Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Michael Harris continues to highlight some of the fundamental problems with the Cons' view of politics, this time identifying Stephen Harper as being afflicted with "master of the universe syndrome":

When you control all the levers of power, when you have no scruples, when you are surrounded by nutters who will do anything you say without thinking, when you conceive of language as disconnected from objective reality, when you believe biz bull and Beatle songs are enough to bamboozle the Great Unwashed, it’s understandable in certain personality types that the conviction begins to take hold that you are a master of the universe.

Here are the main symptoms of MOUS. You stop caring about what others think about you. They are merely the Plankton People – Vladimir Putin’s ringing coinage for the human flotsam and jetsam who throng to those soon-to-be terminated protests against his dark dominion in Russia. The kind of people, I might add, who now find themselves under arrest when a Harper cabinet minister is heckled...

When you have MOUS, it never crosses your mind that people would like more from their government than a cattle prod in their junk. That’s because being Boss is in your blood. You, and you alone, know what’s good for everybody. And what’s good for everybody? Well, it just happens to be what’s good for your friends. The pipeline people, the military, and of course, the Harper Party.

- NUPGE identifies several pieces of the Sask Party's labour and employment plans which violate well-established and internationally-recognized labour rights:

Implementing any of the following legislative changes would be seen as a violation of Canada's (and Saskatchewan's) commitment to adhere to ILO fundamental principles of freedom of association:

• excluding some employees from the right to collective bargaining;
• restricting unions from democratically deciding how they spend dues revenues;
• allowing individual members to opt out of paying dues;
• allowing individual members to make decisions on what their dues are used for that are contrary to the financial decisions made democratically by the majority of union members;
• eliminating 'dues check off', the process where an employer deducts union dues from employees' pay on behalf of the union; and
• denying essential employees the right to strike without access to impartial third party arbitration.

- Vass Bednar and Mark Stabile comment on the Cons' continued attacks on evidence-based policy in general and Statistics Canada in particular:

We would argue that there is a strong case to be made for a publicly funded and administered statistical agency that collects the kind of robust information required for government, business and individuals to make the best decisions they can.

For without being able to accurately describe the characteristics and trends of what that "problem" is, society will simply have to make policy in the dark.

Evidence-based policy-making requires just that - evidence - standard, reliable metrics whose quantification and legitimacy is widely agreed upon. In their absence, policy-making at all levels and in every sector will be as expensive as it is hopeful, while policy actors are forced to gingerly "guess and check" over time.

In the absence of good data, our ability to fully comprehend complex policy issues will grow anecdotal and inconsistent. As admirable as the quest for efficiency in the public sector is, it can't be worth the confusion that it will promise in the future. Truly realizing the kind of savings that Statistics Canada claims to strive for in this budgetary cycle means continuing to invest in the foundational information that has wisely informed our nation for decades.

- Stephen Maher reports on the latest in Helena Guergis' defamation claim. But the most noteworthy part of the story may be the one tossed in as an afterthought: all investigation and discussion of the criminal case against a past Conservative MP - who was married to a then-current MP and cabinet minister - was shot down by yet another future MP and cabinet minister in Julian Fantino.

 - Finally, the Star-Phoenix editorial board has some pointed questions about the plan for a new Regina stadium.

Tuesday Night Cat Blogging

Levelled cats.

Patient Zero

Paul Krugman highlights what seems to him the first example of the "repeat a lie until it's taken as conventional wisdom" messaging strategy of the North American right:

I originally got the term “zombie lies” from the healthcare field, specifically Canadian health care, where there are certain stories — like the one about hordes of Canadians crossing the border to seek treatment — that remain part of what everyone, or at least everyone on the right, knows to be true no matter how many times they have been shown to be false. Kill them, and they just keep shambling along.

The reason this happens so much in health economics is clear: the realities of health care — especially the complete absence of free-market success stories and the evident superiority of public systems at cost control — are just not supposed to happen in the conservative world view. Hence the temptation to make stuff up, to seize on stories that are what right-wingers think should be happening and pretend that they are what really happens.

Zombie right-wing lies: a proud part of our Canadian heritage. In fact, Jim Flaherty's announcement of a commemorative wooden nickel is being planned as we speak.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Dave Coles writes that the Harper Cons are using their power to protect the privacy of international arms dealers, while at the same time demanding stringent reporting requirements for labour unions and their members:

Labour unions are among the few institutions that can and do provide a counterbalance to the power of corporations. Yet the Conservatives are not requiring companies that bargain with trade unions to file detailed reports to the Canada Revenue Agency on their salary, political or lobbying spending. Additionally, they are not requiring other professional associations that collect fees or dues from their members, such as the Canadian Medical Association for example, to follow the terms of Bill C-377.

They are only requiring the institutions created to represent the interests of millions of workers across the country to file these detailed records. There is no other way to interpret this than as an attempt to disarm a political opponent.

Much like what Habib Massoud was hinting at when talking about those involved in the arms trade, the detailed reporting required by Bill C-377 will be burdensome, costly and threaten the privacy rights of many individuals, companies and organizations that work with unions. Incredibly, under the proposed legislation, labour-associated pension and benefit plans will be required to publicly disclose “the name and address” and a “description” of benefits paid to individuals greater than $5,000. This could include personal medical information.

- Barrie McKenna notes that Jim Flaherty is once again using the power of the federal government to let banks do whatever they want without consequences. And unfortunately Canada's government is far from the only one which is utterly failing in its obligation to defend the public interest in dealing with banks.

- And indeed, the U.K. is standing out in its emphasis on corporate "property", going so far as to make the names of seasons off limits for anybody other than Olympic sponsors:

Wearing purple caps and tops, the experts in trading and advertising working for the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) are heading the biggest brand protection operation staged in the UK. Under legislation specially introduced for the London Games, they have the right to enter shops and offices and bring court action with fines of up to £20,000.

Olympics organisers have warned businesses that during London 2012 their advertising should not include a list of banned words, including "gold", "silver" and "bronze", "summer", "sponsors" and "London".

- Finally, Erin Weir contrasts the Wall government's willingness to put public money into a new stadium in Regina against its missed opportunity to invest in renewable power. And the Globe and Mail points out the coincidence that the federal Cons are funding attacks on wind power while refusing to acknowledge massive health, safety and environmental risks associated with non-renewable resource extraction.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Lana Payne sees reason for hope in the sheer breadth of citizens who are protesting against the Harper Cons:

Scientists. Doctors. Nuclear engineers. Academics. Researchers. Stephen Harper has a big problem.

He has ticked them all off. And they are not suffering their grievances or concerns for informed, fact-based public policy and decision-making, the environment, the health of Canada’s most vulnerable citizens and the safety of all of us in silence.

No. Instead they are protesting, marching, disrupting government news conferences. They are mobilizing.
...
(T)his is a prime minister and a government who have mobilized Canadians to take action, to protest, march and speak out. Canadians who would not normally do so. Canadians who care about the country, who care about how we treat the most vulnerable among us: the poor, the elderly. Who care about facts.
...
(T)he provinces have power. The premiers just need to figure out how they want to use it and whether they can agree among themselves how best to do so. This won’t be easy, but it is not impossible.

It will require courage and leadership and an understanding that Canada is truly great when we are more than the sum of our parts.

It’s time for the premiers to start fighting back. And when they do, Canadians, the vast majority of us, will be with them.

- But then, we can't assume that all provinces are particularly interested in hearing about the needs of Canada's most vulnerable citizens either - as sadly demonstrated by the Sask Party's decision to de-fund Equal Justice For All.

- Fortunately, at least some others are picking up the slack in documenting how people are affected by uncaring decision-makers. For example, Rob Rainer and Linda Silas discuss how inequality is making Canada sick.

- And the CAW looks into the job market facing laid-off manufacturing-sector workers, and finds that there's plenty of reason for concern:

A groundbreaking study tracking a group of laid off workers in Ontario shows that they continue to struggle to find decent jobs amidst the turmoil of the current labour market.

The final phase of the CAW's Worker Adjustment Tracking Study released earlier today shows that many laid off workers are forced into lower quality and more precarious jobs (including temp agency work), with a significant reduction in pay following the loss of good full-time employment.
...
Other study highlights include:
- Over 1 in 5 reported being without income for longer than one year;
- 31% reported their general health has deteriorated as a result of layoff;
- 48% reported they had done without something they needed in order to pay the rent or mortgage;
- Employment and job characteristics for most workers are poorer than in their previous jobs;
- Nearly 60% of those who completed job retraining programs found related employment.

 - Finally, Craig McInnes is the latest to weigh in on how Enbridge's utter irresponsibility in causing its Michigan spill should make us wary of its intentions in ramming through a Gateway pipeline.

On ballpark figures

John Klein and Marian Donnelly have already raised some important questions about this weekend's stadium funding announcement. But while the biggest problem with the announcement may well be just how obvious it is that some key issues haven't yet been worked out in the slightest, I'll toss a couple more into the mix.

First, particularly in light of the fact that Regina's City Council will be asked to vote on the deal within the next month, the announcement reeks of being cynically timed to allow a current council to lock the city into an agreement which voters may want to reject. And so it will be worth keeping an eye on exactly what steps are intended to be taken before the election - and holding the current Councillors who are running again strictly accountable for any choice to deprive voters of any say.

Second, there's the cost involved in the project. While Bruce Johnstone for one takes at face value the claim that the province's "roof ready" requirement won't add to the price tag, I'm curious as to how the cost of an open-air stadium has jumped just under $90 million (for a stadium with 5,000 less seats) since the province carried out its 2009 stadium concept review.

Otherwise, the announcement at least looks to reflect a more sensible funding model than most that have been floated to pay for a new stadium - with the Roughriders and attendees picking up at least a substantial part of the initial tab (though the city looks to be on the hook for overruns). And so the question will indeed be one of priorities rather than whether there's much more to be done to improve what a stadium project looks like.

Sunday Afternoon Links

Assorted content to end your weekend.

- Will Hutton discusses how the increasing gaps in economic equality are leading to radical differences in opportunity - with the U.S./U.K. push toward private schooling serving as a particular source of exclusion:

(T)he middle class of whatever ethnic background is spending more on what Putnam calls its children's "enrichment activities" so important for psychological wellbeing and character building; in fact they are spending 11 times more than those at the bottom. In 1972, working-class children from the bottom quartile of earners were just as likely to participate in a wide range of sporting and cultural events as children from the top quartile. No more. A chasm has opened, claims Putnam. Whether it is captaining a school sports team, winning an internship or being read to at night the middle-class child's chances are at least two times better.

As a result, the arteries in American society are hardening. Social mobility is in decline, but, worse, the general drop in trust observable in all social classes is most marked among the poorest third of Americans. Nor should it be any surprise that they are "cynical and even paranoid", writes Putnam: it is a rational response to their situation. Every institution that might be expected to alleviate their plight – family, school, voluntary organisations and church – has become dysfunctional.
...
Private schools are much more important in Britain and America than in Canada and Australia; unsurprisingly it follows, as the Carnegie Corporation/Sutton Trust recent social mobility summit found, that social mobility is much lower in Britain and America. The privately educated, the quintessential expression of enrichment activity, not only dominate the upper echelons of British society, so do their children. Private schools play a pivotal role in repressing mobility; however good state schools become, private schools' well-understood job is to stay a step ahead and deliver economic and social advantage.

 - There's been plenty of talk of how Enbridge's disastrous failure to deal with its failing Michigan pipeline will affect its plans for a Gateway pipeline, with Barbara Yaffe and the Globe and Mail recognizing that the project (at least as it stands) is likely to fail utterly in B.C. while groups in Alberta also call for some serious scrutiny. And Peter O'Neil notes that Enbridge's own complete lack of responsibility only makes it less likely that anybody can take their reassurances seriously.

- But naturally, the Cons are trying to change the subject from real environmental disasters caused by their oil-sector cronies by launching a witch hunt against wind power. And all this as they refuse to even consider the possible environmental damage which might soon be caused by fracking.

- Keith Reynolds documents how the B.C. Libs rewrote their own P3 rules to ensure that development was privatized even when there was no rational basis for pushing in that direction.

- Finally, Tabatha Southey previews some of Jason Kenney's website petitions to come.

Saturday Afternoon Links

This and that for your weekend reading.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On default positions

Dan Ariely comments on how the normalization of cheating can produce a cascading effect:

The consequences of this sort of cheating are even more severe when the network of contagion is larger. We see this when we look at Greece, where masses of people have been cheating a little bit everywhere, and it’s all added up. What this shows is just how contagious dishonesty can be. When we see somebody else cheat, especially if they’re part of our own, internal group, all of a sudden we figure out that it’s more acceptable to act this way. It’s not that the probability of our getting caught has changed – it’s that we’ve changed our mindset, convincing ourselves that the act itself is actually OK. At some point, you just think, “This is the way things are done,” and you go with the flow.

One woman from Greece recently told me that she was selling her apartment and she was considering whether to sell it legally (and pay taxes) or illegally (without paying taxes). She quickly realized that she had bought it illegally, and that she would lose money if she turned around and sold it legally – not to mention that, in her mind, she would be the only person in Greece paying taxes on real-estate property.

When everyone around you is cheating the system, what’s your motivation to be the one not playing along? 

And on what's surely an entirely unrelated note, Andrew Hepburn reports on how prize fixing may be par for the course in the financial sector:

Barclays attempted to manipulate LIBOR both to give a false impression of the bank’s health and also to benefit its trading positions. It did not do so alone: traders coordinated their activities with other banks to ensure successful manipulations. For example, let’s say Barclays had accumulated bets that interest rates would rise. Submitting artificially high estimates of how much it cost the bank to borrow funds would tend to push the published LIBOR rate higher, thus benefitting its trading positions. To do so, however, it would need to collude with other banks, because the highest and lowest submissions are automatically excluded in the calculation of LIBOR.
...
The truth is, though, that price-fixers are less likely to be caught or punished severely in the financial industry.

Admittedly, authorities across the developed world have become quite adept at spotting and cracking down on manipulation and cartel behaviour in a number of other areas. In the U.S., for example, anti-trust laws provide significant civil and criminal penalties for those found guilty of cartel behaviour—and there have been some notable enforcement actions. The same goes for the European Union. As recently as 2010, the European Commission fined 11 airlines almost $1 billion for fixing the price of air cargo.

Yet with the exception of stocks, regulators have made comparatively little headway in combating market manipulation in the world of finance. The U.S. Commodities Futures Trading Commission, for example, has only successfully prosecuted one case of market manipulation in its entire history (though there have been some cases of–mostly modest–settlements along the way). This, in turn, has contributed to various shenanigans mushrooming across the industry.

And to make matters worse, there's Corporate Knights' analysis as to how Canada's corporate sector treats its legal obligation to pay taxes:

All wasn’t good news. The average percentage of defined benefit pension plans that are funded is down again this year, as is the average percentage of statutory taxes that was paid.

“It’s not surprising,” said Michael Yow, lead analyst with CK Capital, this magazine's sister research division. “Companies are looking for ways to keep cash during more trying economic times, so they’re looking for any possibility to take advantage of any and all tax loopholes.”

All of which would seem to make for about the most unlikely scenario for yet another anti-regulation push telling the public to just trust whatever the corporate sector deems acceptable. And yet, here we are.

Musical interlude

Adam Nickey - Never Gone

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Eric Liu and Nick Hanauer theorize that we should discuss the economy as a garden rather than a machine:

A well-designed tax system — in which everyone contributes and benefits — ensures that nutrients are circulated widely to fertilize and foster growth. Reducing taxes on the very wealthiest on the idea that they are “job creators” is folly. Jobs are the consequence of an organic feedback loop between consumers and businesses, and it’s the demand from a thriving middle class that truly creates jobs. The problem with today’s severe concentration of wealth, then, isn’t that it’s unfair, though it might be; it’s that it kills middle-class demand. Lasting growth doesn’t trickle down; it emerges from the middle out.

Lastly, consider spending. The word spending means literally “to use up or extinguish value,” and most Americans believe that’s exactly what government does with their tax dollars. But government spending is not a single-step transaction that burns money as an engine burns fuel; it’s part of a continuous feedback loop that circulates money. Government no more spends our money than a garden spends water or a body spends blood. To spend tax dollars on education and health is to circulate nutrients through the garden.

- Meanwhile, Jim Stanford thoroughly debunks the austerian claim that we can't afford to invest in needed public programs:

(D)ebt service has continued to decline despite the (modest) rebound in debt resulting from the recession.  Debt service costs for all levels of government fell below 4% of GDP since the recession.  How could debt service costs decline, even while the debt burden (modestly) grew?  Because average interest costs have declined.  Like home-owners, governments have been able to refinance their debt to take advantage of today’s ultra-low rates.  (Remember, even fiscally pressed provinces like Ontario can still borrow money today for 10 years at real interest rates not much above zero.)  As older bonds come due and are refinanced, governments reduce their interest costs dramatically.  Those savings have more than offset the incremental debt service costs associated wtih additional debt.  So the claim that rising debt service costs are squeezing out more useful forms of public expenditure (not that conservatives support those programs, either) is empirically false.

Running up public debt for the sake of running up debt makes no sense.   There are costs associated with debt, and limits to how much debt can rise.  But there are benefits associated with debt-financed spending, too.  That includes the productivity of long-lived public capital assets that can be financed with debt (just like companies or households prudently finance long-lived assets, from factory equipment to homes, with debt).  In a demand-constrained macroeconomic context, another benefit of debt-financed spending is the positive spillover effect on overall employment and income that results from that spending (even when it’s on current services rather than public capital).  Based on the preceding graphs, Canadian governments are far from any meaningful constraint on their ability to borrow.  Hence, we should make a rational decision as a country regarding how much new debt is optimal, rather than being dominated by an initial quasi-religious assumption that “all debt is bad.”

- I'll agree with Dan Gardner that at least a few of the recent criticisms of Stephen Harper - such as that based on his Calgary boosterism - take several steps across the line between reasonable concern and excessive contrarianism. And it's a shame that's the type of story receiving attention, since there are still plenty of entirely valid reasons to be genuinely outraged at Harper that remain to be fleshed out.

- Finally, for those with a bit more time on their hands, Steven Shrybman's legal opinion on the effects of CETA (PDF) makes for a rather worrisome read.

New column day

Here, expanding on a previous blog post as to how the Etobicoke Centre appeal heard by the Supreme Court this week may affect future Canadian elections.

For more, see the coverage from Macleans, Postmedia, the Hill Times and CBC, as well as columns from Susan Delacourt and Adam Goldenberg (who takes opposite view that technicalities should win out).

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Ed Broadbent discusses the connection between unions, democracy and equality:

In democratic societies, there are two principal arenas of non-violent conflict over power: the state and the workplace. Just as political democracy entails the right to select or reject one’s representatives and enables us to pursue, share and exercise power in the real world of free citizens, democracy in the workplace also requires that workers have their own representatives and some real power.
...
Canada’s stronger unions have helped ensure we have less extremes than in the U.S. (falling wages tend to be limited to the middle-class) and have certainly not undermined our economic performance, comparatively. Even hard-hit Ontario (which has the second lowest unionization rate in Canada after Alberta) has an unemployment rate significantly below the U.S. average.

Don’t believe those politicians and pundits who say unions threaten prosperity. The effort to emasculate unions is about silencing the voice of Canadian workers, and at risk are our hard-won rights – both inside and outside the workplace.

- And David Olive points out some important reasons not to take Canada's economic future for granted.

 - I'm somewhat more skeptical than Michael Harris about the impact of yesterday's pro-evidence protests. But it's certainly worth doing what we can to prove him right in thinking a sea change is afoot.

- After much hemming and hawing, Christy Clark has succumbed to NDP pressure by questioning the impact of a Gateway pipeline on British Columbia. Meanwhile, Andrew Nikiforuk reveals what Enbridge's top executives took away from their Michigan oil spill - with "take the money and run" apparently leading the way.

 - Finally, SOS Crowns wonders whether this week's SaskPower rate hike announcement represents some of the fallout from privatized production.

On definition

Others have weighed in on the NDP's latest set of ads in English...


...and in French:

But it's worth highlighting what most sets the latest ads apart from what we've seen from the opposition parties between elections since the Cons took power.

Contrary to some of the headlines, the ads don't play at all as a response to the Cons' own attacks on Tom Mulcair; instead, they're aimed squarely at opponent definition. And in doing so, they nicely tie together a few easily-digestible and repeated themes (deficits, cuts, economic uncertainty) as affecting viewers directly - serving to thoroughly undercut the "trust us in uncertain times" theme that won the Cons' majority in 2011, while also setting up a contrast with the NDP's track record as a party which balances budgets while valuing social benefits.

Of course, it won't be easy to counteract the Cons' financial advantage in getting the message heard. But at the very least, it's a plus to see a clear statement of distinction with obvious room for further development.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Sid Ryan rightly criticizes Tim Hudak's anti-labour plans as a push toward poverty rather than prosperity.

- Via Climate Progress, Steven Mufson reports on the causes of Enbridge's Michigan oil spill - with Enbridge's complete failure to repair known defects over a period of five years included among the reasons:

The cost of the spill has reached $800 million and is rising, the NTSB said, making the pipeline rupture the most expensive on-shore oil spill in U.S. history. The pipeline’s contents — heavy crude oil from Canada’s oil sands — have made the spill a closely watched case with implications for other pipelines carrying such crude.

The NTSB also blamed “weak federal regulations” by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration for the accident, which spilled at least 843,444 gallons of oil into a tributary of the Kalamazoo in Marshall, Mich. The oil spread into a 40-mile stretch of the Kalamazoo and a nearby wetlands area.

The NTSB said Enbridge had noticed cracks as early as 2005 but had failed to repair them.

“This accident is a wake-up call to the industry, the regulator, and the public,” NTSB Chairman Deborah A.P. Hersman said in a statement. “Enbridge knew for years that this section of the pipeline was vulnerable yet they didn’t act on that information.” She added that “for the regulator to delegate too much authority to the regulated to assess their own system risks and correct them is tantamount to the fox guarding the hen house.” 

- Which means that B.C. citizens look to have every reason for their reaction to Enbridge's pipeline propaganda (as documented by Vaughn Palmer):

(S)uddenly, amid the usual flow of advertisements for automobiles, communication services and cold drinks, there was one of those Enbridge spots touting the Northern Gateway as “more than a pipeline, it’s a path to the future.”

Sparkling colours. Relentlessly cheery. Nice production values, as one would expect with a campaign priced in the millions of dollars.

But here’s the thing: The audience actually booed the pro-pipeline pitch and did so with considerable enthusiasm.

How often that has been happening in movie theatres, I have no idea. But I was struck by the thought of Enbridge launching a campaign to — in the words of a company representative — “help British Columbians understand what the project is all about” only to have its best efforts greeted by a chorus of boos.

- Finally, Heather Mallick offers up an appropriate level of thanks to Jason Kenney for his attacks on refugees.

Tuesday Night Cat Blogging

Nuzzling cats.

Why now

Of all the possible answers to the suggestion of a guaranteed annual income, I for one didn't see "how can you speak of such a thing at a time like this?" as a particularly likely one. But since it seems to be the stock response, let's point out just how little sense it makes.

Sure, we may have come to see as an iron law of politics that policy proceeds in two phases. Step 1, business blowhards and their right-wing cronies inflate easily-foreseeable bubbles for nobody's benefit but their own; step 2, progressives clean up the mess in the public interest just in time to set up the next spell of irrational exuberance.

But just because that sad story has played out repeatedly doesn't mean it's inevitable. And now is exactly the time to ask whether we should respond to a boom by extracting as much as possible for the benefit of foreign owners, or whether we can put the resources we enjoy to better use.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Barbara Yaffe discusses Thomas Mulcair's strong start in winning over B.C. voters. And Martin Regg Cohn notes that Stephen Harper is starting to face some real (and needed) pressure from Darrell Dexter and other premiers to start actually talking to the provinces, rather than retreating from shared responsibilities.

- Sure, we should pay attention when public resources are used to make sales pitches for corporate interests. But what's most noteworthy about Jason Fekete's report on the Cons' CETA PR push is the point they didn't even both to answer:

Parliamentarians have been warned by some groups that signing the free-trade agreement could cost the country's health system an extra $2.8 billion annually in pharmaceutical bills and delay access to cheaper generic drugs, due to CETA provisions on intellectual property.

The talking points provided to MPs didn't refute arguments that drug costs would rise, but the politicians were encouraged to say the government "has always sought to strike a balance between promoting innovation and job creation and ensuring that Canadians continue to have access to the affordable drugs they need."

So alongside the "economy or environment" dichotomy the Cons have worked to build, they're also of the view that "economy or health care" is also an either-or choice. And they're entirely happy to throw health care under the bus as their idea of balance.

- Meanwhile, the private prison industry looks more and more to be another destination of handouts from the Cons to the corporate sector.

- Finally, Bob Weber reports that environmentalists and landowners are having to take up the cause of monitoring oil spills for lack of any constructive or honest involvement by any level of government.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your Monday reading.

- Janet Bagnall neatly dissects the Cons' plan for dismantling public services:

The Harper government is nothing if not predictable in how it goes about dismantling a program or service. It starts by denigrating the program and the program’s beneficiaries, and telling Canadians that they’ve been played for fools by the beneficiaries. Once that message has been drilled home, and the government judges that the moment is right and Canadians’ attitudes changed, it proceeds to get rid of the offending program – no matter how impractical, immoral or ultimately costly the exercise might prove to be.

- Dan Leger discusses Gwyn Morgan's efforts to poison Canada's political discourse in service to the Harper Cons.

- Heather Mallick is the latest to weigh in on the Republican-style anti-labour attitude of the Canadian right. And the Globe and Mail does its best Conservadem impression by declaring that teachers' unions should accept massive cuts from a Lib party which is at best pretending to play nice as the price of avoiding Tim Hudak's overt hatred and contempt.

- Finally, Alice takes a look at party spending in the 2011 federal election. And perhaps the most interesting note is that both the Libs (at the national level) and the Bloc (at the riding level) managed to increase their spending over 2008 in a losing battle to hold their previous ground.

Monday Morning 'Rider Blogging

After the 'Riders' win yesterday, it's tempting to stick with the line that ugly wins count the same in the standings. But there was in fact some noteworthy strategy involved in the game.

The obvious key for Saskatchewan was a devastating defence on all fronts - and most of the attention has gone to a multi-threat pass rush which kept Edmonton's quarterbacks from using the read-and-react style that suits both of them best by eliminating any time to decide what to do with the ball. But even when a receiver managed to get open initially, the 'Riders' secondary did a superb job of breaking up passes and tackling receivers.

Of course, Edmonton was operating with much the same defence-and-ball control game plan - and executed it well enough to keep the game close until the last two minutes. And that's why the 'Riders' offence and coaching staff deserves more credit than would seem apparent from its yardage and scoring numbers.

Yes, it would have been a plus to see Darian Durant find some more receivers open downfield - especially since the timing that allowed for so many yards after catches in week 1 was lacking in last night's game. And I'm sure we would have seen the offence opened up a bit if the 'Riders hadn't managed to hold a lead even with their offence limited to small gains.

But in a contest where there looked to be much more risk of the Eskimos managing a big play on defence or special teams than on offence, Durant again avoided any turnovers. And he managed the feat despite a higher degree of difficulty than the previous week, as 'Riders' offensive line was largely overmatched.

With the 'Riders conceding absolutely nothing, the few big plays which swung the result consisted of Eskimo turnovers and Kory Sheets' late rushing touchdown which effectively put the game out of reach. And while I wouldn't want to count on that being enough in most games, the 'Riders deserve full credit for converting them into another win.

On parallel pursuits

Let's follow on the theme of both Thursday's column and the Mound of Sound's post with a closer look at the corporatist "there are no bad jobs" philosophy - which serves as the obvious foundation for constant attacks on wages, unions and workers even if it's been walked back as a direct statement of principle from Jim Flaherty. And for a frame of comparison, let's look at another concept that carries similar significance both in personal fulfillment and in public policy.

Most people will spend the vast majority of their time and effort building two aspects of their life: a career and a family. Both can take countless different forms, including some which may be problematic based on power dynamics which aren't easily addressed through public policy. And both are directly supported by public policy - partly out of political calculation, and partly out of a theory that society as a whole is better off if people are able to engage in them.

So what would we think if a government were to announce that it believes there's no such thing as a bad domestic partnership? And that in its moral judgment, the goal of anybody lacking a spouse through no fault of their own should be to settle for whoever will have them - with government policy then developed toward that end?

My guess is that we'd rightly see such a declaration as even more jaw-droppingly outrageous than the slip of the mask that got Flaherty in trouble. But I'm not sure we should differentiate all that much between the two.

Yes, by and large we should provide conduits for people to seek out careers which contribute to the world around them - just as we provide incentives for family structures. But there are plenty of circumstances which make it desirable for an individual to be able to pursue other options without feeling it's necessary to suffer in order to cling to one's livelihood, whether based on outright abusive employers or a simple lack of any match between the two parties. And we most certainly shouldn't tolerate the power of the state being used as a means to force anybody to accept what they don't want at the expense of their ability to chart a viable course for their future.

Instead, we should be looking to provide supports for the "precariat" who may be particularly vulnerable on both fronts. And anybody who's instead focused in forcing people into what can indeed be bad relationships - whether personal or employment-based - should be been as downright dangerous to meaningful individual choice.

Sunday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your weekend.

- In keeping with the theme of my column this week, the Mound of Sound highlights the distinction between a "plutonomy" which serves as the source of easy profits, and a "precariat" which businesses are looking to treat as irrelevant (except when they need a bailout).

- And Ken Georgetti discusses how that distinction fits with the regular attacks on organized labour from the Cons and their provincial cousins: 

The erosion of collective bargaining is linked directly to a growing income gap in our society. Corporate profits are at near or record highs while the wages of Canadians have stagnated for an entire generation. There is a direct relationship between attacks upon unions and a shrinking of the Canadian middle class.

Left to its own devices, free collective bargaining really does work for the common good. Unions have been able to ensure that workers share, at least to some extent, in the corporate profits that they helped create. Unions have been successful in reducing systemic wage gaps in workplaces. Being in a union means better wages for women, workers of colour, aboriginal people and people with disabilities.

The more equal wage structure in unionized workplaces sets wage and benefit standards that spill over into other workplaces. Employees tend to be paid better when they live in communities with unionized workers earning decent wages. Finally, countries with strong labour movements have a larger, more vibrant middle class and achieve greater societal fairness because unions advocate for government policies that benefit all working people, not just their own members.

Our government's heavy-handed interventions in the labour market weaken basic labour rights, and that hurts all middle class Canadians.

- Meanwhile, David Olive points out that austerians are simply exacerbating exactly the problems they claim to want to fix, while also creating longer-term investment deficits that will need to be addressed later.

- Grant Robertson reports on the Cons' willingness to let banks select and fund their own "external complaints bodies", rather than answering to any accountability mechanism anybody whose findings might not be entirely in keeping with the bank's desires.

- Finally, Michael Geist details how CETA is being used to imposed draconian copyright restrictions with little public attention.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Lori Wallach discusses the corporate coup underlying the Trans-Pacific Partnership which the Cons are so eager to force on Canada:

(T)rade is the least of it. Only two of TPP’s 26 chapters actually have to do with trade. The rest is about new enforceable corporate rights and privileges and constraints on government regulation. This includes new extensions of price-raising drug patent monopolies, corporate rights to attack government drug formulary pricing plans, safeguards to facilitate job offshoring and new corporate controls over natural resources.

Also included are severe limits on government regulation of financial services, zoning and land use, product and food safety, energy and other essential services, tobacco, and more. The copyright chapter poses many of the threats to Internet freedom of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), which was stalled in Congress under intense public pressure.

The proposed pact is so invasive of domestic policy space that it would even limit how governments can spend tax dollars. Buy America and other Buy Local procurement preferences used to reinvest our tax dollars in the American economy would be banned and sweat-free, human rights or environmental conditions on government contracts would be subject to challenge in closed-door foreign tribunals.

- But as Jim Stanford notes, the TPP isn't the only means being used to push U.S. anti-labour principles in Canada. Meanwhile, Murray Mandryk muses about what the labour movement needs to do to win over the general public - though I have to wonder whether some of the resources now being spent on general warm-and-fuzzy messaging might be better put to use explaining why the few fights which make the news are so important.

- Peter O'Neil reports on Robyn Allan's observation that Canadians could get stuck with the bill for anything that goes wrong with new pipelines as the operators insulate themselves from any responsibility.

- Finally, Dr. Dawg points out three takes on the developing interest rate manipulation scandal.

Musical interlude

Big Wreck - Wolves

Friday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to end your week.

- Dan Gardner nicely sums up how any Con cabinet shuffles are utterly irrelevant since Stephen Harper prefers ciphers to functional ministers in any event:

In the past, parties in power always had factions, and ministers with their own political clout, and these provided at least a modest check on the power of the prime minister. “In the old Progressive Conservative (party), you had Flora MacDonald who ran for the leadership and had her own base of support. You had Joe Clark, who was a former prime minister,” Hicks says. When Mulroney said he was going to cut foreign aid, Clark threatened to resign. Mulroney backed down. That’s inconceivable today.

There’s nothing like this in the Conservative party because it is new and Stephen Harper built it from the ground up. “It’s a corporation in which one person controls all the mechanisms for fundraising, for distribution, for marketing, for organizing nomination contests in everybody’s riding. It’s all centralized. That’s unique to this party.”

Harper has never had to deal with ministers who wield their own political clout. “The closest one you had was Peter MacKay,” thanks to his leadership of the Progressive Conservative party. But when the PMO told MacKay he couldn’t hire the man he wanted to be his chief of staff, MacKay bit his lip and did as he was told. Ever since, he’s been a loyal soldier. Today, he has the political stature of a hobbit.

Next to the prime minister, all the cabinet ministers do. That’s not an accident. Napoleon suffers no rivals.

...
So what are reformers left with? We’ll have to wait — for the Emperor to meet his Waterloo in 2015, or to retire when it pleases him.

- And the Economist (which, let's not forget, managed to make the "Mr. Dithers" label stick to Paul Martin) is also rather less than impressed with Harper's anti-democratic actions - including a "tendency to play fast and loose with the rules".

- Aaron Wherry starts digging through the 2011 Canadian Election Survey data and finds yet more evidence that actual voters need less convincing to consider the NDP as an option than some seem to want to claim:

 During the campaign and in a post-election survey, the CES asked for respondents to identify their second-choice party and in both cases the NDP bested all other parties—28.4% during the campaign and 28.7% after. During the campaign, respondents were asked if there was a party they would never vote and only 10.4% identified the NDP (compared to 18.8% for the Liberals and 33.1% for the Conservatives).

- Which is to say that there isn't any reason to think for a second that trying to change the NDP's successful set of values would accomplish much of anything. But as Bruce Anderson notes, if there was ever a need for the NDP to try to look more moderate, the Cons' hard-right radicalism is largely doing the job already.

- Finally, Pat Atkinson points out that we can't take Medicare for granted. And that of course holds true for all of the social gains that are now under attack by corporate interests who look to the robber-baron era as a model.

Convenient

In case we needed any more confirmation that the Cons won't even pretend to be honest about what they've done until after they're done having to answer for it, this nicely fits the pattern. So who thinks we can afford to let any of the rest of the Cons keep hiding out any longer than can be avoided?

Thursday Afternoon Links

Assorted content to end your day.

- For those wondering what might become of Nathan Cullen's leadership campaign plan to work with progressives of all party stripes, we now have part of the answer: in advance of the Calgary Centre by-election, Cullen will be reaching out to discuss how to challenge the Cons.

- Jim Stanford highlights rankings of corporate size showing just how dependent Canada already is on the finance and resource sectors - a problem which the Cons are of course determined to exacerbate.

- Meanwhile, Sarah Jaffe points out what I'm sure is only a purely coincidental combination of record high profits and all-time low wages as a share of the U.S.' economy.

- Finally, Alex Himelfarb has some ideas on how to take back our democracy:

We are living in a state of what the late American sociologist Robert Merton called anomie, when a society’s goals and means no longer serve most people.  Our model seems to be busted. Today’s problems seem more complex, unfamiliar, and our institutions seem unable to cope.

We are past the point of tinkering.  The goals that gave us shared purpose seem now out of reach, less relevant, and we have lost or are losing trust in government as a means for collective progress.
...
(M)any have opted out of conventional politics, including voting, but they are also finding new ways to engage in public life, in their communities or internationally, and some have taken to the streets, standing outside all our conventional institutions and conventional wisdom to find something new. They are the digital generation that can make those of us stuck in the industrial age so uncomfortable. How the semi-leaderless Occupy Movement or the students in the streets of Montreal drove so many of us crazy.  Their leadership was emergent, fragile, shifting, in a word, democratic. Networks and communities replaced hierarchies.  And the generational divide is exposed.  This is not the hyper-individualism or entitlement thinking that detractors claimed.  It is about rebuilding civil society from the ground up, about a new kind of solidarity and a different kind of leadership.

Finding new ways to engage and contribute, rejecting government as parent or nanny, refusing to see the state as the answer to everything – that is all part of a better future.  But to the extent that the young ignore conventional political institutions, including voting, to the extent that they do not engage with the state and try to make it better, we risk an ever-wider gap between civil society and state and a continuing erosion of our democracy.

Holding on to stale notions of leadership is dangerous but so too is disengagement.  We risk a state that becomes more and more remote and authoritarian, less and less willing or able to pursue a better future, to constrain the powerful, to listen to or help those who need government most, to solve problems that cut across our communities and the generations.

We need Canadians across the estates and across the generations to get indignant, to get engaged, to enter the fray, to re-imagine Canada, and to take back our democracy,

New column day

Here, on how the most important labour reform Saskatchewan could pursue would be a guaranteed annual income that allows workers to plan for the long term rather than being stuck in low-income traps.

For more on the Mincome project discussed in the column, see here and here. And anybody interested in taking up the message with the Wall government can do so here.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Jim Stanford discusses how Canadian right-wing parties are picking up on the most extreme anti-labour stances of the U.S. Republicans. But I do have to wonder whether the comparison between union dues and taxes is one that they'd particularly shy away from: isn't much of the point to try to eliminate both as means of providing resources to achieve social ends?

- Meanwhile, Linda McQuaig explains why baby hippos and others have plenty of reason to be concerned about debt hysteria. And David Climenhaga points out that even from an economic standpoint, there's far more risk in the Cons' demands for austerity than in funding citizens' basic needs.

- Trish Hennessy serves up some numbers on food security:

900,000
Approximate number of Canadians who turn to food banks every month, up from almost 714,000 who reported using a food bank in 1998. (Source and source)
...
1.9 million
Number of Canadians, aged 12 or over, who lived in food insecure households in 2007-08. (Source)
10.8
Percentage of Canadian families with at least one child under six who were food insecure in 2007-08. That's one in 10 families. (Source)
17.8
Percentage of First Nations adults aged 25-39 who reported they were hungry but could not afford to buy food in 2007-8. (Source)

 - Finally, I'm not quite sure who's writing under Margaret Wente's byline. But more like this please:

Once upon a time, banks and drug companies enjoyed good reputations and a relatively high degree of trust. Most people regarded them as useful industries that created products and services that benefited society. Sometimes the people who ran these companies even lived down the street. Those times are long gone. Today these industries are movie villains – multibillion-dollar enterprises portrayed as so rapacious they’ll do anything to turn a buck. Judging by current events, this characterization is all too true. Some of the most powerful people in these lines of work will lie, cheat and steal until they get caught, all the while assuring us that they are adding incomparable value to society.

What happened? Both banking and pharmaceuticals went global, and the stakes (and rewards) shot up. Today they count their sales and profits in the billions. Today they’re led by corporate rock stars who make more money than most people can ever dream of. Their compensation is tied to stock prices, which means they have every incentive to do whatever it takes to goose short-term results. This is called “aligning management’s interests with the shareholders,” and for years was thought to be a good thing. Unfortunately, it’s not always such a good thing for the public.
...
Simple logic dictates that if the risk is small and the reward is great, the temptation to lie, cheat and steal will occasionally prove overwhelming. Those billion-dollar fines are just the cost of doing business.

Tuesday Night Cat Blogging

Yard cats.

The Saskatchewan Way

It's certainly a plus to see a new site encouraging Saskatchewan citizens to speak out against the Saskatchewan Party's planned attacks on workers.

But while Brad Wall's party obviously has its own reasons for limiting any discussion to the issues it's chosen, there's no reason for anybody making an outside submission to consider themselves limited by the Sask Party's choices. And so I'll encourage readers to go beyond the default options and point out that in addition to wanting to avoid making matters worse, we also recognize that there's plenty more to be done in terms of living wages, job security and greater social support for workers.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Roy Romanow comments on Medicare as a major part of Canada's identity:

The achievement of universal health care took a long, acrimonious and protracted road. It is no surprise to me that Saskatchewan was at the forefront of this journey. The province’s citizens learned many hard lessons during the desperation of the Great Depression and the sacrifices of the Second World War. They learned about generosity, about hardship and fairness, about boom and bust. They learned about the imperative for co-operative action. They came to understand that the notion of shared destiny was key to our existence.

And so it is with other regions in Canada, where geography and demographics may vary, where many waves of immigration began with an initial sense of isolation, but where we all learned to see survival and progress as a test of our ongoing ability to come together and to remain united around shared values.
...
(T)he well-being of our citizenry goes beyond health care; it is dependent on preventing illness and tackling the more fundamental barriers to good health, including social, economic and environmental factors. How we treat the environment has a direct impact on our health and the longevity of a sustainable economy. The growing gap between the rich and poor directly affects our health and the fiscal demands on our health-care system.

Every day, Canada faces new challenges that prompt key questions about what kind of people we are and what kind of future we wish to shape.

As we celebrate the birth of our nation and of medicare, we must ask ourselves: What kind of Canada do we want? Because, as I see it, the choice Canadians make about health care is fundamentally intertwined with our values and future.

- Meanwhile, the Cons are backtracking on their much-criticized cuts to refugee health care by declaring that they only want to leave some refugees high and dry. But it's still highly dubious the Cons are even more explicitly taking the power to pick and choose among new arrivals to Canada to determine who they want to have access to health care.

- Speaking of the Cons' unaccountable and opaque political decision-making, Don Lenihan theorizes that the Harper reign will be seen as the culmination of centralizing pattern started under Trudeau while pointing out why that's a problem:

The lesson here is simple: too much centralization undermines legitimacy. The more scope a government thinks it has to act unilaterally in the name of effectiveness, the less legitimacy those actions will have.

- But while we should be on the lookout for ways of making governance more open and democratic, Barbara Yaffe's musings about a no-party system don't strike me as a particularly realistic or desirable response.

- Finally, Dr. Dawg runs down some of the important stories of public dissent that were largely whitewashed in favour of all-jingoism, all-the-time Canada Day coverage.

On risky bets

Others have already batted about some theories about the Cons' first set of attack ads against Tom Mulcair. But it's worth noting that there are a couple of important differences between the first salvo against Mulcair, and the previous saturation campaigns against Stephane Dion and Michael Ignatieff.

While it's been pointed out that the newer ads are more focused on policy, it hasn't much been noted how much more easily they can then be refuted if Mulcair does an effective job of holding the NDP's ground.

Casual political observers didn't have much frame of reference to determine whether Dion was "not a leader" or whether Ignatieff was "just visiting" precisely because those talking points were utterly meaningless. And that meant there wasn't much either could do to shed the initial label imprinted on them by the Cons.

But by putting the focus on Mulcair's economic theories, the Cons are opening the door for him to talk about why the NDP's plans make sense - which looks to be well within his comfort zone. And given that the public has been in broad agreement with the NDP in general as well as the very ideas the Cons are trying to paint as extreme, that may mean that even the best-case scenario includes plenty of downside for the Cons.

Yet even that understates the Cons' gamble in framing a contrast of "risky" against "safe". In effect, a party which has been drinking its own Kool-Aid for years has now staked its political future on a bet that nothing will happen over the next three-plus years to cause Canadians to see continued Con government as risky - even as its own tendency toward deregulation and crony capitalism (epitomized by the wholesale shredding of environmental legislation in C-38) radically increases the likelihood of something going wrong which would turn that dynamic on its head.

So if the ballot question in 2015 is really one about risk, the Cons may have already set themselves up to lose. And while we'd obviously prefer not to see Canada left to deal with the fallout, it's hard to imagine a more deserving end for Harper and his party.

On open channels

Fern Hill is frustrated at how political reporters have tried to make a non-story out of the #denounceharper hashtag which trended globally yesterday as Twitter users took the opportunity to discuss what Canadians actually want for Canada Day. And I can certainly understand the concern at normally well-connected reporters choosing to dismiss widespread public activism, particularly in contrast to such compelling issues of public importance as "what do you call the July 1st holiday?"

But I'd think there's a more positive side to the story: based on Kev's numbers, it's possible to reach upwards of 14 million people to talk about the gap between the Canada we want and the Con petro-state we're stuck with even without any particular help from most media outlets. And if we can make a habit of developing those types of channels while not worrying about what the media ignores, then we should be able to significantly reshape how a large number of people see Canada's political landscape - long before either governmental PR flacks or media gatekeepers bother to pay attention.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your Monday reading.

- Mia Rabson writes that patronage and secrecy are thriving under the Harper Cons, even after they've lost any excuse about other parties' ability to stop their plans:

But when the federal appointments process has no transparency, any time someone with political ties as strong as Larkin's gets a pretty plum appointment (she could earn up to $17,000 a year in per diems for attending board meetings), it is always going to raise serious questions about the merits of the appointment.

It is interesting that with some other major promises Harper couldn't fulfil in a minority government -- such as eliminating the long-gun registry and the monopoly of the Canadian Wheat Board -- he simply held off until he got his majority and then pushed the changes through.

But when it came to an appointments commission to turn off the taps to the patronage gravy train, Harper earned his monopoly and then eliminated the whole idea entirely in a little more than a year.

If the prime minister still believes in openness and transparency in appointments and that people should be chosen based on merit, not party ties, there is no sign of it.

- Martin Regg Cohn discusses Tim Hudak's attack on Ontario workers:

Ontario’s PC party is coming to Caterpillar’s defence — by branding the victims as the villains. Yes, blame the union — because big labour can’t see the Caterpillars marching.

That’s the forward-looking vision you’ll be hearing from Opposition Leader Tim Hudak, who has unveiled a radical anti-union agenda to help rebrand his putatively Progressive Conservative party: the end of unionism, replaced by a more “flexible” future.

Hudak eschews the loaded phrase, “right-to-work,” which evokes an aggressive, Wisconsin-style anti-union movement. But make no mistake, this is a declaration of war against organized labour by a politician firing the starter’s pistol in a race to the bottom.

Under his new Tory roadmap, Ontario will become a province where Caterpillars crush unions. A place where workers who still benefit from collective bargaining need not pay union dues — so that membership atrophies, money dries up, and the labour movement is disemboweled.

- Meanwhile, David Climenhaga duly mocks the National Post's horror at discovering that unions aren't leaving youth outreach solely to the corporate sector.

- Finally, Bea Vongdouangchanh cites Michael Geist in reporting that the copyright bill forced through Parliament by the Cons has needlessly imposed a strict digital lock scheme which will punish Canadian consumers for the sole benefit of corporate content distributors.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that to occupy your Canada Day.

- Tim Harford discusses why randomized trials as part of a genuine evidence-gathering process are a must in developing public policy.

- Mike de Souza reports that the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans was already short on resources to do its job even before the Harper Cons decided to start hacking away at it. And Keith Ashfield is apparently nowhere to be found since he acknowledged that the Cons' plan is to facilitate pollution in Canadian water.

- Mark McCaw makes the case for peaceful protest against the Harper Cons. And it makes all the sense in the world to look at such a strategy against a government which thinks its only job in dealing with the public is to manage PR rather than to actually listen to citizens' concerns.

- Finally, both Gerald Caplan and Dr. Dawg see Canada Day as an opportunity to discuss the country we want - rather than settling for the deterioration the Cons are inflicting on us. Meanwhile, anybody in Regina looking for information on what's going on can stop by here.

The sales pitch

Following up on yesterday's Photoshop post, let's salute one of the most eminently parody-worthy moments of the Cons' spring: namely, Joe Oliver's pitch to get Canadians drinking water from oil sands tailings ponds.

Joe Oliver pitches Conservative Sludge

Sunday Morning 'Rider Blogging

Needless to say, the Saskatchewan Roughriders' season opener couldn't have gone much better. But let's note that the game was somewhat closer than it may have appeared on the scoreboard - even while highlighting what parts of the game may bode very well for the 'Riders' chances in 2012.

To start with, we shouldn't forget that the Ticats had plenty of chances to take the game in a different direction - with a long touchdown pass called off on a penalty, and two near-interceptions dropped by Geoff Tisdale. Those plays may not have made all the difference on the scoreboard, but the second half would likely have played out differently if the 'Riders hadn't held the advantage on the scoreboard.

That said, those types of plays which can create a gap between the scoreboard and the flow of the game are inevitable. And on the latter front, the 'Riders managed to outperform Hamilton through most of the game.

For the 'Riders' offense, even the solid scoring and yardage numbers didn't tell the whole story. Instead, there were two twists in how the team put up 43 points and 500 yards that look rather promising for the season to come.

First, there was a possible new step in Darian Durant's development as a quarterback. In the past, his success has largely been based on a combination of scrambling ability and a willingness to take risks. But on Friday he was able to control the play much more than in the past: most of his throws not only found their receivers but connected at just the right time and place, meaning that in addition to completing passes Durant gave his receivers every opportunity to make plays after the catch.

And that was the second revelation from the 'Riders' opener.  Yes, Weston Dressler has been elusive in the past - but I don't recall him ever leaving quite as many defenders grabbing at thin air as he did Friday night. And Kory Sheets was roughly on par with Dressler's shiftiness as both a rusher and a receiver, while at least a couple of other receivers also managed to manufacture big plays out of slipped tackles.

Of course, an improved offensive line went a long way toward allowing for the boosts in timing and playmaking we saw on Friday. But if Durant and his receivers can go beyond merely playing a possession game and turn small windows into massive gains, then the 'Riders offense may be better than we've seen in a long time.

On defence, the 'Riders were mostly effective but unspectacular. The most promising sign was the combination of sacks and Hamilton holding penalties (suggesting that the 'Riders' pass rush indeed managed to make a difference). But there were a couple of breakdowns in the 'Riders' own tackling, and there looks to be plenty of room for the secondary to make more plays than it did against the Ticats.

That said, there's much more reason for optimism than concern based on the 'Riders' season opener. And we'll find out soon whether the 'Riders can keep up the pace.