Friday Afternoon Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Jeff Masters points out how the climate breakdown is making hurricanes and other severe weather far worse than would otherwise be the case. And Gary Fuller reports on new research showing how air pollution contributes to multiple health issues. 

- Paul Kershaw writes that the Iran war and resulting oil supply shock is finally convincing many countries to shift to renewable energy as a matter of security even if they'd never bothered for environmental purposes or cost savings. And Susan O'Donnell and M.V. Ramana point out the absence of any rational case to forego a transition to renewable power in favour of nuclear plants which are both vastly more expensive and take far longer to put into operation. 

- Ed Zitron examines the comically-irresponsible world of private equity - and the systemic risks involved in allowing it to dictate economic decisions without meaningful oversight or regulation. And Eric Platt, Jill Shah and Euan Healy report on the bets major banks are making against the viability of consumer debt. 

- Sharon Zhang reports that Palantir paid precisely zero dollars in U.S. federal income taxes in 2025, even as it racks up publicly-funded contracts to invade people's privacy. 

- Finally, Lindsay Tedds examines how Mark Carney is implementing Stephen Harper's fiscal framework - yet being adulated for it by a Lib cult of personality.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Stefan Labbe reports on new research showing how the business-driven use of lead in gasoline resulted in large-scale poisoning in the U.S. (and in other countries including Canada). Shanti Das reports on the pesticide poisonings in Brazil caused by chemicals which are banned in the UK but still approved for export. And Topher Sanders examines both the levels of cancer-causing formaldehyde people encounter in everyday life, and some steps that can be taken to reduce exposure. 

- Ralph Nader writes about the silent violence of corporate control over our health and well-being. Omar Ocampo reports on the latest Forbes wealth data showing that a mere 12 American tycoons have over $1 trillion in concentrated riches between them. Jake Johnson reports on the Congressional Budget Office's findings that tax cuts for the wealthy purportedly intended to spur economic growth will in fact produce economic shrinkage for everybody but those at the top. And Harold Meyerson talks to Randi Weingarten about the need to offer working-class voters something more promising and responsive than a continuation of the neoliberalism that has turned people into resources to be exploited. 

- David E. Sanger, Jonathan Swan and Maggie Haberman report on the cartoonish conformity test being imposed on applicants for positions in the next Trump administration, while Robert Reich notes that the cabinet is being filled out based on absolute subservience and flattery. Ray Fisman writes about the dangers of running government like a business. And David Shiffman discusses what scientists can expect based on lessons learned when Stephen Harper was imposing the Cons' policy of employee muzzling and science denialism in Canada. 

- Finally, Alex Boyd examines how the right-wing noise machine is attacking Canada to inflame fascists in the U.S. Sarah Kendzior asks whether the U.S. is following the path of one of its most prominent celebrities - and approaching its death on the toilet phase. And Tim Miller implores people not to respond to the idiocy of the Trump regime with an "LOL Nothing Matters" ideology which exacerbates its damage. 

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Sarah Johnson reports on Unicef's warning that children will face far more extreme heatwaves and other dangerous weather events in the decades to come. And George Monbiot writes that the "solutions" being relied upon to respond to the climate crisis are rarely any more plausible than the spin of the most stubborn head-in-the-sand denialists. 

- Ben Stockton and Hajar Medah expose how McKinsey & Company has been working on keeping people hooked on fossil fuels. Amy Westervelt and Royce Kurmelovs examine how fossil fuel giants have always been preventing COP conferences from achieving any meaningful progress - even if they're far more brazen about controlling the agenda now. 

- Graham Thomson discusses the obvious dangers of putting a partisan operative and fossil fuel zealot in charge of Albertans' retirement savings. But Angela Amato reports on the gap between the CPP's net-zero promises and its choice to invest in dirty energy. 

- Jon Milton examines the background to the CUPW postal strike - and particularly the difference in goals between workers committed to public service, and an employer determined to do less in order to claim false economies.  

- Finally, The Disabled Ginger points out how a refusal to mask in health-care settings further endangers vulnerable patients. Heidi Ledford examines the rise of bird-flu infections in humans which are being largely ignored as a matter of public policy. And Lisa Schnirring reports that anti-vaxxers have managed to cause an outbreak of polio in Warsaw. 

Tuesday Afternoon Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- The Guardian's This is Climate Breakdown series offers first-hand accounts of the current catastrophes arising out of the climate crisis. And Michael Mann writes that it's possible to avoid the worst anticipated effects of climate change - but only if we stop spewing carbon pollution in a hurry. 

- But Sehoon Kim discusses how the corporate sector is buying cheap and meaningless credits rather than taking steps to reduce its own environmental harm. Fatima Syed reports on Enbridge's laughable attempt to avoid any regulation of emissions by claiming that greenwashing is more than enough. And Angela Amato and Carly Penrose examine Alberta's plans for fossil fuel propaganda in schools - even as Breene Murphy notes that oil and gas aren't viable long-term investments.  

- John Clarke writes about the importance of cultivating truth and understanding against the entrenched interests seeking to drown out anything that might threaten their accumulation of wealth and power. But Charlie Warzel points out the immense resources being used to try to push people away from reality-based media, while Carole Cadwalladr discusses the especially dangerous combination of media and government power currently coalescing under the impending Trump regime. And Zak Vescera reports on Stockwell Day's role in building an alt-right echo chamber to try to install the BC Cons in government. 

- Finally, David Climenhaga reports on Danielle Smith's summary termination of the pension board it wants to put in charge of all Albertans' retirement income - while Paula Sambo, Layan Odeh and Dawn Lim confirm the UCP's plans for AIMCo are so political that they're planning to hand it over to Stephen Harper.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Cordell Jacks writes about the need for an economic model which evolves beyond the short-term exploitation of people and the planet. And Jessica McKenzie interviews Charlotte Kukowski about the importance of reprioritizing in the context of readily-apparent feedback loops between inequality and the climate crisis. 

- Daria Shapovalova reports on a landmark court decision determining that oil companies won't be able to avoid answering for downstream emissions in environmental assessments in Norway. But sadly, both Canada and the UK are continuing to rush through as much extraction and export as possible before anybody applies that standard to their fossil fuel sectors. 

- Marcus Baram reports on new legislation under consideration in New York which would ensure that large-scale wage thieves lose the privilege of doing business. 

- Adam King writes about the fight of Saskatchewan's teachers for tolerable working and learning conditions - and the Moe government's determination to avoid providing anything of the sort. 

- Aaron Wherry asks whether Justin Trudeau is reaching the point of regretting not keeping his promise of a fair and proportional electoral system. 

- Finally, Luke LeBrun points out that Stephen Harper's International Democrat Union has quietly scrubbed its links to Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party - though the main news appears to be that  there exists a level of authoritarianism that even the IDU will disclaim. 

Thursday Afternoon Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Adele Waters writes about the large numbers of UK doctors who are suffering from long COVID as a result of their efforts to care for patients - but who have been abandoned to financial ruin as a result. Elizabeth Cooney examines the likelihood of long COVID as the result of a repeat infection. Thanarath Imsuwansri et al. study the safety and effectiveness of nasal spray in neutralizing the spread of COVID.  And Alexander Tin reports on the Biden administration's decision to resume providing free COVID tests, rather than treating a continuing public health crisis primarily as a profit centre. 

- Meanwhile, Andrew Nikiforuk discusses how the e. coli breakout in Calgary daycare centres can be traced to both the specific unsanitary conditions at a single outsourced kitchen, and factory food production in general.  

- Andrea Houston asks whether the U.S. and Canada are headed toward a genocide against LGBTQ+ people, as anti-trans bigots consider themselves empowered to use the language of eradication due in no small part to their legitimization by conservative parties. Gil McGowan discusses how the wording comes directly from the fascist playbook. And Jackie Wong makes clear that nothing about the attack on trans people has anything to do with making children safer.  

- Finally, Max Fawcett examines the role of Stephen Harper and the increasingly anti-democratic IDU in discussing why the Cons have such an affinity for Narendra Modi and other fascist governments. 

Sunday Afternoon Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Ed Yong discusses how the field of public health has been marginalized by the false assumption that the task of keeping people healthy shouldn't play a role in our political choices.

- Nadeem Badshah reports on Greta Thunberg's message to countries participating in COP26 that we can't afford any more climate denial.

- Olamide Olaniyan interviews Naomi Klein about the hope for a breakthrough in applying an ethic of care to our natural and human environments. Alexander Kaufman reports on new research confirming that investments in renewable energy produce several times more jobs than comparable spending on fossil fuels. And Alexander Verbeek reports on the U.S.' recognition that a climate breakdown represents a severe security threat (among other calamitous outcomes).

- But Sandy Garossino writes that we shouldn't let the underwhelming contents of UCP's anti-environmental inquiry override our outrage at an abuse of power. And Andrew MacLeod reports on B.C.'s willingness to allow oil and gas companies to procrastinate (and likely welch) on their obligation to clean up their messes.

- Finally, Alan Freeman discusses how Stephen Harper is cozying up to dictatorships for financial gain even while continuing to operate behind the scenes of Canada's conservative parties. And CBC News reports on the Sask Party's push to hold a fire sale of Crown lands to undermine both public interests and treaty rights - and the work of Betty Nippi-Albright and others in trying to stop them.

On false tax freedoms

The past few Canadian election cycles have seen plenty of discussion of the realities of tax-free savings accounts. And for the most part, their critics have been proven right: a scheme pitched at enabling savings by lower-income individuals has instead served mostly as a means of redirecting more free money to the already-rich. And in 2015, the Cons' doubling of existing TFSAs was rejected by voters. 

Which makes it striking that the Libs are now the ones pushing a TFSA scheme as part of their housing platform.

As Nick Falvo notes in his brief comment, there's an obvious danger that the Libs' plan - like other TFSA systems - will merely allow the wealthy to drain money from federal coffers, while accomplishing little for the people who are supposed to benefit (but who don't have spare money to stash away in the first place). And the Libs' throwaway line about including "integrity measures to deter tax avoidance" rings entirely hollow coming from the same party trying to criticize the NDP's plan for a more progressive tax system based on the claim that better tax enforcement isn't possible. 

As is the case in so many policy areas, voters will need to choose between policies which actually address the right to housing, and ones which serve only to inflate the wealth of existing homeowners and people with money to burn. And it's especially damning that the Libs are so bereft of ideas as to be copying from the Harper playbook toward the latter end.

On history repeating

With the Libs floundering in an election campaign where they considered themselves entitled to waltz into power and the NDP making a push toward the top of the party standings, commentators haven't been able to avoid some comparison to 2011. But that's always come with a caveat - that Justin Trudeau is no Michael Ignatieff.

To which we should ask: are we sure he isn't?

On a closer look, there may be more similarities to the Libs' position today and their standing ten years ago than has yet been discussed. And voters should be at pains to avoid the same mistakes that resulted in our missing out on the best Prime Minister Canada never had due to a save-the-furniture-and-torpedo-the-NDP campaign by the Libs.

In both cases, let's start by examining what happened in the election cycle before the one at issue. In 2008, the Libs under Stephane Dion took their usual rigid position against any cross-party cooperation. Even in the midst of an economic meltdown, Dion considered it more important to keep the NDP out of any power-sharing coalition than to replace Stephen Harper in responding to the crisis. 

But circumstances changed after Harper held onto power, then used an economic calamity as an excuse to try to attack his political opponents. And with the Libs lacking any framework for cross-party cooperation, the NDP stepped into the breach and facilitated an agreement which would have created a Lib-NDP government supported by the Bloc to replace Harper's toxic Cons.

Michael Ignatieff signed onto that agreement, if only begrudgingly. But once Dion was removed and Ignatieff assumed the Libs' leadership, he decided he didn't want to be in charge under conditions which required another party's support. So instead, he left Harper (and his antisocial judgment) in power to rebuild from the economic crisis, without requiring any accommodations for any other party's input. 

By 2011, Ignatieff had to wear that decision while having no record of accomplishment to point to. And so instead of forcing voters into a binary red door-blue door choice, he opened up the opportunity for the NDP's message of pragmatic cooperation to position it as one of the primary contenders for government. And we'll never know for certain how much strategic voting based on the Libs' past results may have contributed to the Cons' majority - though it's highly likely that Jagmeet Singh would have been one of the NDP candidates to beat out a Con competitor if not for a coordinated effort to back a Lib who ended up in third place.

Let's then look to the parallels in more recent events. While Justin Trudeau was able to hold power in a minority Parliament in 2019, he stuck to his party's refusal to discuss formal support arrangements, instead choosing to engage in Harper-style brinksmanship. And that could have led to serious problems if there had been any trouble getting support behind a response to the COVID-19  pandemic when it hit in 2020.

Fortunately, that didn't prove to be a meaningful issue. All parties were willing to work on at least some urgent measures - and more significantly, Singh and the NDP made abundantly clear that they were willing to maintain confidence in the Libs as long as they worked toward supporting Canadian people and implementing the types of promises which had been put on hold during Trudeau's term of majority government.

Like Ignatieff, Trudeau decided that cross-party support wasn't enough: he wanted to be able to unilaterally shut down investigations, and pivot his entire government's direction on a dime if he saw the opportunity to to do. And so he called an election which he thought would hand him a majority.

Needless to say, that hasn't happened. And there may be a couple of associated reasons for it.

Most importantly, anybody voting based on policy has had nothing but reason to be wary of Trudeau. It never made sense to try to run on promises which could have been kept in the existing Parliament. And the Libs' insistence on an unaccountable majority has only opened the door for skepticism that the result would be another Chretien/Martin attack on Canada's social supports.

But there's another aspect of Trudeau's choice which doesn't seem to have received much attention. If one buys into the Libs' raison d'etre that the essence of politics is the pursuit of power, then there can be no less defensible choice than to deliberately abandon power which one is already in a position to exercise. 

Both Ignatieff and Trudeau tried to justify their choices with the claim that they'd be better positioned to secure more power later on by choosing not to govern in the short term. But both have left Canada to problematic government in the midst of a crisis - and both have given voters reason to view them as less than prime ministerial in repudiating the opportunity to show what they could do with the title.

In turn, voters will need to recognize that a leader who has abandoned his post isn't likely to recover support in the midst of an election campaign. And particularly given Singh's work following in Jack Layton's footsteps as a leader determined to use every bit of influence available to provide for what Canadians need, we should be eager to take up the opportunity we missed in 2011 to see how that mindset plays out in government.

On policy bubbles

While Justin Trudeau is putting any economic planning in the hands of somebody with a vested interest in privatizing profits, it's also worth noting how his government is deliberately avoiding any of the type of consultation needed to make a minority Parliament work at a time when cooperation should be more important than ever:

The source said a minority government has to be ready for the moment when there may be no compromising “and, quite frankly maybe it is time for the Canadian people to weigh in a post-pandemic environment.”

Another senior official said only that when it comes to working with the other parties, “we’re not at that stage yet.”

It would seem obvious enough that for a minority government wanting to get anything accomplished through the current Parliament, there should never be a stage where working with other parties is off the table. And that goes doubly when discussing the path to recovery and renewal in the face of an ongoing pandemic.

But Trudeau appears to have decided to model his own plans after Stephen Harper's perpetual games of Parliamentary chicken: no meaningful consultation, no compromise, and no interest in considering what's good for anybody besides his corporate backers and cronies. And if being reduced to a minority hasn't been enough to convince Trudeau that voters expect leaders who listen rather than running roughshod over the country, then the electorate will need to deliver a far stronger message when it has the opportunity.

On preemptive action

Others have rightly pointed out Norlaine Thomas' thread about the threat Stephen Harper and his acolytes pose to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But I'll take the opportunity to expand on the prospect of stopping that crusade in its tracks in Saskatchewan's provincial election (which, to be clear, is scheduled for October 26).

First, there's more than just an outside chance of a vote for change.

While the Saskatchewan Party has generally remained ahead in the polls (other than after the 2017 budget which resulted in Brad Wall fleeing the scene), this fall's election will feature new leaders on all sides, as well as a vote being conducted under unprecedented circumstances. And that's without going into the strengths of Ryan Meili and the NDP's team of candidates - who I'd argue offer the strongest prospect for change in the public interest seen in Saskatchewan in half a century.

Second, there's no reason for Canadians to be fatalistic about the outcome rather than taking an active role.

As I've mentioned before, Saskatchewan's lax electoral financing laws allow people (and corporations) outside the province to make donations. And so far, the result has mostly been a pipeline of corporate money helping the Saskatchewan Party to run attack ads.

But people who recognize that the provincial election has constitutional ramifications for the whole country can do something about it. 

Anybody preferring to contribute their time can volunteer to help in a campaign where phone and social media contact matter more than ever. And people able to pitch in financially can donate to the Saskatchewan NDP and its candidates - to make sure the election is decided based on what's best for people, rather than what serves the provincial interests of corporate contributors, and the destructive national plans of Harper and his heirs. 

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Eric Cadesky writes about the psychology behind adherence to - and deviation from - the social distancing rules needed to keep us all safe.

- Nora Loreto discusses how COVID-19 has exposed the lethal problems with Canada's long-term care system. Karl Belanger points out that among the other warnings, Howard Hampton tried to highlight the neglect of residents in 2007 - only to see austerian governments continue to hold power. And Susan Delacourt discusses the role the federal government can play in ensuring that seniors are treated with care, while Scott Schmidt calls out Jason Kenney's UCP for declaring it's willing to sacrifice residents' lives if it means profits keep flowing.

- Kelly Grant and Carly Weeks examine Ontario's hot spots for community transmission of the coronavirus - as well as the social inequalities they reflect. And Jennifer Yang discusses the prospect that workplaces will be the new danger zones.

- Fair Vote Canada makes the case to restore democratically-determined per-vote funding to our federal political parties.

- Finally, Sandy Garossino discusses how Stephen Harper has cemented his place as an embarrassment since being voted out of office.

Saturday Afternoon Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Bryan Borzykowski recognizes that many Canadian families are weathering the COVID-19 crisis only by taking on more debt - though it's worth questioning whether the burden should fall on individuals to dig their way out from under it, rather than receiving systemic relief.

- A distinguished group of academics writes about the importance of democratizing work in rebuilding from the pandemic. Cailynn Klingbeil discusses the importance of not replicating existing inequalities as we map out the path forward. And Larry Savage theorizes that we may see a surge in workers standing up for their rights through strike action.

- But Alex Doherty warns that while governments are doing something approximating the bare minimum to keep people afloat through the pandemic, far too many interests are pushing to return to the old neoliberal normal as soon (and with as little care for people's well-being) as possible. Reuters News Agency reports on the Modi government's push to gut workers' rights in India in the name of a coronavirus response. And David Climenhaga points out that demands to turn the crisis into even greater corporate control are coming from the likes of Stephen Harper and Jason Kenney.

- Homi Kharas and Kristofer Hamel discuss how the coronavirus is setting back progress in fighting poverty around the globe. And Shakti Jaising notes that cultural depictions of pandemics all too often leave out the class effects.

- Finally, Nicola Jones writes that while there's reason to point out where the public health response to the coronavirus could be improved, we should also pay attention to the millions of lives already saved by the steps taken so far.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Annie Lowrey discusses how essential workers have been consistently undervalued due to political choices. And Patty Coates, Jan Simpson and Pablo Godoy discuss the need to ensure legal protections for workers' rights in the wake of Foodora fleeing the country after its attempt to find a loophole in employment law failed.

- Meanwhile, Vanessa Brcic argues that we have a much-needed opportunity to better apply principles of equity and public health to the design of our social supports. Rutger Bregman implores us to take advantage of the opening to change the world for the better. And Laura Spinney interviews Thomas Piketty about the prospect that the response to COVID-19 will result in fairer societies.

- Gregory Beatty notes that social programs and safety regulations have been under neoliberal attack for decades. And Nam Kiwanuka highlights the dishonesty and inhumanity underlying the right-wing assumption that people receiving needed income support must be gaming the system.

- Susan Delacourt offers a reminder that Stephen Harper's last call for austerity and corporatism in the wake of a global crisis produced little benefit for anybody but the wealthy and well-connected. And Bruce Arthur notes that while Harper tries to deliver right-wing messages to an American audience, Canada faces the need to protect itself from the U.S.' reckless choice to let the coronavirus run wild in the name of Trump and profits.

- Finally, Matt Taibbi writes that the COVID-19 corporate bailout has once again offered the wealthiest Americans the opportunity to avoid any losses from their financial gambling. And Sharon Riley reports on Alberta's use of the pandemic to let oil companies off the hook for the environmental damage done by abandoned wells, while Lawrie McFarlane notes that Alberta is facing the consequences of its own disdain for the rest of Canada.

Wednesday Afternoon Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- PressProgress discusses now polling showing that a strong majority of Canadians favour a broad transformation of our society in the wake of the coronavirus crisis, with a focus on health and well-being. Tamara Lorincz suggests that we take the opportunity to withdraw from the purchase of fighter jets in order to put tens of billions of dollars toward more important ends. George Monbiot writes about the opportunity to make education more focused on the ecology which sustains us. And Naheed Dosani notes that the immediate response to COVID-19 demonstrates that there's no excuse for allowing homelessness to exist in Canada.

- Meanwhile, Andrew Jackson makes the case for any funding to large corporations being tied to equity stakes and consideration of larger social goals. Aaron Wherry discusses the minimal requirement that recipients of federal bailout money give at least a modicum of thought to climate change. And Tom Sanzillo notes that loans to the fossil fuel sector are virtually certain to turn out to be an utter waste of money.

- But in case anybody was under the impression that there would be anything less than a furious push to use COVID-19 to exacerbate the problems which led to its devastating impact, Jesse Snyder reports on corporate lobbying to eliminate any consideration of social and financial requirements in evaluating infrastructure projects. And Stephen Harper never passes up an opportunity to demand austerity and corporate obeisance, rather than making any effort to build a stronger society - while Grace Blakeley recognizes that the effort is based on little more than attempting to convince people not to believe their own eyes in seeing how public investment can make them better off. 

- Finally, Jason Warick reports on the push from Saskatchewan's Information and Privacy Commissioner - among many others - to ensure that the public has accurate information about the spread of COVID-19 in the face of the Moe government's inclination toward secrecy. And Adam Hunter reports on Moe's concurrent refusal to allow for any legislative accountability, while Murray Mandryk points out the absolute lack of justification for that stance.

New column day

Here, on how the criticisms which were used to push Andrew Scheer out of the Cons' leadership role in fact reflect the fundamental problems with a party built around selfishness as the sole ideal to be pursued.

For further reading...
- David Akin reported on Scheer's prolific spending when he was running for the Cons' leadership.
- David Pugliese listed some of Peter MacKay's most prominent scandals, including his use of a military helicopter for a personal fishing trip. Global News reported on the donor-funded (and publicly-subsidized) top-ups paid to Christy Clark and Brad Wall. And Adam Hunter reported on Stephen Harper's current ride on the Saskatchewan Party's gravy train (with whistle stops to boost the local nativist demogogues along the way).
- And Kevin Drum looked at another application of the view of conservatism as the practice of promoting selfishness.

On private determinations

Paul Willcocks has previously pointed out why there's reason for skepticism about Andrew Scheer's attempt to play both sides as to whether or not the Cons will try to limit access to abortion. But it's worth looking at a case study as to how the Harper Cons flouted any distinction between private member's bills and government bills when it suited their purposes.

Bill C-377, designed to impose reporting requirements on unions which don't apply to any other organization, was never included in any Con election platform. It was introduced as a private member's bill by Russ Heibert to make use of an advantageous draw in the order of priority, while avoiding the scrutiny that applies to government bills.

But the Senate returned it to the House of Commons with amendments. And at that point, the Cons made clear that it was Stephen Harper, not any MP acting on behalf of any constituents, who was dictating what to do with the legislation - and moreover that reintroducing it as a government bill was on the table:

Despite this being a private member’s bill, the Prime Minister’s Office has been moved to issue a statement.

We continue to support union transparency and the principles of the bill, which will be returned to the House as part of the normal process.
As per Parliamentary convention, we expect that the Senate will respect the will of the House of Commons should the Bill be returned to the Senate.

A Conservative source tells the Canadian Press that the bill will now be reintroduced as a government bill.

That didn't happen in the House of Commons. But it did eventually happen in the Senate, as Harper's Cons broke the Senate's rules to retroactively reclassify C-377 as a "government bill" to allow it to be rammed through in the final session before the 2015 election:

The government has powerful tools to push forward on "government business" — important legislation such as budgets. But C-377 falls under "other business" because it is a private member's bill from a Conservative backbench MP.

Carignan wanted to have C-377 declared a government bill so that he could force it to a vote. The problem is that it clearly isn't government business. The government itself introduced it as "other business."

A government motion would have retroactively redefined C-377 as a government bill. This was the motion Speaker Housakos declared was against the rules and undermined the traditions of the Senate.

By overruling Housakos, government senators can now use tools intended for government bills to push forward a private member's bill that many have warned is unconstitutional.

In light of that background, what does Scheer have to say about anti-choice legislation?

Scheer’s efforts to clarify his views on abortion just made things murkier. “I will not re-open this debate and I will oppose any plan to re-open this debate,” he told reporters.

But he also said Conservative MPs would be allowed to introduce legislation limiting access to abortion. And to vote for restricting access, if that was their personal view. And while he would expect cabinet ministers to vote against limiting access, he wouldn’t demand they do.

So Scheer's supposed acceptance of the continued availability of abortion is limited to personally opposing a move to "re-open" debate. But that can be done by any MP introducing a private member's bill. And Scheer has signalled his willingness to permit that step within a party which exercises strict control over those bills in the first place - meaning that he'll be providing tacit approval even if he feigns public dismay.

And once that step has been taken? Scheer won't demand that any of his MPs vote to preserve the right to abortion access. And based on his own words, any step after the first one has been left open.

There's thus every reason for concern that Scheer will follow his predecessor's playbook. And any promise to leave the Cons' dirty work to private member's bills should only be taken as a reminder that they've used that mechanism to grease the skids for controversial legislation before.

Update: And Scheer's declaration that he'll use the Senate as a tool to exercise strict partisan control certainly doesn't help matters.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- George Monbiot writes that the fossil fuel companies most responsible for endangering our living environment are also polluting our politics:

...What counts, in seeking to prevent runaway global heating, is not the good things we start to do, but the bad things we cease to do. Shutting down fossil infrastructure requires government intervention.

But in many nations, governments intervene not to protect humanity from the existential threat of fossil fuels, but to protect the fossil fuel industry from the existential threat of public protest. In the US, legislators in 18 states have put forward bills criminalising protests against pipelines, seeking to crush democratic dissent on behalf of the oil industry. In June, Donald Trump’s administration proposed federal legislation that would jail people for up to 20 years for disrupting pipeline construction.

Global Witness reports that, in several nations, led by the Philippines, governments have incited the murder of environmental protesters. The process begins with rhetoric, demonising civil protest as extremism and terrorism, then shifts to legislation, criminalising attempts to protect the living planet. Criminalisation then helps legitimise physical assaults and murder. A similar demonisation has begun in Britain, with the publication by a dark money-funded lobby group, Policy Exchange, of a report smearing Extinction Rebellion. Like all such publications, it was given a series of major platforms by the BBC, which preserved its customary absence of curiosity about who funded it.
...
What we see here looks like the denouement of the Pollution Paradox. Because the dirtiest industries attract the least public support, they have the greatest incentive to spend money on politics, to get the results they want and we don’t. They fund political parties, lobby groups and thinktanks, fake grassroots organisations and dark ads on social media. As a result, politics comes to be dominated by the dirtiest industries.

We are told to fear the “extremists” who protest against ecocide and challenge dirty industry and the dirty governments it buys. But the extremists we should fear are those who hold office.

- Meanwhile, Michael Harris discusses the connections between Stephen Harper, the International Democratic Union, and right-wing vote suppression tactics in Canada and around the world.

- Noah Smith writes about the importance of equalizing the distribution of power as well as income and wealth, particularly by strengthening the voice of workers in economic decision-making.

- PressProgress highlights the Libs' plans to push the privatization of water services if communities want any federal support for essential infrastructure. 

- Finally, Nora Loreto calls out the myth of the "lone wolf" shooter by pointing out the structural factors which promote violence and hatred.

Juxtaposition

Some parties and leaders recognize the stakes in determining how to manage a minority Parliament:

I asked Mr. Duceppe what he thought would happen if the prime minister refused to accept such an ultimatum. He replied that a government defeat so soon after a general election meant the Governor General would have to turn "to one of us" to form a government. We both knew that meant Stephen Harper and his Conservatives. I asked Mr. Duceppe if he could accept such an eventuality. He was not only clear that he could, but he would.
...
Realizing immediately the full magnitude of what was at stake, I knew I had to walk away. I was not about to participate in any scheme cooked up by the Bloc and the Conservatives that would put the country in the hands of Stephen Harper.

And some, well...

With three months until Canadians vote in the next federal election, Green party leader Elizabeth May says her big hope for the final result is a minority government over which she can exert some influence.

In fact, May thinks that influence could even get the Conservatives to drop their dyed-in-the-wool opposition to carbon taxes if it means the difference for them between governing or spending more time in opposition.

"People change their minds when they see the dynamic of a way a Parliament is assembled and maybe think, 'Killing carbon taxes isn't such a good idea if the only way I get to be prime minister is by keeping them,' " May says.
...
Federally, May says she could support a minority government of any party but only if that party is serious about acting to stop climate change.

"We will negotiate with anyone, we will talk to everyone, but we won't compromise on climate action," she says.

Meanwhile, let's keep in mind that it's a single vote of confidence following the 2008 election that gave Stephen Harper the ability to stay in office rather than facing the consequences of pushing to exacerbate an economic meltdown with cuts and political attacks.

May might well be able to get the Cons to say they'll change their position on climate policy for the purpose of taking power. She'd have far less leverage in getting them to follow through when they have the option of running away from Parliament.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Lana Payne discusses why we can't afford another Harper government - but also why we shouldn't merely accept the Libs as the only alternative no matter how dishonestly and angrily they try to limit our choices. And Tom Parkin highlights the need to empower social movements to shape our political system.

- The Economist discusses the range of new ideas developing among progressive thinkers in contrast to the pattern of stagnation and reactionary messaging on the right.

- Laurie Monsebraaten reports on the grim prospects of Ontarians with disabilities based on Doug Ford's imminent attacks on the province's social supports. And Alicia Bridges highlights similar uncertainty in Saskatchewan due to the Moe government's announcement of unspecified changes which they're not actually willing to present to the public.

- Meanwhile, Adam Hunter reports on the massive - and readily avoidable - travel bills being racked up by the Sask Party government which is inflicting cruel austerity on the province's citizens. And Anna Mikhailova and Charles Young point out how UK Conservative MPs are pointing to their adult children as an excuse to line their pockets with funding intended to defray child care expenses - even as they deny child care to parents who actually need it.

- Finally, William Snow writes from experience as to how the U.S.' elite universities serve as incubators for growing inequality of opportunity.

[Edit: added link.]