticized "lean" program imposed on the province's health care system - as well as the research confirm that it was an utter waste.
- Stuart Trew highlights how spin about "Good Regulatory Practices" in the new NAFTA serves only to limit the ability of governments to act in the interest of citizens and workers.
- Finally, Andrew Coyne points out that the unelected Senate's interference in bills dealing with preventing oil spills and ensuring effective environmental assessments represents just another instance of obsolete political structures thwarting the will of Canadian voters.
Friday, May 17, 2019
Friday Evening Links
Assorted content to end your week.
- PressProgress digs into Statistics Canada's findings about precarious work in Canada, highlighting the connection between temporary work and subpar pay and working conditions:
- Bill McKibben notes that we've wasted any time we had to spare in averting a climate breakdown, and need to start electing leaders committed to immediately dealing with the carbon crisis. Devon Rowcliffe writes about the need for Jagmeet Singh to become the top choice for voters looking for a just transition to a clean energy economy - including by challenging fossil fuel subsidies at the provincial level. And Eliza Barclay and Jag Bhalla offer responses to just a dozen of the most common (and painful) excuses to delay climate action.
- Meanwhile, Jason Warick reports on a study showing the Saskatchewan Party's pitiful record on environmental conservation. John Paul Tasker notes that Andrew Scheer's idea of energy policy is to force through pipelines that even the oil industry doesn't want. And Clare Hennig reports on a Senate committee's decision to ignore the votes of elected officials to try to push oil shipments along the B.C. coast.
- Finally, Adaner Usmani discusses how class struggle is necessary for the preservation of democracy. And Ezra Klein points out the increasing recognition among U.S. Democrats that counterweights to corporate power are essential to both political success and good governance.
- PressProgress digs into Statistics Canada's findings about precarious work in Canada, highlighting the connection between temporary work and subpar pay and working conditions:
According to a report by Statistics Canada, published Tuesday, the percentage of Canadian workers hired on temporary contracts increased from 11.8% in 1998 to 13% in 2018 — faster than the growth of permanent jobs over the last 20 years.- Karl Nerenberg points out how billions of dollars dumped into the criminal justice system would be far better spent improving the social conditions which actually cause crime. And Richard Florida discusses new research showing how children are far less healthy if they face lengthy commutes to school.
Those temporary jobs typically offer lower wages, fewer benefits and lower rates of unionization. Last year, the report notes, temporary employees earned on average $21.80 per hour, while permanent employees earned $27.71 per hour.
...
Data by Statistics Canada indicate that since the federal Liberals took office in 2015, the percentage of temporary workers remained between 13.3% and 13.7%.
But this national trend hasn’t irked the federal government. Back in 2016, Liberal finance minister Bill Morneau said Canadian workers “have to accept” short-term and precarious employment.
However, as McQuarrie wrote in the Globe and Mail: “It’s a mistake to treat this as a norm we have to accept.”
- Bill McKibben notes that we've wasted any time we had to spare in averting a climate breakdown, and need to start electing leaders committed to immediately dealing with the carbon crisis. Devon Rowcliffe writes about the need for Jagmeet Singh to become the top choice for voters looking for a just transition to a clean energy economy - including by challenging fossil fuel subsidies at the provincial level. And Eliza Barclay and Jag Bhalla offer responses to just a dozen of the most common (and painful) excuses to delay climate action.
- Meanwhile, Jason Warick reports on a study showing the Saskatchewan Party's pitiful record on environmental conservation. John Paul Tasker notes that Andrew Scheer's idea of energy policy is to force through pipelines that even the oil industry doesn't want. And Clare Hennig reports on a Senate committee's decision to ignore the votes of elected officials to try to push oil shipments along the B.C. coast.
- Finally, Adaner Usmani discusses how class struggle is necessary for the preservation of democracy. And Ezra Klein points out the increasing recognition among U.S. Democrats that counterweights to corporate power are essential to both political success and good governance.
Wednesday, January 10, 2018
Wednesday Evening Links
Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.
- Gerald Caplan writes about the existential threats to humanity which are being either escalated or ignored:
- Meghan McCabe reports on the plight of Sears employees who have seen their promised pensions disappear due to corporate raiding.
- Finally, Andray Domise highlights Harper Senate appointee Lynn Beyak as an example of how bigotry is passed between generations even in the face of social progress.
- Gerald Caplan writes about the existential threats to humanity which are being either escalated or ignored:
We are rapidly approaching the same kind of escalation that led the world to the Cuban missile crisis of 1962, with humankind on the very brink of nuclear war and nuclear destruction. I still recall it quite vividly. It was a uniquely terrifying moment in the lifetime of the world. Like everyone else, I too kept a sharp eye out for the very latest news to see how long we had left to exist.- Paul Buchheit discusses how inequality in particular is reaching levels which are resulting in the wealthiest few being almost entirely detached from everybody else. David Dayen reminds us that the largest private fortunes in the world are largely the product of capturing public investments. And Christopher Ingraham notes that matters are only projected to get worse absent a major change in course.
If it sounds preposterously melodramatic now, it was real enough then. In the end, we were saved by both sides agreeing to back off. But it took the cool heads of the two most powerful men on earth, U.S. President John F. Kennedy and Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev, to spare us to try again one day.
Has that day now arrived? Surely no one would willingly entrust Mr. Kim and Mr. Trump with the future of humanity, yet neither seems controllable in the slightest. Who knows where their bizarre game of chicken may end up? It's perfectly plausible that one or another may stumble his way into launching the armed missile that would demand immediate retaliation by the other. The consequences, as we all knew back in the Cold War days, would indeed be mutual assured destruction. Who believes Mr. Kim and Mr. Trump can be trusted to choose sanity over nuclear Armageddon?
In any event, there are other roads to doom. For a start: the updating of nuclear weapons, climate wilding and Mr. Trump's America spinning out of control. Take the third: there's no reason to believe that this summer's outbreak of violent anarchy in Charlottesville, Virginia, will be the last. Countless Americans are ready to erupt. It's estimated that hundreds of heavily armed neo-fascist militias threaten to unleash their power, knowing they have an ally in the White House. Both furious African-Americans and frustrated whites have had enough. America feels ripe for its second civil war, which, like the first, would unleash forces that can hardly be imagined. How can any normal sensible person fail to be shaken? I include me.
Frankly, these feel to me like the apocalyptic End Times that the hysterical Old Testament prophets foresaw many millenniums ago. As Mr. Trump has provocatively warned, "fire and fury" are next. Perhaps my dear old Mama understood human nature better than Professor Steven Pinker.
- Meghan McCabe reports on the plight of Sears employees who have seen their promised pensions disappear due to corporate raiding.
- Finally, Andray Domise highlights Harper Senate appointee Lynn Beyak as an example of how bigotry is passed between generations even in the face of social progress.
Friday, June 23, 2017
Friday Morning Links
Assorted content to end your week.
- Patrick Gossage discusses the desperate need for Canadian governments at all levels to take meaningful action to eliminate poverty:
- Meanwhile, Geoff Dembicki highlights a few realities about the real estate sector which go a long way toward explaining the combination of soaring housing costs, rising debt and increasing paper wealth for a lucky few. And Conor Darcy discusses how increased nominal wealth in the UK is doing nothing at all for most citizens - while pointing out how a wealth tax could help to ensure a more fair distribution of gains.
- Don Pittis writes that Canadian wages aren't keeping up with what would be expected in light of a low unemployment rate - while also noting how economic policy aimed at favouring capital over labour has contributed to the gap.
- Finally, CUPE points out the many problems with the Libs' plan to turn large public infrastructure into a private profit centre. And Andrew Coyne writes that subjecting the infrastructure bank to sorely-needed scrutiny would have represented a useful role for the Senate - so naturally, it chose to amend the Libs' budget only on the far less significant issue of liquor tax inflation.
- Patrick Gossage discusses the desperate need for Canadian governments at all levels to take meaningful action to eliminate poverty:
The reality is that low-income Canadians are invisible and lack political clout. In Toronto, they are concentrated in downtown areas close to the gleaming bank towers, in huge clusters of dilapidated rental towers not far from the crosstown expressways, or in pockets of subsidized low-rise units near major intersections. Tens of thousands drive by these areas daily, ignorant of the lives led there. In the nation’s capital, where politicians cook up policies to relieve their plight, Canadians living under the poverty line are totally unseen.- Solomon Israel reports on the Parliamentary Budget Office's new report showing how Canadian consumer debt is skyrocketing. And David MacDonald's study of the issue finds that in an unfortunately first, Canadian individuals and corporations are racking up debt faster than their peers anywhere else in the developed world.
...
At the very sharp end of the poverty issue are youth at risk: those who grew up in poor living conditions, often in single-parent families, who have dropped out of school and have little hope of employment. Governments are notably absent from programs to help them. The myriad of government training programs and assistance for students mean nothing to this cohort, because few graduate from secondary school. They are forgotten.
With no way to make money, many are lured into drug dealing at an early age and join gangs. They are the stuff of sad headlines. A young man who was in one of Dixon Hall’s youth programs went to jail for a minor offence. When he got out, he went home, where he was confronted by a gang member and shot through the screen door. These crimes are seldom solved.
Programs for youth in poor communities are woefully understaffed. Believe me, it’s hard to raise money for them. Society largely gives up on youth at risk, and they are dramatically detached from the much-vaunted programs to solve poverty that politicians brag about.
The volunteer and social service sector is often their only avenue of support and training. It was long ago, under Prime Minister Paul Martin, that Ottawa killed federal support for women’s and youth training programs run by these agencies. It is long past time for governments to take up this role again, and to get serious about relieving the crisis in affordable housing.
As citizens, we must leave our comfortable suburbs or downtown enclaves and find out about the reality of poverty through the agencies that work in poorer neighbourhoods. We must be outspoken advocates for disadvantaged Canadians and insist that our politicians learn first-hand how poor people struggle. Only then will governments stop planning, studying and promising and start acting.
- Meanwhile, Geoff Dembicki highlights a few realities about the real estate sector which go a long way toward explaining the combination of soaring housing costs, rising debt and increasing paper wealth for a lucky few. And Conor Darcy discusses how increased nominal wealth in the UK is doing nothing at all for most citizens - while pointing out how a wealth tax could help to ensure a more fair distribution of gains.
- Don Pittis writes that Canadian wages aren't keeping up with what would be expected in light of a low unemployment rate - while also noting how economic policy aimed at favouring capital over labour has contributed to the gap.
- Finally, CUPE points out the many problems with the Libs' plan to turn large public infrastructure into a private profit centre. And Andrew Coyne writes that subjecting the infrastructure bank to sorely-needed scrutiny would have represented a useful role for the Senate - so naturally, it chose to amend the Libs' budget only on the far less significant issue of liquor tax inflation.
Monday, May 01, 2017
Deep thought
Some people are concerned about the Senate's self-definition as a council of owls seeking to keep less-privileged citizens from governing in their own interests.
But have they considered this might be a perfectly fair description?
But have they considered this might be a perfectly fair description?
Monday, April 24, 2017
Monday Morning Links
Miscellaneous material to start your week.
- Paul Krugman notes that after promising to bring some outside perspective to politics, Donald Trump is instead offering only a warmed-over version of the Republicans' typical voodoo economics. And John Cassidy highlights how Trump's plan appears to be nothing more than to wage class warfare on behalf of the rich.
- Meanwhile, Phillip Inman offers a reminder as to one of the ways in which our economy is already rigged against workers, noting that the cost of child care in the UK in some cases forces families ot effectively pay to work.
- Geoff Leo exposes the terms of the Saskatchewan Party government's land deal with CP - which features the public giving away land for free even as it was overpaying to buy it through Sask Party donors.
- Jason Hammond lists a few of the lessons Elwin Hermanson and the rest of the Saskatchewan Party could learn if they visited a library rather than merely threatening to cut funding. And CKRM highlights the Saskatchewan Urban Municipalities Association's recognition that the Sask Party's contempt for local government is unprecedented.
- Finally, Duncan Cameron points out how Justin Trudeau has followed in Stephen Harper's footsteps with a top-down, PMO-controlled government. And Tom Parkin writes that Trudeau's model for the Senate is managing to prove even more regressive than Harper's version by imposing roadblocks to a government bill intended to facilitate union organization.
- Paul Krugman notes that after promising to bring some outside perspective to politics, Donald Trump is instead offering only a warmed-over version of the Republicans' typical voodoo economics. And John Cassidy highlights how Trump's plan appears to be nothing more than to wage class warfare on behalf of the rich.
- Meanwhile, Phillip Inman offers a reminder as to one of the ways in which our economy is already rigged against workers, noting that the cost of child care in the UK in some cases forces families ot effectively pay to work.
- Geoff Leo exposes the terms of the Saskatchewan Party government's land deal with CP - which features the public giving away land for free even as it was overpaying to buy it through Sask Party donors.
- Jason Hammond lists a few of the lessons Elwin Hermanson and the rest of the Saskatchewan Party could learn if they visited a library rather than merely threatening to cut funding. And CKRM highlights the Saskatchewan Urban Municipalities Association's recognition that the Sask Party's contempt for local government is unprecedented.
- Finally, Duncan Cameron points out how Justin Trudeau has followed in Stephen Harper's footsteps with a top-down, PMO-controlled government. And Tom Parkin writes that Trudeau's model for the Senate is managing to prove even more regressive than Harper's version by imposing roadblocks to a government bill intended to facilitate union organization.
Monday, April 17, 2017
Monday Morning Links
Miscellaneous material to start your week.
- The Star's editorial board writes that it's long past time for governments to stand up for people facing precarious work:
- Helen Ries and Jihan Abbas discuss the poverty traps designed to ensure Ontarians with disabilities can never achieve any personal financial security. And Emily Mathieu writes about a new study on the risk of homelessness among seniors.
- Stefani Langenegger reports on the Saskatchewan Party's unilateral decision to slash funding to community-based organizations with no regard for either health impacts or longer-term costs. And the CP reports on Ryan Meili's call to instead close our existing health gaps by providing proper funding both for health programs and community supports.
- Finally, David Reevely comments on the Trudeau Libs' insistence on keeping in place (or even expanding) every irrational element of the war on drugs while pretending to work on legalizing marijuana.
- The Star's editorial board writes that it's long past time for governments to stand up for people facing precarious work:
(P)recarious workers, many of them millennials, have been largely left behind by legislators who say the shift is inevitable and there’s nothing much that can or ought to be done about it.- Meanwhile, Michael Corkery reports on the disappearance of tens of thousands of jobs in the U.S.' retail sector as another area where workers are losing out. And Bill Curry reports on the Senate combination of Cons, Libs and independents who have teamed up to block workers in federal jurisdiction from organizing.
But the consequences of this complacency are cruel. Two new studies paint bleak portraits of the economic circumstances of young workers and others struggling to get by in the new economy. Together, they suggest that while governments may not want or be able to stop the evolution now underway, they must move quickly to address widening gaps in worker protections, lest the better part of a generation fall through the cracks.
...
Ontario’s current experiment with a basic annual income is a welcome acknowledgement of this need, whether or not it’s the right policy. Ottawa, meanwhile, deserves credit for its investments in affordable housing, though it should reconsider its apparent aversion to universal daycare, pharmacare and dental-services programs, all of which have the power to protect workers from the worst threats of precarity.
The choice between workers and progress is a false one. Of course, governments can’t and shouldn’t want to stop innovation. But neither are they powerless to shape it or to protect workers from its worst consequences.
- Helen Ries and Jihan Abbas discuss the poverty traps designed to ensure Ontarians with disabilities can never achieve any personal financial security. And Emily Mathieu writes about a new study on the risk of homelessness among seniors.
- Stefani Langenegger reports on the Saskatchewan Party's unilateral decision to slash funding to community-based organizations with no regard for either health impacts or longer-term costs. And the CP reports on Ryan Meili's call to instead close our existing health gaps by providing proper funding both for health programs and community supports.
- Finally, David Reevely comments on the Trudeau Libs' insistence on keeping in place (or even expanding) every irrational element of the war on drugs while pretending to work on legalizing marijuana.
Sunday, January 15, 2017
On corruptible structures
Yes, there's no doubt that Kevin O'Leary's suggestion of selling off Senate appointments is nothing short of asinine.
That's not so much because the idea is inherently unconstitutional, but because of its substantive implications. The sale of Senate seats it would involve institutionalizing the worst aspects of the Senate's historical purpose (creating a systemic on behalf of the wealthy against democratic decision-making) and practical use (to reward people based on their ability to shovel money into the political system).
But it's worth noting that the reason O'Leary is in a position to make the proposal at all is the continued existence of a legislative chamber which lacks both a check against abuses in appointments, and any coherent purpose.
At best, any explanation for the continued existence of the Senate (beyond complaints about the difficulty of amending the Constitution) tend to involve the fact that it includes some well-regarded public servants who sometimes use their authority to carry out useful research and analysis of public policy.
But that's a role which precisely the same people could engage in within their own areas of expertise through other structures, without their simultaneously receiving both a lifetime appointment and the ability to generally control the passage of legislation. And so "but sometimes it does good work!" doesn't serve as a particularly compelling argument for the Senate.
Meanwhile, O'Leary's scheme represents a new - yet entirely plausible - worst-case scenario.
To date, the worst the Senate has had to offer is partisanship run amok: appointees whose first and only loyalty is to to the political goals of the Prime Minister, resulting in little check on longstanding governments and potentially insurmountable obstacles to legislative action by new ones, as well as the occasional obstruction of legislation passed by our elected representatives.
But O'Leary looks to be treating the Senate much as Donald Trump views the U.S.' cabinet: a source of substantial formal power without the constraints of democratic processes, which can be parceled out for the benefit of his corporate cronies. And it's frightening to think what could happen if O'Leary were to get his way, as the wealthy few who could afford to bid on seats would be able to secure the formal capacity to block any public policy which sought to serve any interests rather than their own.
Unfortunately, the Senate as it stands is plainly vulnerable to the whims of a Prime Minister who wants to use it for plutocratic ends. And we'd best ask whether that's something we're prepared to leave in place before O'Leary has sold enough seats to block any potential change.
That's not so much because the idea is inherently unconstitutional, but because of its substantive implications. The sale of Senate seats it would involve institutionalizing the worst aspects of the Senate's historical purpose (creating a systemic on behalf of the wealthy against democratic decision-making) and practical use (to reward people based on their ability to shovel money into the political system).
But it's worth noting that the reason O'Leary is in a position to make the proposal at all is the continued existence of a legislative chamber which lacks both a check against abuses in appointments, and any coherent purpose.
At best, any explanation for the continued existence of the Senate (beyond complaints about the difficulty of amending the Constitution) tend to involve the fact that it includes some well-regarded public servants who sometimes use their authority to carry out useful research and analysis of public policy.
But that's a role which precisely the same people could engage in within their own areas of expertise through other structures, without their simultaneously receiving both a lifetime appointment and the ability to generally control the passage of legislation. And so "but sometimes it does good work!" doesn't serve as a particularly compelling argument for the Senate.
Meanwhile, O'Leary's scheme represents a new - yet entirely plausible - worst-case scenario.
To date, the worst the Senate has had to offer is partisanship run amok: appointees whose first and only loyalty is to to the political goals of the Prime Minister, resulting in little check on longstanding governments and potentially insurmountable obstacles to legislative action by new ones, as well as the occasional obstruction of legislation passed by our elected representatives.
But O'Leary looks to be treating the Senate much as Donald Trump views the U.S.' cabinet: a source of substantial formal power without the constraints of democratic processes, which can be parceled out for the benefit of his corporate cronies. And it's frightening to think what could happen if O'Leary were to get his way, as the wealthy few who could afford to bid on seats would be able to secure the formal capacity to block any public policy which sought to serve any interests rather than their own.
Unfortunately, the Senate as it stands is plainly vulnerable to the whims of a Prime Minister who wants to use it for plutocratic ends. And we'd best ask whether that's something we're prepared to leave in place before O'Leary has sold enough seats to block any potential change.
Thursday, September 29, 2016
Thursday Morning Links
This and that for your Thursday reading.
- Valerie Strauss discusses the disastrous effects of corporatized education in the U.S. And Alex Hemingway examines how B.C.'s government (like Saskatchewan's) is going out of its way to make it impossible for a public education system to do its job of offering a bright future to all students.
- CJEM reports on a new survey showing just how many Saskatchewan residents are on the edge of a financial cliff if not already on the descent - with more than a third of those surveyed already unable to pay their bills, and over 60% having at best minimal ability to absorb any additional expenses.
- Colin Freeze and Jim Bronskill report on Privacy Commissioner Daniel Therrien's annual report - with Freeze focusing on his call for legislation governing metadata, and Bronskill on the total lack of regard for Canadians' privacy in the analysis and application of Bill C-51.
- David Bush critiques the Canada Post Task Force's study which looks to set the stage for worse service at higher prices, rather than seriously evaluating options such as postal banking which could reverse both of those outcomes.
- Finally, Andrew Coyne suggests that the Senate's authority to disrupt public business should match its non-existent legitimacy. And Carlito Pablo reports on Maxwell Cameron's view that we should expect decisions to be made by representatives elected through a fair and proportional system.
- Valerie Strauss discusses the disastrous effects of corporatized education in the U.S. And Alex Hemingway examines how B.C.'s government (like Saskatchewan's) is going out of its way to make it impossible for a public education system to do its job of offering a bright future to all students.
- CJEM reports on a new survey showing just how many Saskatchewan residents are on the edge of a financial cliff if not already on the descent - with more than a third of those surveyed already unable to pay their bills, and over 60% having at best minimal ability to absorb any additional expenses.
- Colin Freeze and Jim Bronskill report on Privacy Commissioner Daniel Therrien's annual report - with Freeze focusing on his call for legislation governing metadata, and Bronskill on the total lack of regard for Canadians' privacy in the analysis and application of Bill C-51.
- David Bush critiques the Canada Post Task Force's study which looks to set the stage for worse service at higher prices, rather than seriously evaluating options such as postal banking which could reverse both of those outcomes.
- Finally, Andrew Coyne suggests that the Senate's authority to disrupt public business should match its non-existent legitimacy. And Carlito Pablo reports on Maxwell Cameron's view that we should expect decisions to be made by representatives elected through a fair and proportional system.
Thursday, June 16, 2016
New column day
Here, on the Senate's recent attempts to claim any relevance to Canadian politics, and what they should tell us about the failures of our actual elected representatives.
For further reading...
- OpenParliament's status report on Bill C-14 (featuring the votes from the House of Commons) is here. Catherine Tunney reported on the Senate's debate on amendments to Bill C-14, while John Paul Tasker follows up on its final vote.
- The report of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce seeking to undermine provincial governance is here (PDF). And for background as to the absurdity of demanding wholesale limitations on government based on a small number of "barriers" which could best be addressed individually, see here, here and here among other examples.
- And finally, for more on the Trudeau Libs' refusal to develop a federal policy on climate change, see my past discussion here and here.
For further reading...
- OpenParliament's status report on Bill C-14 (featuring the votes from the House of Commons) is here. Catherine Tunney reported on the Senate's debate on amendments to Bill C-14, while John Paul Tasker follows up on its final vote.
- The report of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce seeking to undermine provincial governance is here (PDF). And for background as to the absurdity of demanding wholesale limitations on government based on a small number of "barriers" which could best be addressed individually, see here, here and here among other examples.
- And finally, for more on the Trudeau Libs' refusal to develop a federal policy on climate change, see my past discussion here and here.
Thursday, June 09, 2016
Thursday Morning Links
This and that for your Thursday reading.
- Andrew Coyne argues that the Senate's role in overruling elected representatives - which only seems to be growing under the Trudeau Libs - represents an affront to democracy. And Duncan Cameron has some suggestions beyond proportional representation as to how our electoral system can better live up to a democratic ideal.
- Elizabeth Thompson reports on the expert consensus that tax evasion needs to be met with far stronger consequences. But Kimberly Ivany and Harvey Cashore note that the people responsible for the Isle of Man offshoring are instead (with the Libs' permission) dictating what may and may not be discussed in Parliament - even by experts invited specifically to address the scheme. And at the same time, a KPMG accountant has admitted to participating in insider trading and tipping.
- Charles Mandel reports on the lack of effective regulation of cosmetics, while highlighting the dangers of allowing the sale of unsafe products which are expected to be used regularly. And Jordan Press discusses our lack of any reliable mechanism to so much inform consumers about products made with child labour.
- Meanwhile, Fay Faraday examines how temporary foreign workers are treated in Canada. And Ian Hussey offers a useful list of facts about Alberta's minimum wage and the need to shore it up.
- Finally, Jennifer Hollett comments on the three major issues surrounding the future of work:
- Andrew Coyne argues that the Senate's role in overruling elected representatives - which only seems to be growing under the Trudeau Libs - represents an affront to democracy. And Duncan Cameron has some suggestions beyond proportional representation as to how our electoral system can better live up to a democratic ideal.
- Elizabeth Thompson reports on the expert consensus that tax evasion needs to be met with far stronger consequences. But Kimberly Ivany and Harvey Cashore note that the people responsible for the Isle of Man offshoring are instead (with the Libs' permission) dictating what may and may not be discussed in Parliament - even by experts invited specifically to address the scheme. And at the same time, a KPMG accountant has admitted to participating in insider trading and tipping.
- Charles Mandel reports on the lack of effective regulation of cosmetics, while highlighting the dangers of allowing the sale of unsafe products which are expected to be used regularly. And Jordan Press discusses our lack of any reliable mechanism to so much inform consumers about products made with child labour.
- Meanwhile, Fay Faraday examines how temporary foreign workers are treated in Canada. And Ian Hussey offers a useful list of facts about Alberta's minimum wage and the need to shore it up.
- Finally, Jennifer Hollett comments on the three major issues surrounding the future of work:
Armine is soon hosting a series of panels on “full employment,” which used to be a public policy priority of governments everywhere, in the post-war period. It fell off the map in the 70s, and by the mid 90s we stopped talking about it entirely.Critical of the lure of basic income, Armine argues it is difficult to scale. “It’s not going to happen at a level that will unshackle people from the need to work.” Where full employment is everyone who wants to have a job, can have one. And then, this is the critical point she stresses, that it’s a good job.I hope this is where all the conversations overlap. Be it precarious work, basic income, or innovation, these questions, panels, and hashtags should push us to figuring out a way to ensure the lives of everyone are better off.
Friday, May 06, 2016
Friday Morning Links
Assorted content to end your week.
- David Crane identifies the good news in the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report on climate change - which is that we can meet our greenhouse gas emissions targets through readily feasible policy choices as long as our federal government cares enough to make them. And Steven Staples points out that it's entirely possible pair efforts to fight climate change with good jobs, though we can't take the latter for granted:
- Meanwhile, Ernest Scheyder and Terry Wade examine the wave of bankruptcies hitting the U.S. oil industry - signalling that the reality of radical change based on lower global prices is hitting far beyond Canada's producers.
- Dan Roberts reports on the Obama administration's move to crack down on some forms of international tax evasion.
- PressProgress calls out the Fraser Institute's attempt to gloss over the lack of support for child care by counting upper-class giveaways aimed at future post-secondary education (among other things) as child care funding.
- Finally, Andrew Coyne offers an explanation of the Libs' incoherent changes to the Senate.
- David Crane identifies the good news in the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report on climate change - which is that we can meet our greenhouse gas emissions targets through readily feasible policy choices as long as our federal government cares enough to make them. And Steven Staples points out that it's entirely possible pair efforts to fight climate change with good jobs, though we can't take the latter for granted:
(A) green job revolution will not happen by itself, no matter how well meaning the intentions.- Janine Jackson interviews Brendon DeMelle about Exxon's decades-long global warming denialism. And John Geddes rightly criticizes Justin Trudeau's attempt to edit climate change out of the causes of extreme weather events.
The York University project, Adapting Canadian Work and Workplaces to Respond to Climate Change, recently noted an alarming gap in the government climate strategies between rhetoric and reality. A report for the project by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives found that while provincial governments frequently speak of “jobs and opportunities,” there are few tangible policies and programs in Canada to support job creation and professional development in the context of a green energy transition. Instead, most governments see the creation of green jobs as a consequence of transitioning to a cleaner economy rather than a policy target in and of itself.
It’s becoming apparent that workers need to get involved to ensure that government policies include job creation as a central tenet of Canada’s climate change strategies.
...
Now—with oil prices low, a new Paris agreement on emissions reductions, and a persistent employment problem—is exactly the right time for the government, employers and unions to achieve a just transition that brings about a green economy built on fairness and co-operation.
- Meanwhile, Ernest Scheyder and Terry Wade examine the wave of bankruptcies hitting the U.S. oil industry - signalling that the reality of radical change based on lower global prices is hitting far beyond Canada's producers.
- Dan Roberts reports on the Obama administration's move to crack down on some forms of international tax evasion.
- PressProgress calls out the Fraser Institute's attempt to gloss over the lack of support for child care by counting upper-class giveaways aimed at future post-secondary education (among other things) as child care funding.
- Finally, Andrew Coyne offers an explanation of the Libs' incoherent changes to the Senate.
Thursday, January 07, 2016
On common values
There's reason to be wary about the Libs' handling of the Senate, as Thomas Walkom writes in his latest column. But it's also worth noting that contrary to Walkom's conflation of the two, there are important differences between selecting prospective Senators based on whether they "back the Liberal government", versus evaluating whether they are "amenable to passing bills the Liberal government wants enacted".
Indeed, if the Libs want to defuse any potential for controversy while avoiding Senate obstruction, the one key requirement should have nothing to do with support for their government in particular.
Instead, any new senators could be screened (among whatever other criteria the Libs want to apply) based on their willingness to generally support all legislation passed by the House of Commons regardless of its party of origin. That could be subject to variation in exceptional cases, such as where MPs who have actually contributed to passing the bill signal a need for a bill to receive further review or amendment - but the overarching principle should be that the Senate will not get in the way of the decisions of elected representatives of any partisan stripe.
If the Libs limit their appointments to new Senators fitting that description, that strategy would simultaneously avoid the Cons' cynical obstruction and set the groundwork for an institution designed to function on a non-partisan basis in the future. But if they listen to Walkom's concurrent message about looking for political supporters, then we're all too likely to end up with yet another set of faux reformers (much like Harper's nominees themselves) who end up serving as nothing more than partisan tools.
Indeed, if the Libs want to defuse any potential for controversy while avoiding Senate obstruction, the one key requirement should have nothing to do with support for their government in particular.
Instead, any new senators could be screened (among whatever other criteria the Libs want to apply) based on their willingness to generally support all legislation passed by the House of Commons regardless of its party of origin. That could be subject to variation in exceptional cases, such as where MPs who have actually contributed to passing the bill signal a need for a bill to receive further review or amendment - but the overarching principle should be that the Senate will not get in the way of the decisions of elected representatives of any partisan stripe.
If the Libs limit their appointments to new Senators fitting that description, that strategy would simultaneously avoid the Cons' cynical obstruction and set the groundwork for an institution designed to function on a non-partisan basis in the future. But if they listen to Walkom's concurrent message about looking for political supporters, then we're all too likely to end up with yet another set of faux reformers (much like Harper's nominees themselves) who end up serving as nothing more than partisan tools.
Thursday, December 31, 2015
Thursday Morning Links
This and that for your Thursday reading.
- Owen Jones writes that the UK's flooding is just one example of what happens when the public sector which is supposed to look out for the common good is slashed out of short-term political calculation. And J. Bradford Delong observes that the choice between an economy that works for everybody and one designed merely to transfer wealth upward is inevitably one to be made within the political system.
- Harold Meyerson highlights how stock-based compensation (and the resulting obsession with share buybacks) has utterly warped corporate decision-making.
- Meanwhile, Hannah Levintova reports on Shannon Liss-Riordan's success in ensuring that service workers aren't exploited by unscrupulous employers or contractors. And Sara Mojtehedzadeh discusses how workplace polarization (including both more high-priced managers, and more precarious workers lower down the scale) is affecting Toronto's library services.
- Finally, kev rightly argues that we should be spending more time discussing the type of electoral system we expect. Spencer McKay writes that there's no need for a referendum on a type of electoral reform which provides for better representation and is supported by multiple parties. And the Cons' threat of using unelected patronage appointees to block any electoral reform (no matter how many parties agree on it) makes clear that their position is based solely on partisan advantage rather than democratic principles.
- Owen Jones writes that the UK's flooding is just one example of what happens when the public sector which is supposed to look out for the common good is slashed out of short-term political calculation. And J. Bradford Delong observes that the choice between an economy that works for everybody and one designed merely to transfer wealth upward is inevitably one to be made within the political system.
- Harold Meyerson highlights how stock-based compensation (and the resulting obsession with share buybacks) has utterly warped corporate decision-making.
- Meanwhile, Hannah Levintova reports on Shannon Liss-Riordan's success in ensuring that service workers aren't exploited by unscrupulous employers or contractors. And Sara Mojtehedzadeh discusses how workplace polarization (including both more high-priced managers, and more precarious workers lower down the scale) is affecting Toronto's library services.
- Finally, kev rightly argues that we should be spending more time discussing the type of electoral system we expect. Spencer McKay writes that there's no need for a referendum on a type of electoral reform which provides for better representation and is supported by multiple parties. And the Cons' threat of using unelected patronage appointees to block any electoral reform (no matter how many parties agree on it) makes clear that their position is based solely on partisan advantage rather than democratic principles.
Sunday, September 13, 2015
On caretakers
Since there's been plenty of talk lately about caretaker governments and their duty to exercise restraint, I'll raise one question as to the appointments made the last time a new federal government took office.
The day he and his Cabinet were sworn in, and two months before Parliament convened following the 2006 federal election, Stephen Harper announced the Senate appointment of Michael Fortier. And while there was plenty of outrage over Harper's first (if far from his last) breach of a promise not to appoint unelected Senators, I don't recall there being any serious question raised as to whether the appointment also went beyond what a new government leader could do before confirming his support in the House of Commons.
That said, it's worth asking the question now: should any major appointments by a new minority government be deferred until after it's established that it can win a vote of confidence in Parliament?
The day he and his Cabinet were sworn in, and two months before Parliament convened following the 2006 federal election, Stephen Harper announced the Senate appointment of Michael Fortier. And while there was plenty of outrage over Harper's first (if far from his last) breach of a promise not to appoint unelected Senators, I don't recall there being any serious question raised as to whether the appointment also went beyond what a new government leader could do before confirming his support in the House of Commons.
That said, it's worth asking the question now: should any major appointments by a new minority government be deferred until after it's established that it can win a vote of confidence in Parliament?
Saturday, September 12, 2015
On practical changes
One of the main attacks on the NDP's election platform has been the question of what support there is for the constitutional change required to abolish the Senate. But it's worth distinguishing between the relatively limited constitutional role actually mandated for the Senate which requires following the constitutional amendment formula, and other past practices and historical expenses which should be subject to change in relatively short order based on existing Senate precedents.
On that front, let's take a closer look at Kady O'Malley's criticism of Thomas Mulcair:
Moreover, there's ample precedent for legislation being considered by the Senate in the absence of a formal connection (partisan or otherwise) between the bill's sponsors in the House of Commons and the Senate. Bills introduced by NDP, Green, Bloc or independent MPs who lack a partisan link to the Senate which pass in the House are already regularly brought before the upper chamber and dealt with in accordance with its standard legislative review process.
To date, that's generally been the result of senators agreeing to sponsor individual bills on a one-off basis. But when the track record suggests that the Senate customarily doesn't stand in the way of at least reviewing legislation duly passed by the House, there's no reason to think the upper chamber will suddenly see itself as having the right to systematically ignore legislation passed by elected representatives when it reflects a government's agenda rather than private members' bills.
It could be that a process to ensure that an NDP government's bills proceed will be the result of one Senator volunteering to serve as a primary liaison for the executive without seeking the title (and added pay/expense) that comes with the formal Leader of the Government post. Or it could be that government bills would be introduced and managed through some other system - which could involve agreement between the NDP and one or more Senators, or simply an institutional choice among Senators themselves. But the most likely outcome of the NDP's plan would be for the Senate to recognize its responsibility to facilitate the passage of government legislation - as has happened in the past when an opposition party has retained a majority in the Senate, and thus the theoretical ability to obstruct the elected government's agenda.
That said, it's fair enough to note that if all of the current Senators adopt the position that they're unwilling to work with the NDP (or indeed any government), then something would need to be done to move government legislation through the upper chamber. At that point, Mulcair would have two key options.
First, he could break at least part of the logjam with his own appointments in response to that radical change from the Senate itself. But note that any plan to appoint new senators in the near future would itself fall short of giving the NDP enough votes to actually pass legislation if the remaining Cons and Libs insist on obstructing.
Alternatively, he could highlight the obstruction of unelected Senators to rally support for abolition. And if unelected Con and Lib Senators alike consider themselves entitled to prevent an elected government from doing its job in numbers sufficient to prevent Mulcair from passing any legislation, then the case for constitutional change will become much more compelling even to the premiers who might have their own political reasons to reject it when that conflict doesn't yet exist.
On that front, let's take a closer look at Kady O'Malley's criticism of Thomas Mulcair:
(F)or the time being – and, most likely, at least, the short to medium-term political future – the Senate will continue to exist. As the Supreme Court has made supremely clear, changing that reality via abolition would require the unanimous consent of the provinces, which has thus far appeared elusiveIt's true that the post of Leader of the Government has historically existed and has been incorporated into current Senate rules and practices, with one of the responsibilities including the management of the government's agenda. But unlike the bare existence of the Senate, those rules and practices are subject to change without any necessity of getting into discussion of the constitution.
That means it will continue to have a role in the legislative process, no matter how many baleful glances an incoming NDP government might aim in its general direction.
Contrary to Mulcair’s comments this week, that role is not, in fact, to simply sit quietly and wait for the House of Commons to send over a stack of bills for automatic approval, but to review – and, if it should see fit, amend, and in some instances, vote down – legislation, including, but not limited to, proposals put forward under the aegis of a duly elected government.
On the most basic level, that necessitates, at the very least, the designation by the government of a senator to do precisely that: introduce bills that have been passed by the House of Commons — a role traditionally undertaken by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the post that Mulcair has now pledged not to fill.
Without at least one sitting senator — newly appointed, or recruited from the current selection — to serve the emissary of the executive, bills duly passed by the House of Commons would simply pile up outside the Chamber like so much undeliverable mail.
Once those bills were added to the Senate to-do list, of course, it would be left to the occupants to decide how – and when – to proceed with government business, which is typically shepherded through the pipeline by the Senate government leader.
In the absence of such a taskmaster, it’s not clear who, precisely, would set the daily schedule.
Moreover, there's ample precedent for legislation being considered by the Senate in the absence of a formal connection (partisan or otherwise) between the bill's sponsors in the House of Commons and the Senate. Bills introduced by NDP, Green, Bloc or independent MPs who lack a partisan link to the Senate which pass in the House are already regularly brought before the upper chamber and dealt with in accordance with its standard legislative review process.
To date, that's generally been the result of senators agreeing to sponsor individual bills on a one-off basis. But when the track record suggests that the Senate customarily doesn't stand in the way of at least reviewing legislation duly passed by the House, there's no reason to think the upper chamber will suddenly see itself as having the right to systematically ignore legislation passed by elected representatives when it reflects a government's agenda rather than private members' bills.
It could be that a process to ensure that an NDP government's bills proceed will be the result of one Senator volunteering to serve as a primary liaison for the executive without seeking the title (and added pay/expense) that comes with the formal Leader of the Government post. Or it could be that government bills would be introduced and managed through some other system - which could involve agreement between the NDP and one or more Senators, or simply an institutional choice among Senators themselves. But the most likely outcome of the NDP's plan would be for the Senate to recognize its responsibility to facilitate the passage of government legislation - as has happened in the past when an opposition party has retained a majority in the Senate, and thus the theoretical ability to obstruct the elected government's agenda.
That said, it's fair enough to note that if all of the current Senators adopt the position that they're unwilling to work with the NDP (or indeed any government), then something would need to be done to move government legislation through the upper chamber. At that point, Mulcair would have two key options.
First, he could break at least part of the logjam with his own appointments in response to that radical change from the Senate itself. But note that any plan to appoint new senators in the near future would itself fall short of giving the NDP enough votes to actually pass legislation if the remaining Cons and Libs insist on obstructing.
Alternatively, he could highlight the obstruction of unelected Senators to rally support for abolition. And if unelected Con and Lib Senators alike consider themselves entitled to prevent an elected government from doing its job in numbers sufficient to prevent Mulcair from passing any legislation, then the case for constitutional change will become much more compelling even to the premiers who might have their own political reasons to reject it when that conflict doesn't yet exist.
Saturday Morning Links
Assorted content for your weekend reading.
- Thomas Walkom discusses how Canadian workers are feeling the pain of decades of policy designed to suppress wages - and notes there's plenty more all parties should be doing to change that reality. And Doug Saunders points out what we should want our next federal government to pursue to bring about lasting growth:
- Meanwhile, Kevin Grandia highlights Cheryl Gallant's climate change denialism as a symptom of the Cons' real unfitness for office. And Donald Gutstein comments on Doug Black's role as an oil lobbyist within the Senate.
- Tabatha Southey writes that the Cons are offering nothing but fear, uncertainty and doubt for voters, while Sandy Garossino weighs on that message as it applies to refugees in particular. And Terry Glavin zeroes in on how that strategy involves ignoring the plain facts even of high-profile events such as the tragic deaths in the Kurdi family.
- Finally, Parker Donham sets out why Canada can't afford any more of Stephen Harper. And Fram Dimshaw reports that the veterans who once served as Harper's political cover are joining the cause in demanding more responsible government.
- Thomas Walkom discusses how Canadian workers are feeling the pain of decades of policy designed to suppress wages - and notes there's plenty more all parties should be doing to change that reality. And Doug Saunders points out what we should want our next federal government to pursue to bring about lasting growth:
Many economists came to realize not only that government intervention bailed many countries out of the post-2008 recession and restored growth and employment, but that the crisis itself may have been caused, in good part, by the disappearance of active government support in the economy – the sort of direct investment and partnership that had existed in earlier decades.- Andrew Coyne rightly argues that we shouldn't spend so much of an election campaign attacking past personal statements from candidates, while noting that part of the problem lies in the vetting authority that's been taken over by the parties' leaders.
...
Economists began noticing that the great economic boom of the 1990s and 2000s had been a direct product of targeted state investments in specific companies and sectors. The Italian economist Mariana Mazzucato, in her influential book The Entrepreneurial State, chronicled the emergence of the iPhone as a direct product of Washington’s large-scale investments in Silicon Valley – not just through state spending on technology products and tax incentives to high-tech industry, but through the specific choice of Apple, in the 1970s and 1980s, as a company Washington would invest in (though small-business investments that put $2 into Apple for every dollar of private investment). Intel and Compaq were also targets of this active state investment, much as Elon Musk’s Tesla electric-car company is today.Dr. Mazzucato, in an interview from her University of Sussex office, describes the heavily funded state banks that have allowed Germany, China and the United States to build globally competitive companies – and notes that Canada, despite having earned a fortune in petroleum revenues in the past 15 years that could have created a similar major institution, has nothing substantial of the sort, nor any proposal to create one.“Canada is interesting,” she said. “It is one of the most skewed countries, not only in terms of sectors – lots of emphasis on the extractive stuff – but also in terms of instruments: It’s very, very indirect. It does most of its government investment through tax incentives. Compare that to the United States or China or Germany, where it’s all direct: If they want to do something, they do it. They directly finance a sector or the most innovative companies, and they create grants or guaranteed loans to do it, not an indirect tax credit. And on top of that, these Canadian investments are not so mission-oriented: At best, there’s a list of sectors to be supported indirectly, but no targeting of specific companies or industries. And then they get surprised when they’re not on the top any more in any of the big innovations.”
- Meanwhile, Kevin Grandia highlights Cheryl Gallant's climate change denialism as a symptom of the Cons' real unfitness for office. And Donald Gutstein comments on Doug Black's role as an oil lobbyist within the Senate.
- Tabatha Southey writes that the Cons are offering nothing but fear, uncertainty and doubt for voters, while Sandy Garossino weighs on that message as it applies to refugees in particular. And Terry Glavin zeroes in on how that strategy involves ignoring the plain facts even of high-profile events such as the tragic deaths in the Kurdi family.
- Finally, Parker Donham sets out why Canada can't afford any more of Stephen Harper. And Fram Dimshaw reports that the veterans who once served as Harper's political cover are joining the cause in demanding more responsible government.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)