Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Katharine Wu writes that contrary to the continued attempt by right-wing talking heads to equate mass viral transmission with immunity, we can't assume that the spread of the Omicron COVID strain will offer substantial protection from future infection. Kayla Rosen reports on new research showing the widespread cognitive dysfunction caused even by COVID cases treated as "mild", while Moira Wyton points out the "test trap" facing people with less-than-life-threatening symptoms who may not have access to the testing needed to support claims based on disabilities. And Danielle Groen discusses what would be needed for governments to be able to responsibly reopen - which (spoiler alert) means far more than simply asserting in the face of all evidence that the pandemic is over.

- Ben Cousins reports that a majority of Canadians are now having trouble feeding their families, making for an 18-point jump from just a few years ago. Umair Haque discusses how the greed of the wealthiest few is impoverishing everybody else, while Michael Schaub reviews Peter Goodman's "Davos Man" as a helpful reminder as to where wealth and power is currently concentrated. And Andrew Perez and David Sirota highlight how the Senate filibuster serves not as a democratic check, but as corporate America's kill switch to prevent any meaningfully progressive policy from being implemented no matter how necessary or popular.

- Tanya Talaga reminds us that deaths in house fires within First Nations are traceable to the poverty and deprivation which have been structurally embedded in communities. And Mitchell Thompson exposes how Tom Flanagan and his Conservative cronies continue to engage in brazen denial of the horrors of residential schools.

- Finally, Douglas Todd discusses how Singapore has implemented strong incentives against speculation in its housing market, and suggests that Canada pursue the same.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- pogge offers up the definitive response to the Cons' attempt to encourage a sell-off of First Nations reserve land:

When you look past the paternalistic argument that the only way First Nations communities can possibly thrive is to be more like us, this is what's left:

...businesses that want to unlock the economic potential of reserves, from real estate development to forestry and mining, need the legal certainty that a property regime makes possible.

In this context, "unlock the economic potential" looks very much like a euphemism for "streamline the regulatory and tax regime to make it as easy as possible for us to suck all the wealth out." We've been unlocking our own economic potential since around the time Reagan was elected president south of the border. We've unlocked so much economic potential that we now live in the Age of Austerity because all the money is stashed in offshore accounts. If the First Nations have any sense, they'll tell us to get stuffed.

- Meanwhile, FSIN notes that the Cons are slashing funding for First Nations housing.

- If we haven't yet turned every public service into a Con crony's profit stream, it isn't for a lack of trying - with the administration of public benefits programs looming as the next area to be handed over to the corporate sector. But there are some pieces of the Cons' work that are too dirty for even the most anti-social corporation to take on.

- The Victoria Times Colonist and Graham Thomson are duly skeptical about Stephen Harper's claim to be the slightest bit interested in science in determining whether or not to force the Gateway pipeline on B.C. And if we needed another reminder of how distant science is from the Cons' spin on the environment, Marc Lee highlights a few of the more glaring holes in the Cons' latest report on greenhouse gas emissions:

The report creates an alternative “do nothing” scenario that leads to surging emissions of 850 Mt in 2020, then subtracts estimates of federal and provincial actions taken to date, which gets us to 720 Mt. That is a lot of spin on the numbers, perhaps hoping few people will bother to read the actual report and just report the government’s line.

But even the 720 Mt number is suspect for a variety of reasons. First, the economic downturn lowers the baseline, with 2010 emissions coming in lower than previously expected. Next, the feds have included land use changes in the calculations for the first time. The decline in forestry activity means more carbon will remain sequestered in Canada’s forests, and this will lower emissions by 26 Mt. Take these out and the 2020 target jumps back to 745 Mt, slightly more than 2005 levels. Then report also arbitrarily lowers emissions from BC’s natural gas sector, relative to National Energy Board projections. And it assumes that proposed regulations yet to be ratified contribute to decreased transportation emissions. And that Saskatchewan implements carbon capture and storage for four new coal-fired power plants.

The other matter is to what extent the feds can take credit for any reductions in various sectors of the Canadian economy. Much of the heavy lifting appears to have been done at the provincial level, including BC’s carbon tax, Quebec’s cap-and-trade regime and Ontario’s phase-out of coal-fired electricity. In transportation, new vehicle regulations are touted but these just copy the new regulations established by the United States. The report makes repeated reference to new regulations being developed for the oil and gas sector, too, but these have been promised for a long time and no draft regulations have yet seen the light of day.

- Finally, Brent Rathgeber makes the case for sitting MPs to stay out of the boundary revision process. Needless to say, his Saskatchewan caucus-mates don't seem interested in listening.

On dominance

Meanwhile, the obvious potential for growth in NDP support figures to have some rather important effects on the Cons' strategy as well. After all, their current coalition of support left them little room for error even with a split opposition - and if the NDP can win over the Lib votes that figure to be most readily available (resulting in something approaching an equal 40%/40% split), then there's little reason to think the Cons' longtime goal of demolishing the Libs' brand will actually position them as a default governing party.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Jim Stanford thoroughly debunks the tired claim that corporate tax cuts will magically lead to increased investment and economic growth by looking at the actual results of decades of cuts in Canada.

- Meanwhile, it's enough of a plus that we've seen more discussion lately on the need to promote equality rather than accepting growth (concentrated among the wealthy) as the only economic goal worth pursuing. But Toby Sanger points to an IMF study showing that even those who want to focus on growth are best off working to fight inequality.

- It's tough to disagree with Andrew Coyne's take on Tuesday's English debate, particularly as to the strategic box the Libs are now stuck in. But I'll note once again that they could have given themselves a far more coherent position by actively and publicly seeking a place at the head of a coalition, rather than twisting themselves into pretzels trying to pitch a need for cooperation by others but not by themselves in order to work for change.

- Maxwell Cameron challenges Tom Flanagan's attempt to equate politics with war:

(T)he great evolutionary advantage enjoyed by humans arises from our capacity for co-operation, not competition. Great civilizations have never been built on competition alone. The human capacity for empathy, for social problem-solving, and for moral judgment are the foundation of human progress. Without our ability to imitate, collaborate, learn, and understand one another, we would have developed neither language nor tools, neither art nor, indeed, war.

Yet over and again, our public discourse emphasizes conflict and competition over empathy and co-operation. Tom Flanagan’s claim in a recent commentary in The Globe and Mail that “an election is war by other means” is a good example of this bias. Since all is fair in love and war, why should we worry when politicians attack each other, bend or misrepresent the truth, and present themselves, not their ideas, before the electorate? To think otherwise is high-mindedness, says Flanagan.
...
When we treat politics like war, our adversaries become enemies. They are no longer collaborators as well as competitors in a struggle to serve the common good, but nuisances or worse. They must be crushed or eliminated. This is indeed a step toward war.

Campaigns are not only about selecting leaders. Our deliberative institutions are weakened when we obsessively focus on the horse race among leaders and ignore the platforms they propose to implement. There is nothing particularly high-minded about the expectation that substantive debate occur around an election. We want to know not only who is going to govern us but also how they are going to govern us.

One of the reasons we are in this election campaign is precisely because of the contempt for Parliament exhibited by a government that does not accept that truth in politics matters and that ministerial responsibility is an inherent and indispensable part of our system of government – a government that thinks it is OK to bully top civil servants into submission, punish whistleblowers, and hide from accountability.

- Finally, Scott Feschuk offers the definitive take on Canada's Ethnic Costume Party government.

- Update: No, the brilliant return of Points of Information hasn't gone unnoticed.

Sunday Afternoon Links

Assorted material for your weekend reading.

- Stephen Harper's closest confidants say he'll veer right if he gets the chance with a majority. But it's of course beyond the pale for anybody else to make the point where it might be seen as a criticism.

- Doug Saunders rightly points out that inequality is an even more serious issue on a global scale than a national one. And it's long past time for some concerted effort to counter the class that's fighting to increase it on both levels.

- Which naturally means that some renewed recognition of the value of organized labour in representing the interests of non-elites is in order.

- Finally, Harper patronage Senate appointee Don Plett is going for the yuks:

Former Conservative party president Don Plett, now a Tory senator, rejects the notion that the power of the party has become too concentrated in the hands of a few individuals in Ottawa.

He points to the fact that national councillors and the party president are still elected, that riding associations can vote to turf incumbent candidates and that policies are still voted on by members on the convention floor.

That's right: apparently Plett's best examples of the democracy allowed for by the Cons include a rigged process which ensured that not a single incumbent MP actually faced the type of vote which Plett is bragging about.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted reading to start your weekend.

- Chrystia Freeland's piece on the rise of a new global elite is well worth a read, particularly in noting that how the anationality of the rich has led to exploitation of the public everywhere:

the rich of today are also different from the rich of yesterday. Our light-speed, globally connected economy has led to the rise of a new super-elite that consists, to a notable degree, of first- and second-generation wealth. Its members are hardworking, highly educated, jet-setting meritocrats who feel they are the deserving winners of a tough, worldwide economic competition—and many of them, as a result, have an ambivalent attitude toward those of us who didn’t succeed so spectacularly. Perhaps most noteworthy, they are becoming a transglobal community of peers who have more in common with one another than with their countrymen back home. Whether they maintain primary residences in New York or Hong Kong, Moscow or Mumbai, today’s super-rich are increasingly a nation unto themselves.

The rise of the new plutocracy is inextricably connected to two phenomena: the revolution in information technology and the liberalization of global trade. Individual nations have offered their own contributions to income inequality—financial deregulation and upper-bracket tax cuts in the United States; insider privatization in Russia; rent-seeking in regulated industries in India and Mexico. But the shared narrative is that, thanks to globalization and technological innovation, people, money, and ideas travel more freely today than ever before.

- It isn't much surprise that the Cons would think there's no problem setting up a "politically acceptable" donation system linked to tax returns, ensuring that the idea of donating is linked to one of their core fund-raising messages. But to see whether Tom Flanagan actually takes the idea seriously, shouldn't someone ask about setting up the same type of check-off through, say, a mandatory hospital intake form?

- Speaking of which, Thomas Walkom points out that the Cons' health care agenda is far from hidden:

Like Cameron, our prime minister says he is a big supporter of medicare. He brags that he and his family uses standard medicare doctors rather than the pricey executive clinics preferred by some politicians.

But at the same time, Harper’s Conservative Party platform contains important caveats.

It says provinces should have “maximum flexibility” to deliver health care. This is a hint that Conservative governments won’t be overly worried if provinces try to introduce two-tier care.

It also calls for “a balance” between public and private delivery. Currently, virtually all Canadian hospitals are public.

More to the point, it talks of limiting Ottawa’s use of the federal spending power in areas of provincial jurisdiction such as health.

If that platform promise were honored, medicare – a social program based upon Ottawa’s ability to withhold federal funds from provinces that don’t adhere to national standards – wouldn’t exist in its present form.

So, no. Harper’s agenda isn’t hidden -- for health care or anything else. Like Cameron’s, it is all visible. You just have to look. Carefully.

But Walkom actually manages to miss the best example - as the normal Harper spin about supporting the Canada Health Act is thoroughly contradicted by the fact that his government has chosen not to enforce it.

- Finally, while a court challenge to the Cons' decision to overrule the CRTC on telecom ownership might not be the ideal ground to set limits on cabinet power, it's well worth noting how the government's arguments might apply to a ridiculously large range of other situations:

Lawyers for Ottawa argue cabinet’s power under the legislation is largely unbounded. “The Supreme Court has affirmed that the power exercised by [cabinet] under section 12 … is virtually unbounded,” the Attorney-General’s office said in a submission to the federal court.

Which looks to make for just one more example of the Cons claiming that executive discretion trumps actual laws.

How indeed

I've already provided a partial answer. But it's still worth highlighting Dan Gardner's pointed questions on the disturbing turn taken by politicians on both sides of the border over the past decade:

How is it possible that in this most civilized of nations, in 2010, a member of Parliament felt the need to raise (the question of murder as a matter of policy)? And while we’re asking rhetorical questions that would not need to be asked in a sane world, how is it possible that the Republican party has so completely embraced aggression and brutality that almost all its leading figures feel the near-drowning of suspects is a valid interrogation technique and imprisonment without charge or trial is a legitimate practice that should be expanded? Why is it that most people in the United States and elsewhere are not disturbed in the slightest that, despite abundant evidence, American officials who apparently committed heinous crimes in the war on terror will not be investigated and held to account, while Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, who apparently did nothing illegal this week, is hunted to the ends of the Earth? And how in hell is it possible that when a former president of the United States of America admits he authorized the commission of torture — which is to say, he admits he committed a major crime — the international media and political classes express not a fraction of the anger they are now directing at the man who leaked the secrets of that president’s administration?

I marvel at that paragraph. It would have been inconceivable even 10 years ago. Murder treated as a legitimate option in political discourse? Torture as acceptable government policy? No, impossible. A decade ago, it would have been satire too crude to be funny.

And yet, here we are.

Well said

I'll offer one caveat to Susan Delacourt's brilliant post this morning, which is that I'm not sure I'd want to rule out the possibility that some "fight" is entirely necessary in discussing politics (even if it would far better to see the clash involve more ideas and less personal shots). But otherwise, it looks to be a great conversation-starter as to why women are underrepresented in the media as well as in politics.

So go read, and ask whether a bit more "womanly" counterbalance to the Cons' brand of kabuki machismo might make for a huge improvement.

And this is why the debate is deteriorating

Does anybody doubt that if any person remotely affiliated with an opposition party had said anything anywhere near as offensive or inflammatory as Tom Flanagan's declaration that Julian Assange should be summarily executed, a harsh spin on the quote would have been a staple in Con press releases, members' statements and retorts for months (if not years) afterward?

Just wondering, since the first apparent response to Flanagan's eliminationist rhetoric from a prominent Lib is...to validate it as being entirely innocent.

[Edit: fixed wording, added labels.]

Friday Afternoon Links

A few notes for the end of your work week...

- There's good news out of British Columbia today, as the HST petition looks to be back on track following the rejection of a corporate effort to have the petition ruled invalid.

- Tom Flanagan's bizarre commentary on the census has already been discussed extensively elsewhere. But I'll note the part that strikes me as most out of place: how exactly can one use a desire for "rational debate" to apologize for a government which has actively refused to say anything even remotely rational on the subject?

- Brian Topp's post on the Harper Cons' electoral math is certainly worth a read. But it's worth noting that while the Cons' overall support has largely stayed the same, its distribution has changed a few times over the years - ranging from efforts to woo Quebec to attempts to build a majority through ethnic communities before the Cons' current retreat to their hard-right base. And that may make for the most damning end result of all for Harper's reign as leader: not only have the Cons failed to get into majority territory, they've also fallen short while trying out the all of the most promising paths to get there.

- Finally, the Globe and Mail's article on the Cons' municipal campaign school points out some shady dealings that have been duly criticized. But the more important takeaway should be that the right is hard at work trying to extend its influence to all levels of government - and it doesn't do anybody any favours for the left to respond by declining to get similarly coordinated.

Prepare for a fight

As part of an obvious effort to lay the groundwork for the Cons' strategy following the next election, Tom Flanagan is the first Con-friendly source to put in writing what I've suspected for some time: that Stephen Harper's plan to cling to power at all costs may include refusing to resign even after what would be considered an election loss by any rational standard, then refusing to convene Parliament so as to avoid the inevitable vote of non-confidence:

First (unlikely but possible), the Liberals might win a plurality of seats, i.e., fewer than a majority but more than any other party. In that case, Stephen Harper could attempt to stay on as Prime Minister, as Mackenzie King did in 1925 even though the Conservatives won more seats in that election. But such a course seems unlikely in light of recent precedents and statements by Mr. Harper himself about the importance of “winning the election” – i.e., getting the most seats – in order to form a government.

Another scenario (more plausible, according to all recent polls) is that the Conservatives may win a plurality of seats. In that case, Mr. Harper would certainly attempt to continue as Prime Minister, even if his party had lost seats and the Liberals had gained. He has every right to do so, as by convention he remains Prime Minister until he resigns, and he would have no reason to resign unless defeated in the House of Commons.

At that point, the crucial question becomes, how many seats do the Liberals and NDP hold together? If together, they have a majority (155 or more), their position will be dominant as long as they agree to work together, because they can defeat the government on a confidence vote and force the Prime Minister’s resignation.

However, Mr. Harper would still have cards to play. As long as he remains Prime Minister, he has what game theorists call the first-mover advantage. For example, he does not have to ask the Governor-General to summon Parliament right away (Joe Clark waited four months after the 1979 election before meeting Parliament).

If he chose to play for time, Mr. Harper could try to break up the Liberal-NDP alliance by making a better offer to one or the other.

So with Flanagan obviously setting out the Cons' position, let's respond with a couple of points worth keeping front and centre.

First, if Harper indeed runs the next election on the idea that he needs a majority to beat back an inevitable coalition, then he'll lack any legitimacy whatsoever in trying to cling to power as that coalition forms. And the precedents for maintaining executive continuity don't offer the slightest bit of justification for a Prime Minister who's facing an obvious non-confidence vote to cling to power by refusing to allow Parliament to exercise its democratic authority to vote him down.

And second, it's entirely legitimate for a government to retain power with the support of democratically-elected Bloc MPs - as the Cons themselves did in 2006 and 2007. And particularly if the alignment in the House of Commons after the next election includes an NDP/Lib coalition on one side and the Cons on the other - with either requiring the support of the Bloc to govern - then there will be no reason whatsoever to favour the Cons' demand to stay in power based on concerns about the Bloc's influence.

On priorities

Shorter Tom Flanagan:

I can't believe the opposition actually worked to eliminate a public irritant rather than clinging to every available avenue for propaganda. Whatta buncha rubes, I tells ya!

Far beyond belief

Shorter Tom Flanagan:

To learn the true measure of a leader, one must ignore his instinctual reaction to a perceived crisis in favour of whatever image he now finds it most beneficial to project. (Warning: only applies to Stephen Harper.)

On punchlines

Sure, Tom Flanagan deserves every bit of the widespread mockery he's received for his helpful suggestions as to how each party in Parliament can best benefit the Harper government. But isn't the larger joke on the party which has ensured that Flanagan and his ilk will continue to be more influential than almost anybody else in determining the federal government's direction?

Bogus analysis

Shorter Jonathan Kay:
While we're at it, Brian Mulroney is a well-connected lawyer, businessman and Prime Minister of Canada. So we can dismiss out of hand the possibility that he would have jeopardized his reputation by taking cash in a paper bag.

Wells on Flanagan

I've avoided commenting directly on the recent wave of Tom Flanagan-related stories, based primarily on the view that the less attention Flanagan receives, the better off Canada's public debate will be. But Paul Wells' column is one that can't pass without a link and a comment, even if I disagree with the overarching theme.

Which is to say that for all Flanagan's talk about triangulation and incrementalism, there's little to support Wells' apparent thesis that Flanagan (and by proxy Harper) are any less ideological now than they were in their Reform days. The only difference lies in how much they're willing to hide their real beliefs in order to try to gain the trust of Canadians who wouldn't accept the Cons' long-term plans - which seems to me to be nothing more than a Machiavellian means to the same antisocial end that Harper, Flanagan and their ilk have sought all along.

That said, Wells is still worth a read in pointing out the absurdity of a government which genuinely perceives a lack of honest content as its best strategy to try to improve its popularity. And Flanagan may indeed deserve attention to the limited extent of highlighting that warped worldview in the months to come - as "even Stephen Harper's closest advisor admits that 'Canada is not...a Conservative country'" figures to hold a prominent place in the opposition's message going forward.