Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Dr. Dawg tears into the National Post's gratuitous union-bashing:

(W)hen it comes to unions, a careless disregard for facts seems to affect journos like a disease. They fall back on their prejudices, cutting and pasting their ready-made anti-union copy in their sleep.
...
Unions have one of the only remaining institutionally democratic structures in Canada. Union leadership is far more accountable than the Harper government, held to much stricter standards, and able to move forward only with membership agreement—the latter, of course, being the union.

Members are just ordinary working people cooperating with other ordinary working people. The necessary political and structural changes needed to confront our sworn enemies effectively will take place only with their consent. But it’s precisely that democratic potential that scares the hell out of secretive governments, rigidly hierarchical and undemocratic corporations, and their media mouthpieces. Nothing new here at the National Post—let’s move along, brothers and sisters, and give them something to really make them squeal.

- Thomas Walkom weighs in on the Kitchener-Waterloo byelection that elected NDP MPP Catherine Fife. And while I don't think his mooted move to the right is inevitable, it's certainly worth pointing out the virtuous cycle that comes from higher-profile candidates stepping up to join the NDP's team (and being rewarded with electoral success).

- Dean Bennett reports that the National Energy Board has refused to allow questioning about insurance and cleanup plans involving any oil spill resulting from the Northern Gateway pipeline. And Brian Morton notes that lives are apparently no object when it comes to the Cons' desire to get out of the job of safeguarding our coasts.

- Finally, Kayle Hatt analyzes the NDP's 2011 Quebec support and concludes that the party's gains in fact came mostly from federalist or soft sovereigntist voters.

Musical interlude

54-40 - Ocean Pearl

On preordained outcomes

Joe Oliver is trying to pretend that the National Energy Board actually gets to determine whether the Northern Gateway pipeline gets approved:

Oliver avoided directly answering a question as to whether Ottawa would ram through approval should the project get the thumbs down, but acknowledged the outcome is rarely negative.

He said the government would certainly follow any conditions the panel might recommend in order to give the project the green light.

But lest we forget: it's the Cons who have decreed that the NEB has no authority to say "no" to the Gateway based on environmental effects - even if it determines that the pipeline will result in the extinction of humanity, or at least a steady stream of supertankers running aground up to 500 metres above sea level onto pristine islands. And while the Cons may be counting on the media being gullible enough to believe that the NEB's conspicuous lack of authority to nix the Gateway for environmental reasons means that it's giving the thumbs up, we shouldn't be so easily fooled.

On alternate options

Following up on this week's column, here's a quick update on the planned voting processes in the Saskatchewan NDP leadership race.

Contrary to what I'd theorized, there apparently won't be a paper-based system at convention itself. However, the same-day voting may be carried out either online or by telephone - meaning that if any issues arise with one of those systems, there will still be another outlet for members to vote (whether at the convention or from elsewhere).

Meanwhile, the time frames for advance voting have also been designed to ensure that voters have time to submit a ballot by mail if they so choose.

Which is to say that while the party isn't using exactly the means I'd expected, it still looks to have nicely planned to make sure there are multiple options for voters.

The End of the Blue Grit?

Yes, last night's Kitchener-Waterloo by-election resulted in a resounding victory for the Ontario NDP and new MPP Catherine Fife. But perhaps more noteworthy is the signal the result sends to the McGuinty Libs - as well as his partymates elsewhere in Canada.

In effect, the Libs' by-election message boiled down to two themes. Most of the party's campaign centred on worker-bashing, with a particular focus on picking a needless fight with teachers just as they returned to school. And when that proved to be a failure, the Libs tried out some of their well-worn national-unity hand-wringing - which of course served as the go-to cover for the federal Libs' shift away from social justice toward corporatist policy in the '90s.

But both messages fell flat - and the Libs' failure to pick up the seat provides only a tiny part of the evidence. Even more significantly, they lost an even larger share of their 2011 vote than the PCs (who were supposed to face far more downside based on the loss of a high-profile MPP).

In effect, the Libs' Con-lite messaging led to Con-lite results, to the benefit of a party which actually stands for progressive values. And adding last night's result to the end of Jean Charest's run as leader of the Quebec Libs and the continued stumbling of Christy Clark in B.C., the trend looks to be unmistakable: Libs trying to govern from the right are losing ground on all sides.

Of course, with federal and Quebec leadership races looming, the Libs have some opportunities to try to change course. But their glee in throwing labour under the bus will surely make it more difficult for the Libs to try to win back any of the territory they've ceded to the NDP - and it's far from clear that there's anywhere left to go.

[Edit: fixed typo.]

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Winslow Wheeler compares the NDP's F-35 hearings to politics on the opposite side of the U.S. border:

The differences between Canadian politicians and members of Congress are utterly stunning. Unlike here, oversight in the Canadian Parliament is alive and well. In Canada, I found two political behaviors unheard of in the United States: Opposition politicians actually try to understand the issue they are talking about, and they take offense at being lied to.

My re-orientation started when, lo and behold, without giving long, windy, and poorly informed opening statements, the parliamentarians asked questions directly relevant to my testimony about the cost to buy and operate the Canadian version of the F-35. They were not reading off or cribbing from memos but were reacting to what I had said; we had an actual discussion, one member at a time. They probed my estimate of the potential $200 million-per-aircraft cost -- not the $75 million Canada's Department of National Defense (DND) had been advertising. They also poked at my prediction that the cost to operate the F-35, after purchase, would be at least three times DND's original estimate.

The members' questions were constructed by themselves on the spot and reflected that several of them had done their homework. For example, Matthew Kellway of Ontario had clearly read and understood an article in Proceedings, the U.S. Naval Institute's journal, written by the U.S. chief of naval operations, Admiral Jonathan Greenert, questioning whether radar-evading "stealth" technology was viable against current and future countermeasures -- a key question in Canada, where "stealth" dominates the debate about the F-35 almost as much as cost.

Most remarkable was their predisposition to listen, integrate the new information they heard, synthesize it to formulate a new understanding, and then ask more questions. 

 - But it's worth noting that Wheeler may have overgeneralized in linking his positive impression to Canadian politicians generally - as Allan Gregg points out that the Cons are doing their utmost to drain Canadian politics of evidence and critical thought:

I have spent my entire professional life as a researcher, dedicated to understanding the relationship between cause and effect. And I have to tell you, I’ve begun to see some troubling trends. It seems as though our government’s use of evidence and facts as the bases of policy is declining, and in their place, dogma, whim and political expediency are on the rise. And even more troubling …. Canadians seem to be buying it.
...
The thing that is disconcerting and unsettling about all this is not just the substance of these Bills, but why a government would want to disguise that substance. Maybe dismantling the Wheat Board; or pre-emptively squashing collective bargaining; or sending more potheads to jail is a good thing. But before we make those decisions, let’s look at all the facts; have a fulsome and rational debate; and make a reasoned decision of what is in the best interests of all the parties involved. For voters to determine whether these are measures they support or oppose requires that they know what is at stake and what the government is actually doing. Moreover, for the rule of law to work, the public must have respect for the law. By obfuscating the true purpose of laws under the gobbledy-gook of double speak, governments are admitting that their intentions probably lack both support and respect. Again, the lesson here is Orwellian … in the same way that reason requires consciousness, tyranny demands ignorance.

 Raising this is not a question of right versus left. It is rather- in the words of Al Gore – a question of right versus wrong. And also make no mistake that this is not simply an attack on, or a claim that the sole practitioner of masking intent is The Harper Government. Jean Charest, introduced Bill 78 as “An Act to Enable Students to Receive Instruction from the Post Secondary Education They Attend”. Under some fairly benign circumstances, it basically bans the freedom of assembly. And under the pretext of another perpetual war – the so-called War on Terrorism – the President of the United States not only routinely orders the execution of foreign nationals, on foreign soil, without any semblance of due process whatsoever, but boasts that this as one of the greatest accomplishments of his Presidency. And the American media routinely applauds him for it. Now I know it’s not comfortable to offer suspected terrorists due process, but isn’t this exactly the kind of behaviour Orwell was warning us about?
...
While the circumstance in Canada 2012 is obviously nowhere near as dystopian as what Orwell depicts in 1984, I really do think that there are some unsettling parallels going on here that we ignore at our peril. I also think it’s time to gather the facts….and fight back.

- Fortunately, Paul Wells for one is meeting the Cons' latest line of echo-chamber talking points with due mockery.

- Meanwhile, Stephen Maher reports that the Cons' illegal election tactics in Guelph may now be under investigation by the CRTC along with Elections Canada. And Glen McGregor notes that the Con staffer initially thrown under the bus seems to have had little to do with Robocon (even as his documented track record of party-sanctioned attempted vote suppression makes him a less-than-sympathetic scapegoat).

- Finally, John Dunbar offers his own broadly representational visualization of Enbridge's plans for Douglas Channel - featuring a supertanker in the middle of an island 500 metres above sea level.

On special treatment

Shorter Brad Wall:

Based on my close personal connection to Stephen Harper developed through years of shameless toadyism, I alone can assure you that he won't be playing favourites among the provinces.

New column day

Here, on how the Saskatchewan NDP's leadership rules (PDF) are nicely set up to encourage a broad outreach effort by candidates.

For further reading...
- The NDP's leadership page is here.
- Buckdog is running a dedicated blog for leadership news.
- And Cam Broten is the first candidate to formally announce that he's running. But perhaps the more noteworthy development from Broten's launch was the presence of MLA Danielle Chartier - which signals that another speculated candidate won't be entering the race herself.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- There wasn't much doubt from the recent storm of astroturfed Twitter messages that NDP candidate Catherine Fife stood to do well in tomorrow's Kitchener-Waterloo provincial byelection. But I'm not sure anybody anticipated she'd have a sixteen-point lead over all comers - and the stunning result should offer reason to doubt that vilifying workers (as the McGuinty Libs have done with teachers) is a remotely popular position when there's a credible alternative on the ballot.

- It takes some effort for anti-environment minister Peter Kent to do worse than his party has done in the past. But he's managed the feat when it comes to coal power generation, watering down what already figured to be inadequate regulations while also signalling that the federal government will abandon the field in provinces which actually make extensive use of such power.

- I haven't followed the twists and turns in the Eurozone as closely as some. But it surely can't escape mention that outside financial interests are pushing Greece to make its economic problems worse by increasing the hours and days to be worked by employees in the name of labour market "flexibility" (rather than doing anything at all to actually increase the availability of jobs).

- I suppose we should have seen it coming. But the Saskatchewan Party's push to have the health sector governed by "lean" principles has officially crossed the line from encouraging the application of potentially useful ideas, to funnelling millions to private-sector consultants for no apparent reason.

- Finally, Pat Atkinson comments on Saskatchewan's proposed federal electoral boundaries with some advice for Con MPs:

Under our electoral system, redistribution is a reality of public office. For those sitting Conservative MPs who may not get the cakewalk they have enjoyed in the past, it's time to stop complaining.

Instead, get to work and meet your constituents, return phone calls and emails, represent interests that may be different from yours and your party's, and attend public events in all areas of your constituency.

A wide open field

Others have already weighed in on Quebec's election results. But let's note that for all the drama of an election where it was an open question whether voters could stomach any of the three main contenders, the outcome may set the stage for sweeping changes in the fairly near future.

I've already pointed out an apparent opening for a Quebec NDP to win over a large number of voters. And last night's results could hardly have been better designed for the NDP join the mix in the next election cycle - even if they figure to produce some negative outcomes in the short term.

For at least the next couple of years, the right looks to be in the driver's seat in Quebec. The CAQ, holding a solid balance of power, will be able to control the agenda of the governing PQ. And I wouldn't be surprised to see links develop between the CAQ and the Harper Cons to make sure that any devolution of power happens only on the Cons' terms.

But if Quebec's political direction is going to be based on the common ground available between the CAQ, Cons and PQ, that figures to raise questions for a large number of voters who voted PQ based on its (however questionable) self-identification as a progressive party. And while an impending leadership race might offer an opportunity for the Libs to move into that void, it's doubtful that they can erase the memory of their most recent government within a single minority term.

Meanwhile, last night's results don't signal any huge growth potential among Quebec's smaller parties either. Quebec Solidaire added only a single extra seat to its total and fell far short of the balance of power in an election where "none of the above" options looked to have every chance of breaking through. And Option Nationale couldn't manage even that much.

So the progressive vacuum may be even more conspicuous by the next Quebec election than it is now. And a well-organized NDP should be in an ideal position to win over the same types of voters who have become staunch supporters federally.

Of course, the one catch is that a minority government means that the NDP - like all other parties - will have to be ready for an election at any moment, rather than being able to build over a period of several years. But the uncertainty of a minority government may also present some opportunities. While the parties actually represented in the Assemblee Nationale will find themselves trapped in will-they-or-won't-they confidence vote speculation, there may be all the more room for a strong new option to sidestep the fray by echoing the message of cooperation that worked so well for Jack Layton.

In sum, both last night's general "meh" toward Quebec's existing policies and the minority government that resulted may serve to set up ideal conditions for the emergence of a progressive federalist party. And it only remains to be seen whether the NDP can make its entrance in time for the next election.

Update: Margo McDiarmid reports that Tom Mulcair is instead suggesting it's unlikely a provincial party will materialize before 2015 - which looks like a significant missed opportunity to build the NDP at both levels of government if it proves correct.

Tuesday Night Cat Blogging

Cats nodding off.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Matt Taibbi provides what may be the definitive take on Mitt Romney - as the plutocrat running as a deficit nag made his own personal fortune loading up businesses with debt and charging millions for the privilege:

And this is where we get to the hypocrisy at the heart of Mitt Romney. Everyone knows that he is fantastically rich, having scored great success, the legend goes, as a "turnaround specialist," a shrewd financial operator who revived moribund companies as a high-priced consultant for a storied Wall Street private equity firm. But what most voters don't know is the way Mitt Romney actually made his fortune: by borrowing vast sums of money that other people were forced to pay back. This is the plain, stark reality that has somehow eluded America's top political journalists for two consecutive presidential campaigns: Mitt Romney is one of the greatest and most irresponsible debt creators of all time. In the past few decades, in fact, Romney has piled more debt onto more unsuspecting companies, written more gigantic checks that other people have to cover, than perhaps all but a handful of people on planet Earth.

By making debt the centerpiece of his campaign, Romney was making a calculated bluff of historic dimensions – placing a massive all-in bet on the rank incompetence of the American press corps. The result has been a brilliant comedy: A man makes a $250 million fortune loading up companies with debt and then extracting million-dollar fees from those same companies, in exchange for the generous service of telling them who needs to be fired in order to finance the debt payments he saddled them with in the first place. That same man then runs for president riding an image of children roasting on flames of debt, choosing as his running mate perhaps the only politician in America more pompous and self-righteous on the subject of the evils of borrowed money than the candidate himself. If Romney pulls off this whopper, you'll have to tip your hat to him: No one in history has ever successfully run for president riding this big of a lie. It's almost enough to make you think he really is qualified for the White House.

- Meanwhile, Diane Roberts discusses how Romney and his ticket-mate see religion as an excuse for neglecting anybody who doesn't share their luck in life. And Joseph Stiglitz sees Romney's tax avoidance - along with Ryan's plans to virtually eliminate any taxes the likes of Romney would otherwise pay - as contrary to fundamental fairness.

- Mark Sumner comments on how the Republicans (like their Conservative cousins) are perfectly happy to trash their own government in order to serve their long-term plans to get it out of the governing business altogether:

Mitch McConnell told you the goals for this season from the outset. There's no mystery here, not even more than a token attempt to misdirect. The Republican aim -- the announced, undisputed goal -- is simply to see that the economy does not recover. Not to pass legislation, or promote any plan, but to just make sure that things stayed as bad as possible. To that end, they took every opportunity to crush anything that might help.

Why? Not just because it would help President Obama, but because any recovery that could be connected to government action might show that government can be an effective, helpful force. That's what Republicans can't allow.

The One True Narrative, forged when the land was young and Mitt Romney just an abusive son of privilege living off a portfolio of stocks, is this: government is the problem.

Everything that Republicans have done in the last thirty years is meant to serve that theme.

Government agencies, whether they are FEMA or MSHA, must be weak and ineffective. Government regulations, such as those that guard markets and protect workers, must be harmful. No government action can be seen as competent, much less exceptional. And absolutely nothing the government does can possibly be beneficial to the economy.

To that end, Republicans only have to gum up the works. Democrats have to show results. Republicans, despite appearances, aren't so stupid that they don't understand the advantage this gives them.

- Finally, Ian Welsh offers up a depressing but all-too-plausible view of where our economy stands now, as well as where it looks to be headed in the decades to come.

Monday Morning Labour Day Links

Assorted content for your Labour Day reading.

- The Star comments on the place of the union movement in the face of a determined push to silence workers:

Given the challenges ahead, and all the ground that’s been lost so far, it remains to be seen if the new union will succeed in building “a powerful social movement fighting for all working people.” But the takeaway is that on this Labour Day, unions still have the vision to imagine a better life for working people, and the will to try to bring it about. The long march continues.

 - Meanwhile, Craig McInnes recognizes how bleak a future where the corporate right manages to trash the labour movement would look:

Whether the decline in union membership is seen as a benefit or simply inevitable, what's often lost in the economic debate is the value of unions to the communities in which they operate.

There are the historical benefits that we take largely for granted that were achieved for everyone through long and difficult struggles - the weekend, for example.

But there is also the ongoing benefit of higher wages. Using data from the 2011 Census, the Canadian Labour Congress calculates unionized workers in Vancouver make an average hourly wage that is, at $27.09, almost $5 an hour higher than non-unionized workers. That benefit - seen as a negative by the Fraser Institute and other commentators who view life only through the business pages - makes life easier for unionized workers and their families.

...
If the demise of unions means ordinary working people can't aspire to be consumers, to achieve a reasonable standard of living, it's hard to imagine the communities we have built on that expectation can continue to thrive.

- And Judy Halven observes that what we need is to focus on creating good jobs for Canadian workers, rather than unstable, low-paying jobs for the benefit of multinational employers:

Thinking about Labour Day 2012, we need to turn our attention to limiting “bad” jobs and increasing “good” jobs. “Good” jobs have good pay, full-time hours, benefits, pensions and more. We can remind ourselves about the $260-million forgivable loan the Nova Scotia government gave to Irving Shipbuilding for the federal shipbuilding contract. While some “good” jobs will no doubt be created, they will go to semi-skilled and skilled tradespeople — mainly men. Though some women will get jobs on site, the majority of new jobs for women will be created in the restaurant, bar and service sector. These jobs usually pay minimum wage, plus tips, and could be considered “bad” jobs.

Wealthy people seem to know all about “good” jobs, as they tend to have them. The average income for the richest one per cent of Canadians was $405,000 in 2007. Between 1997 and 2007, the richest one per cent (246,000 people) took almost one-third (32 per cent) of all growth in incomes. In addition, the tax system is making them richer. In 1948, the top marginal tax rate on incomes over $250,000 was 80 per cent. In 2009, that rate was cut almost in half to 42.9 per cent for incomes above $126,264.

This Labour Day, we need to work to eliminate the obstacles for the 99 per cent who want to make a decent living in this province, obstacles such as low wages, part-time work and large handouts to corporations. The Occupy movement’s message — “We are the 99 per cent” — is as true for us today as it was a year ago.

- But on the bright side, Dean Baker notes that Canada can still serve as a positive example of the value of organized labour - at least, compared to our neighbour to the south:

When the Employee Free Choice Act was debated in 2008, the anti-union groups argued that majority sign-up (which was a major provision) would lead to workers being stuck with unions they didn't want. Their story was union thugs would intimidate workers into signing union cards against their will. 

The differing experience in Canadian provinces over time gives us a simple way to test this claim. If workers were intimidated into signing cards, then we would expect to see a higher rate of de-certifications in provinces after they have put in place laws allowing for majority sign-up. 

In fact, there is no evidence at all that there was a rise in de-certifications after majority sign-up was adopted. In several provinces the de-certification rate fell after majority sign-up was allowed. This would seem like pretty solid evidence against the "union thug" story. 

All of this matters because if we chose, we could make US labour law closer to Canada's. That might over time bring us somewhat close to Canadian unionisation rates. 

People who care about inequality should have this at the top of their agenda. In our bag of tricks to reverse the upward redistribution of the last three decades, higher unionisation rates should rank near the top.

Monday Morning 'Rider Blogging

Yes, that will do quite nicely.

Which isn't to say the Saskatchewan Roughriders can rest on their laurels. Yesterday's 52-0 win wasn't based so much on a dominant offensive performance as on the Winnipeg Blue Bombers finding all kinds of creative ways to give away points. All the 'Riders then had to be was opportunistic enough to take advantage and smart enough to avoid returning the favour - and the team had no trouble reaching those standards.

But it's a huge plus to see the 'Riders keep their edge throughout a victory, rather than letting an opponent get back into the game. And the final score showed that if every 'Rider unit simply does its job, the result can be a rout on the scoreboard.

Moreover, the 'Riders also got to see plenty of new talent emerge. Drew Willy was as effective running the team's full offence in the second half as he's been on short yardage throughout the season, making it clear that the 'Riders can get by even without their starting quarterback. Jock Sanders had an effective game as a utility player, making it all the more bizarre that he was omitted from the previous game's roster. Joe Lobendahn took no time at all to start disrupting the Bombers' offence in his first 'Rider start. And perhaps most significantly, Brooks Foster made two superb catches to offer another much-needed target for Saskatchewan's quarterbacks.

Of course, the 'Riders can't count on seeing too many opponents in as much disarray as the Bombers yesterday - and indeed should expect a much tougher test next week as the Bombers look to avenge the loss. But it's still a huge plus to be able to combine a big win with plenty of room for improvement. And hopefully a long-awaited return to the victory column will prove the start of yet another streak for a team that's been up and down throughout the 2012 season.

Sunday Morning Links

Assorted content for your Sunday reading.

- Plenty of commentators are using the Labour Day weekend to discuss the place of workers in Canadian society. Sid Ryan notes that depressed wages are bad news for Canada's economy generally. And Morna Ballantyne and Steven Staples point out the need for unions to reach out beyond their membership - particularly to highlight how collective bargaining helps workers throughout the workforce.

- Meanwhile, Lorne Gunter longs for a future in which there's no such thing as a good job.

- Tonda MacCharles offers an Ontario perspective on the Cons' gutting of environmental assessments. But it's worth wondering whether the Cons' decision to decree that regulators have no business actually evaluating environmental impacts from a policy perspective will allow outside parties to play a greater role in shaping public opinion - such as, say, the experts who have concluded that tanker traffic off the B.C. coast poses unacceptable environmental risks. (Handy hint: I wouldn't want to be the one trying to justify allowing tankers to operate based on the claim that there's only a 73% chance of a major spill.)

- Finally, David Roberts raises some issues for journalists trying to cover parties who are outright hostile toward the idea that truth matters (among other norms which are normally required for a democracy to function):

The right term is “post-truth politics.” What Kevin is struggling to describe is that Romney’s campaign is not contesting the truth value of its assertions so much as contesting whether truth value itself is relevant.

One effect of the radicalization of the right over the last few decades has been the discovery of just how much our politics is held together by norms rather than rules. There’s no rule you can’t filibuster every bill in the Senate by default; there’s no rule you can’t interrupt a president’s State of the Union; there’s no rule you can’t hold the routine debt-ceiling vote hostage. It simply wasn’t done. But if you shrug off the norm and do it anyway, there’s nothing to stop you.

Similarly, it seems that the lip service given to truth in politics is but a norm itself, one with increasingly tenuous hold. Political campaigns have always lied and stretched the truth, but when caught in a lie, would typically defend themselves (claim it was actually true), retract, or at the very least stop repeating the lie. Either way, the presumption was that truth-telling had some moral force; one ought to tell the truth, even if that commandment was often honored in the breach.

What’s creepy about the Romney crew is that they don’t do any of those things. They don’t deny, they don’t stop, they just don’t care at all. What they’ve realized is that, given today’s hyper-polarization and fragmented media, there’s no practical risk to lying. It doesn’t hurt them, in terms of getting votes, so why shouldn’t they do it?

And lest there be any doubt, the combination of systematic fabrication and dishonesty and planned interference with democratic processes is just as much the modus operandi of the Harper Cons as the Romney Republicans.

Saturday Afternoon 'Rider Blogging

Yes, last week's loss to Calgary was downright ugly to watch at times. But it may also signal some positive changes for the Saskatchewan Roughriders - and we should find out soon whether the 'Riders can find their way into the playoffs with the players and plans they have now, or whether it's time to leave aside a 3-0 start and focus on multi-year player development.

On the downside last week, the 'Riders defence was helpless when it counted most: on the first two possessions of the game when the Stamps took a lead they'd never relinquish, at the end of the game when Saskatchewan needed a stop to have a chance to pull even, and all too frequently when Jon Cornish touched the ball throughout the game. But it surely can't escape notice that  the Stamps' usually-fearsome offence didn't accomplish much on the scoreboard - and there's at least a plausible reason to think the 'Riders' run defence can improve in a hurry.

Meanwhile, the 'Riders' offence suffered more from a failure to group positive plays together than an inability to design and execute them. A much more consistent two-pronged rushing attack proved highly effective throughout the game (with each of Kory Sheets and Darian Durant piling up 70+ yards), while the 'Riders' passing attack was at least respectable despite the higher degree of difficulty resulting from windy conditions.

Which is to say that there's reason for hope that the 'Riders can build off what worked last week - particularly with two games coming up against a team in even greater disarray. And that's why a couple of roster moves which would normally look problematic may prove very well-timed.

In general (and in contrast to Brendan Taman's usual proclivities), I prefer to see the 'Riders focus on developing new talent rather than picking up CFL retreads whose previous teams have already found them wanting. And that goes doubly at positions like linebacker where new players seem to be relatively easily incorporated into existing schemes: some of the best CFL personnel moves involve shifting defensive backs to linebacker spots, and the 'Riders aren't lacking for candidates for such a transition.

But with the 'Riders' defence struggling against the run, Joe Lobendahn and Diamond Ferri may make for extremely valuable additions. And now isn't the time to take the risk involved in letting somebody new to the position or the league carry the load in a couple of games which could either put Saskatchewan solidly on the path to the playoffs or leave the 'Riders at the bottom of the CFL's standings.

Of course, the flip side is that if the 'Riders' losing streak continues past the upcoming matchups with Winnipeg, then it will be time to start dropping veteran imports and using the rest of the season to audition NFL castoffs and see if some of the team's current players can be put to better use. But for now, the 'Riders have an obvious opportunity to get their season back on track - and hopefully a combination of development game plans and new faces will help in the effort.

Saturday Morning Links

This and that to start your long weekend.

- Antonia Zerbisias and Thomas Walkom both discuss the connection between organized labour and the very existence of a substantial middle class. And Janice Kennedy worries about the all-too-prevalent trend toward worker-bashing.

- But Andrew Jackson nicely points out why attempts to undermine unions have nothing at all to do with general economic development, and everything to do with distancing a small elite from the rest of the population:

Further to my earlier post on the “own goal” scored by the Fraser Institute report on North American labour markets, the Table below shows the rankings of the Canadian provinces – out of 60 states and provinces – for (1) labour market performance, 2007-11 and (2) the unionization rate. (I have reversed the Fraser ranking for the latter indicator so that a rank of 1 rather than 60 is given to the jurisdiction with the highest unionization rate.)

The provinces all score relatively well in terms of labour market performance, with 4 in the top 10, and only Nova Scotia not in the top 20. (This indicator is based on job creation, unemployment and productivity growth.)

Provinces make up 9 of the top 10 jurisdictions by unionization. (New York and Alaska have higher unionization rates than Alberta which ranks 12 in North America.)

Obviously a lot of factors are at play in terms of job creation- but, if the data show anything, it is that high unionization is associated with better rather than worse labour market performance.

- Of course, that type of readily-available example might have something to do with the right's desire to ensure we don't have access to facts about where we stand as a society. And Statistics Canada is rightly challenging the most egregious Canadian example by pushing the Cons to reverse at least part of their choice to undermine Canada's census.

- Pat Atkinson notes that Saskatchewan's children stand to lose out from the loss of full-day kindergarten and other forms of early childhood development in the province.

- Finally, George Monbiot highlights the increasingly alarming connection between climate change which far exceeds even the estimates which should have driven us to global action decades ago, and policy-makers either denying or neglecting the problem.

Musical interlude

Matthew Good - Weapon

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Linda McQuaig highlights how attacks on workers are used to distract attention from the systematic transfer of wealth to those who need it least:

As long as the right can keep workers envious and suspicious of each other, the focus won't be on those at the top, where the benefits have actually gone. As Bank of Canada governor Mark Carney noted last week, corporations are sitting on $500 billion in cash, reflecting the growing share of business revenue in recent years that has gone to profits, not wages.

(Labour's share of Canada's national income has fallen from 65 to 60 per cent since 1990, partly because of policies like privatization and deregulation, the OECD's Employment Outlook reported last month.)
...
(W)hile public sector workers are bullied these days, business leaders are treated as semi-gods.

Since the Conservatives took power, business leaders have enjoyed a two-day private retreat with the finance minister each summer, just in case they hadn't already managed to communicate their views to him at other private functions, not to mention through the pages of the newspapers they own.

The business leaders used their retreat last summer to urge Jim Flaherty to adopt measures to reduce workers' pay and to implement U.S.-style right-to-work laws aimed at limiting union power, according to government documents reported in the Globe and Mail earlier this month.

So while the economy remains stalled with business leaders declining to invest their surplus $500 billion, we're encouraged to vent our anger by firing city garbage workers and making sure we catch every one of those napping TTC collectors.

- And Mike Lofgren comments on how the new plutocracy is using the distraction to try to insulate itself entirely from society at large:

Our plutocracy now lives like the British in colonial India: in the place and ruling it, but not of it. If one can afford private security, public safety is of no concern; if one owns a Gulfstream jet, crumbling bridges cause less apprehension—and viable public transportation doesn’t even show up on the radar screen. With private doctors on call and a chartered plane to get to the Mayo Clinic, why worry about Medicare?

Being in the country but not of it is what gives the contemporary American super-rich their quality of being abstracted and clueless. Perhaps that explains why Mitt Romney’s regular-guy anecdotes always seem a bit strained. I discussed this with a radio host who recounted a story about Robert Rubin, former secretary of the Treasury as well as an executive at Goldman Sachs and CitiGroup. Rubin was being chauffeured through Manhattan to reach some event whose attendees consisted of the Great and the Good such as himself. Along the way he encountered a traffic jam, and on arriving to his event—late—he complained to a city functionary with the power to look into it. “Where was the jam?” asked the functionary. Rubin, who had lived most of his life in Manhattan, a place of east-west numbered streets and north-south avenues, couldn’t tell him. The super-rich who determine our political arrangements apparently inhabit another, more refined dimension.

To some degree the rich have always secluded themselves from the gaze of the common herd; their habit for centuries has been to send their offspring to private schools. But now this habit is exacerbated by the plutocracy’s palpable animosity towards public education and public educators, as Michael Bloomberg has demonstrated. To the extent public education “reform” is popular among billionaires and their tax-exempt foundations, one suspects it is as a lever to divert the more than $500 billion dollars in annual federal, state, and local education funding into private hands—meaning themselves and their friends. What Halliburton did for U.S. Army logistics, school privatizers will do for public education. A century ago, at least we got some attractive public libraries out of Andrew Carnegie. Noblesse oblige like Carnegie’s is presently lacking among our seceding plutocracy. 

- Meanwhile, Purple Library Guy aptly points out that an increasingly complex economy provides nothing but opportunities for the unscrupulous to ensure that what we don't know benefits them at our expense:

My suspicion is that every increase in social complexity provides greater opportunity for corruption--for elements of that society to extract wealth without making a contribution, and without it being generally recognized. For parasitism, if you will. Furthermore, in any hierarchical society, whatever the general impacts of complexity, a point will be reached at which increased complexity loses more than it gains in terms of general prosperity or productivity. Past this point each addition of complexity allows more siphoning of wealth by parasites than it allows of wealth creation. In fact, I would suggest that as complexity increases the chance becomes larger and larger that any given new complexity increase will be introduced precisely for the purpose of more effective parasitism rather than for any improvement in wealth creation. Not that this will be admitted.
...
The world crisis we hit in 2007-ish and which in my opinion is only in temporary delay at the moment ultimately is a systemic one which goes beyond specifics of globalized production, offshored jobs, or even financialization of the economy. Ultimately, what we have is a hierarchical system which has been allowed to grow in complexity until parasitism is so easy to do (far easier than wealth creation) and so difficult to interfere with, that the system has begun to collapse. Measures to fix it, at least those introduced from above, will generally be some sort of increase in complexity; under the circumstances, the chances that despite all rhetoric the real results and even aims of such measures will be to increase the scope of parasitism still further are extremely high. So we're hooped, and any "solutions" they introduce will almost certainly just make things worse. In this sense I think the internationalist slogan that we're not against globalization we just want a different kind is probably misguided, or at least drastically overstated. I really am against globalization, and instead of trying to create one big worldwide struggle to try to compete with the globalizers' worldwide movement of money and production, I'd rather just stop them from moving the production in the first place and for that matter, keep the money and ownership out of their paws in the first place. No worker-owned factory is going to decide to put themselves out of a job by moving production to Indonesia.

- Finally, both Gareth Perry and Paul Dechene make the case for Saskatchewan citizens to speak up about the glaring need for federal boundary revisions.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- While Thomas Walkom's latest has faced some justified criticism from a couple of angles, this part at least looks to be right on the money:

The assumption here was that if businesses were allowed to keep more of their profits they would invest them productively.

But in the real world, corporations don’t invest when the economic outlook looks gloomy. Why hire workers if you’re not sure you can sell what they produce?

Instead, corporations took the extra profits provided by government and sat on them — either in the form of cash or short-term cash equivalents.
...
Hence the hectoring. Flaherty and Carney are trying to convince corporations to act against the short-term interest of their stockholders by investing without the prospect of return. Good luck with that.

In truth, Flaherty’s faith in the private sector is badly misplaced. In some situations, only government can stimulate the economy. At some times, the market doesn’t work.

This remains one of those times.

 - Meanwhile, Larry Hubich and Erin Weir argue that Saskatchewan should shift from the shameful position of having the lowest minimum wage in Canada, to setting the pace in ensuring that workers have a reasonable standard of living:

Claims that minimum wages reduce employment have no empirical support. Economics professors from the universities of Massachusetts (Amherst), North Carolina (Chapel Hill) and California (Berkeley) recently compared adjacent U.S. counties in states with different minimum wages. They found "strong earnings effects and no employment effects of minimum wage increases." In other words, boosting the minimum wage succeeded in raising pay without reducing employment, even when neighbouring jurisdictions kept a lower minimum.
...

Opponents of a higher minimum wage cannot get away with simply suggesting it might somehow slightly reduce demand for labour at the margin. They would have to prove that paid hours would fall by a larger percentage than the increase in wages. And that is not what the evidence indicates.

While bragging about the relative strength of our labour market, the government is letting every other Canadian province and territory surpass our minimum wage. Restoring Saskatchewan to a position of leadership would benefit those who most need a raise and strengthen the wider provincial economy.

- Jason takes a preliminary look at some potential candidates in the Saskatchewan NDP leadership campaign set to begin this fall.

- And finally, the Cons are pushing the already-compromised Gateway joint review panel to treat such trifling issues as "diluted bitumen" and "environmental assessment criteria" as irrelevant to its environmental assessment of a pipeline designed to transport diluted bitumen. I'm only surprised that the Cons haven't yet publicly admonished us that the lone permissible subject of discussion for Canadians (within the review panel and elsewhere) is "Stephen Harper: actual god, or merely superior to all other humans?".

New column day

Here, expanding on my previous post as to why we should be wary of Brad Wall's plans for potash royalties.

For further reading, I'll again recommend Mitchell Anderson's Tyee series contrasting how Norway has handled its natural resources with Canada's laissez-faire system. (And the lesson seems all the more applicable in the case of potash, where the limited alternative sources of production make it even more obvious that we should be able to make sure Saskatchewan's interests are protected.)

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Kady points out that despite the Cons' best efforts to stonewall, the Robocon investigation in Guelph looks to have locked in on the source of their fraudulent robocalls. And while it's indeed somewhat concerning that Elections Canada hasn't reached anywhere near the same depth of investigation when it comes to the other 234 ridings where voters have reported questionable calls, a solid case aimed at an individual who took steps to cover his tracks may be just the opening needed to get at the party's wider scheme.

- pogge duly slams Jim Flaherty's economic inaction plan:

You can be sure that the fragility of the recovery will continue to be invoked to justify all manner of government actions. For public consumption, the Harper Government™ will still be focusing like a laser on the economy. But as Flaherty acknowledges here, the main thrust of the government's economic policy will continue to be to give our corporate overlords what they ask for. If things take a turn for the worse, don't look for much help from the Conservatives. If you're a corporation the government is here to help you. If you're a citizen, you're on your own.

- Meanwhile, Jim Stanford follows up on Mark Carney's address to the CAW by pointing out some common ground as to how to improve Canada industrial productivity. And Dan Gardner discusses how the give-business-everything-it-asks-for strategy has proven a miserable failure for the past decade:

If we don’t close that gap, our prosperity will slip away when the commodity boom goes. And the commodity boom will go. They all do.

So how do we improve productivity? “Twenty years ago we created a laundry list of the things we needed to change in the policy front and productivity would blossom,” says Don Drummond, one of the country’s leading economists. “And you know, we changed most of them but productivity didn’t blossom.”

Canadian corporations got lower taxes and all sorts of incentives to invest. But they didn’t, and they aren’t, at least not at anything like the rate that’s needed.  According to the C.D. Howe Institute, investment per worker has risen from $10,100 in 2009 to $11,600 in 2011. But in 2011, American companies invested $13,200 per worker.

“We are heavily underinvested in machinery and equipment, particularly high technology stuff, relative to the U.S.,” notes Don Drummond. “We have roughly half the stock of machinery and equipment per hour worked in Canada that the U.S. does.” The figures for research and development are even worse: Canadian business spends about one per cent of GDP on it, compared to two per cent in the U.S. and 2.5 per cent in Japan, the Scandinavian countries, and others in the OECD.

- Finally, as Thomas Walkom notes, there isn't any real distinction between the Harper Cons and the McGuinty Libs when it comes to squeezing the middle class for corporate gain:

(T)his government wants public-sector workers to get less than nothing. Even the unions’ offer for a zero increase isn’t enough. The Liberal bill would arbitrarily strip away benefits that were previously bargained and keep all but the newest teachers at journeyman wage rates.

And if teachers don’t like it, there is little they can do. The bill would not let them withdraw their labour in protest.

If teachers were deemed essential workers, such a strike ban might make sense. Police officers, for instance, can’t go on strike.

But if teachers were defined as essential workers, the government would have to treat them fairly. It wouldn’t be able to impose a settlement. It would have to let an impartial arbitrator decide.

And my guess is that no impartial arbitrator would give teachers less than nothing.

Tim Hudak’s Conservatives are at least up front on this issue. Hudak seems to believe that unions are evil. He is an honest troglodyte.

The Liberals are more duplicitous. They work to cripple trade unionism while protesting that they are friends to the middle class that such unions protect.

Tuesday Night Cat Blogging

Cats reaching out.

On common viewpoints

I haven't yet blogged about Angus Reid's poll on how respondents see the economic issue ads released earlier this year by the NDP and Cons. But I'll take a moment to point out both the most significant conclusion so far, and the next steps for the NDP in building toward government.

Here's Angus Reid's analysis of the partisan breakdown of the responses:

The ads definitely serve to both keep the supporters of the two main parties engaged, and irk their counterparts. New Democrats believe the Tory ad is unfair, and Conservatives feel the same way about the NDP ad.

Still, it’s important to look at how other past voters react to these advertisements. The views of supporters of the Liberal Party and the Green Party are similar to those of New Democrats, particularly on the deficit and on the low confidence expressed in Stephen Harper’s leadership.

Green voters hold the same level of confidence in Thomas Mulcair (63%) that New Democrats give their current leader.

And that analysis itself leaves out plenty more examples of Lib and Green supporters reacting even more strongly than NDP supporters in the direction one might expect.

In evaluating the Cons' attacks on Tom Mulcair, a slightly higher proportion of Lib supporters classified the Cons' spin as "unfair", "offensive" and "untrue" compared to their NDP counterparts; likewise Green respondents were more likely to rate the Cons' attacks as "untrue", while having an even lower inclination to consider it "informative", "fair" or "true" than current NDP supporters.

Likewise, the NDP's economic ad struck a chord as "informative" with slightly more Lib respondents than NDP supporters, while Greens were the most likely to see it as "true" and the least likely to rate it as "untrue" or "unfair".

Now, Angus Reid's results do highlight one area for future improvement on geographic lines. Even though Ontario and B.C. respondents are broadly more in agreement with the NDP's ad than the Cons', they still rate Stephen Harper somewhat more highly on a separate "confidence in leadership" question. Which shouldn't be surprising in matching an incumbent Prime Minister against a relatively new leader - but does signal that Harper himself isn't yet wearing the distrust those respondents have for his party's spin.

But the good news is that there's plenty of time and opportunity to tie the two together. And with Libs and Greens seeming no less receptive to the NDP's message than core supporters, the main task for the NDP looks to be reaching out to enough of the large Con-skeptical audience which finds its economic message informative.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Jessica Bruno reports on Tom Mulcair's first six months as leader of the NDP. But while it's certainly a plus for pundits to recognize the NDP as a viable government in waiting, perhaps the most significant development is Mulcair's ability to persuade Canadians in what looks to be the country's defining policy debate over the next few years:

Some pundits thought that the honeymoon was over when Mr. Mulcair warned that unfettered development of Alberta’s oilsands would lead to a hollowing out of Canada’s manufacturing sector this spring, a stance Mr. MacLachlan said is a “defining issue for Mr. Mulcair and the NDP.”

Mr. MacLachlan said that while his remarks initially were scoffed at, people seem to be coming around to Mr. Mulcair’s position.

“Now it seems that every political leader, particularly in B.C. from Premier [Christy] Clark to James Moore are trying to align themselves with his position on the development of the oilsands, on pipelines, and more generally on the economy,” he said.

Prof. Wiseman agreed. “His position on the oil sands, what’s striking there is at first I thought, ‘Uh oh, this is impolitic, he’s going to drop in the polls.’ But they didn’t drop and the more you got to hear what he said … his position is that polluter pays. If you put that to people, they’re in favour of that,” he said.

 - But of course, the case against the Northern Gateway pipeline in particular has been made as much by Enbridge itself as by any other party. And the revelation that Enbridge isn't interested in figuring out whether diluted bitumen might behave differently than conventional crude oil if spilled certainly can't be reassuring for anybody counting on it to clean up its own messes.

- Carol Goar writes about the desperate need for Ontario (among other provinces) to provide protection for workers.

- Finally, Alice pieces together the background behind the questions about convention contributions which led to the NDP reimbursing paid advertisers this week - while also offering an important perspective on how election law should be made:

How we got to the point where election law is being made through a series of gotchas is the sadder part. The Chretien government tolerated almost no amendments from the Reform Party to its overhaul of the Elections Act in 2000, so the Conservatives got them back with punitive retroactive amendments to the Act in 2006, which led the Liberals to exploit a slip of John Baird's at a Senate committee to launch a complaint about their convention fees, which led the Conservatives to counter-complain about the Liberals convention fees, and now the NDP's. Meanwhile, civil society groups are trying to get in on the action themselves.

Basic misapprehensions abound, such as the belief that Elections Canada can just make up its own rules (it has to implement and enforce the Elections Act as passed by Parliament, warts and all), that party activists know or could be expected to know everything that's going on in their party across the country, and/or know every nuance of our complex and always-evolving electoral legislation.

Call me old-fashioned, but I'd like to see election law made on the basis of what's good for our electoral system as a whole, and without people on either side of the issue deciding what their position is based on who they want to win, rather than a consideration of the facts and the outcome for the electoral system as a whole.

Sunday Afternoon Links

Assorted content for your Sunday reading.

- Jason Warick reports on how the Cons' decison to gut federal environmental assessments will have a particularly acute effect on Saskatchewan:

The federal government has cancelled nearly 700 environmental assessments in Saskatchewan for oil wells and pipelines, sewage lagoons, hydro projects, a major uranium tailings facility and other operations.

Saskatchewan is by far the province most affected by the cancellation of nearly 3,000 assessments nationwide.

“It’s extremely significant,” said Bram Noble, a University of Saskatchewan geography professor who has years of experience teaching and conducting national environmental assessments.

“It’s a lot to be concerned about. It’s the only tool we have.”

Noble called the decision to scrap the assessments “unprecedented” and “a step backward.”

- Meanwhile, Edward Greenspan and Anthony Doob duly call out the Cons for a dumb-on-crime mindset that's focused solely on marketing rather than public safety or crime reduction. 

- In the wake of Neil Armstrong's passing this weekend, David Atkins contrasts the mindset behind the moon landing against today's utter lack of a sense of greater common purpose:

His walk on the moon was the result of thousands of individuals working tirelessly to bring the impossible to fruition, and the result of hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars (in today's money) to make one of humanity's oldest dreams come true. For that reason, we can all share in Neil's accomplishment even if only by proxy. Or at least, those of us who were alive at the time can do so. Of my generation I'm not so certain, though I would state emphatically the blame does not lie with us.

Neil's was an accomplishment undertaken at a time when we still believed we were capable of great things. A time when the common good and furtherance of the human spirit were more important than personal greed. A time when a President could utter the phrase "Ask not what your Country can do for you, but what you can do for your Country" and not be mocked for his optimism.

It was a time before Reagan. Before "Greed is Good." It was a time when a President could truly declare a "War on Poverty" without ridicule. Before the drabness of "Welfare Reform" became the sort of meager and churlish thing the press would hail as forward-thinking and bold.

It was a time when the health and wealth of the nation was seen as bound up in the heights to which our science, learning, and social justice could aspire. It was a time before we allowed our collective health and wealth to be measured by as meaningless, lackluster and empty a symbol as the the Dow Jones Industrial Average.

...
My generational cohorts and I know nothing but this. This all too petty, all too drab, all too villainous smallness of being. It is time for moral and spiritual rebirth.

So rest in peace, Neil Armstrong. And may my generation begin the process of rebuilding the greatness that took you to such exalted heights, and repairing the damage wrought by the Reagan Devolution. 

- Finally, Ta-Nehisi Coates' commentary on the state of race relations in the U.S. is well worth the (relatively lengthy) read.

On political legacies

Ready the fainting couch for Warren Kinsella, because I've got a scoop that he'll find shocking and appalling.

The NDP has been fund-raising for years based on appeals to Jack Layton's public image.

In fact, Layton's face and signature regularly appeared on financial appeals to his party's supporters not just in the year since his death, but in the entire time since he became the leader of the federal NDP. And one might even speculate that Layton and the NDP made a concerted effort to build his public profile, then to maximize its effectiveness as a means of raising money and otherwise encouraging NDP supporters to participate in electoral campaigns.

I can only assume this comes as an out-of-the-blue revelation to a political naif like Kinsella in light of his latest column. Because otherwise, one might have to ask some rather awkward questions.

For example, who could possibly think it surprising that a political leader - and indeed one who put ample personal effort into his own party's succession planning - would be pointed to as an example of that party's ideals after his passing?

And who could possibly look at one of the most unabashedly political lives in recent Canadian history, and conclude that it must be drained of political meaning? (Particularly when that order comes from somebody who fought tooth and nail against nearly everything Layton stood for during his lifetime, rather than anybody with even a vaguely plausible claim to speak to his wishes?)

I do hope that the above will prove enlightening for Kinsella and anybody else spending time demanding that NDP supporters erase his legacy from the historical record in order to honour it. And Warren, when you come to, you might be even more horrified at what you'll discover in your own party.

Saturday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your weekend reading.

- Gerald Caplan weighs in on Jack Layton's legacy:

It seems to me that Jack Layton’s enduring legacy is twofold. First, he set a standard of doing politics that, if followed by others, would change the entire tone of public life for the country. You could see his influence in the decorum that characterized the leadership contest to choose his successor. The media saw only tedium. The party understood it was Jack’s insistence on civility that was at work.

Jack regarded those he disagreed with as democratic opponents, not as dishonorable, even treasonous enemies to be destroyed. For him politics was not the brutal, no-holds-barred permanent war being waged against all comers by the governing party. He rarely attacked motives or personalities. He treated his opponents with respect and civility. He stuck to the issues, about which he felt passionately and which he pursued forcefully.
...
Until May 2, (2011), I saw the party’s role as being the conscience of the nation, an influencer of those with power, not a government-in-waiting. That’s how I interpreted election results from the 1930s all the way through to the 2008 elections, during which time the CCF/NDP only once polled as high as 20 per cent of the votes; often it was considerably lower. This was even true of the 3 elections Mr. Layton had fought before his last one. The message from the party’s beloved “ordinary Canadians” seemed to me self-evident.

Jack rejected this destiny as the NDP’s permanent fate, and at the last minute he was vindicated.

- Andrew Nikiforuk comments on the Cons' attempts to make Canadian democracy subordinate to the will of Enbridge and other oil interests:

To get a million barrels of bitumen a day to the Gulf of Mexico at Port Arthur, Texas, the Harper government strenuously lobbied politicians in Washington on behalf of the Keystone XL pipeline. When that project became bogged down in public protests and regulatory delays, Harper abandoned a 2008 policy that restricted bitumen shipments to China and became an outspoken cheerleader for Enbridge and Northern Gateway. Putting bitumen on supertankers bound for Asia "will require some significant infrastructure projects to go forward," Harper said recently in Bangkok. "And we’re obviously…looking at taking steps necessary to ensure we can get timely regulatory decisions."

There is nothing subtle about Harper or the "necessary steps" he has taken. His government has been characterized by the Economist as "intolerant of criticism and dissent," with a penchant for rule-breaking. Early in 2012 it branded First Nations and environmental groups opposed to Northern Gateway, including the Canadian office of the U.S.-based nonprofit ForestEthics and the David Suzuki Foundation, as foreign-funded "radicals" opposed to economic prosperity. Environmental groups with charitable status that have challenged bitumen mining have been subjected to federal investigation. And to make sure that Enbridge’s pipeline experiences none of the delays that have beset Keystone XL, the Harper government launched a concerted attack in March and April on most of Canada’s main environmental laws.

"The debate is no longer about a pipeline," says Robyn Allan, an economist and former CEO of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. "It’s about an energy strategy designed in the boardrooms of Big Oil that’s being forced on the Canadian public."

- One might hope that the Libs' fine for robocalls in Guelph would help push the Robocon investigation along. But I have to wonder whether the story featuring both full cooperation from the Libs and a political price will simply reinforce the Cons' apparent conclusion that the cost-benefit calculation favours continuing to stonewall against any attempt to figure out who's responsible for their own misleading robocalls.

- Finally, Scott Stelmaschuk and Bruce Johnstone both offer rather more generous interpretations of Brad Wall's talk of royalty revisions than my take. But I'm still inclined to be skeptical until there's some evidence to suggest a Sask Party-led review would actually serve to increase revenue, rather than operating as yet another handout to the corporate sector.

Musical interlude

Arcade Fire - City With No Children

Friday Morning 'Rider Blogging

No, this isn't 2011 all over again. But Saskatchewan Roughriders fans could be forgiven for flashing back to the previous season throughout the team's loss to the B.C. Lions.

Once again, the 'Riders' defence was relatively effective through most of the game against a strong opponent, making some big plays (notably a brilliant third-and-short stand deep in 'Rider territory at the end of the first half). But it got progressively more tired and less effective making tackles as the game went on, and ended up allowing the opponent to pull away.


And once again, the 'Riders' offence wasn't up to the task of putting points on the board. Darian Durant and company moved the chains just often enough to keep the game respectable, but the offence stalled every time there was an opportunity to convert drives into touchdowns and fell into the all-too-familiar pattern of turning the ball over late as time ran short.

Which leaves the question: what can the 'Riders do now to make sure the rest of this season doesn't play out like the end of the previous one?

On the downside, the 'Riders look to be getting periously thin at some key positions. With Jordan Sisco joining Rob Bagg on the injured list, it's hard to see where the 'Riders will get any production from non-import receivers other than Chris Getzlaf (who continues to be inconsistent for a primary option). Meanwhile, the non-import offensive linemen pressed into duty by injuries and ratio considerations haven't been able to keep pass rushers away from Durant. And once again, the offence hasn't adapted by giving Durant more opportunities to turn that aggressiveness against 'Rider opponents.

But that failing so far points to at least one opportunity to improve. Another may come from Taj Smith, who looks more and more like a sorely-needed impact receiver in the making. And the defence has shown at least enough hints of being able to control games (rather than merely hanging on for dear life) to offer the hope that the 'Riders can get by with a less-than-stellar offence.

That may not make for the team fans would most like to see - and which seemed possible at the start of the season when a healthy offensive line showed what it could do. But it's probably Saskatchewan's best chance to be anything more than cannon fodder for the rest of 2012.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Yes, it's alarming that the Cons are eliminating environmental assessments on a huge number of projects. But even more worrisome is the complete lack of a connection between the basis for the exclusion and the possible environmental impacts:

Ottawa is also walking away from conducting assessments on various agricultural and municipal drainage works, log-handling facilities, small-craft harbour and marina development and expansion, the sinking of ex-warships as artificial reefs, the disposal of dredged material, and a 73-hectare mixed-use development on Tsawwassen First Nation lands.

Under the new legislation, BC Hydro also no longer requires a federal assessment for replacement of its John Hart Generating Station near Campbell River on Vancouver Island because the project won’t increase the generating capacity by more than 50 per cent or 200 megawatts. No provincial assessment applies, either.

Now, it would seem obvious enough that the number of megawatts added by a project won't necessarily correlate to its environmental impact. Which means that the Cons' move to limit assessment based on project size rather than actual need will only encourage the development of a large number of dirty, small-scale projects.

- Barbara Yaffe is right to note that the NDP is doing just fine consolidating its national strength under Tom Mulcair. But she's far too willing to buy the Cons' spin about Mulcair's environmental message - which is in fact far closer to the views of Canadians than the Cons' determination to put the oil industry's profits over public health and safety.

- The CLC highlights the positive effect of unions on wages in Saskatchewan:

On average, unionized workers earned $5.28 per hour more than non-union employees. That union advantage translated into more than $26 million more every week paid into the provincial economy to support businesses and community services.

- Meanwhile, Tom Graham notes that the Sask Party's focus on privatization and corporate development only looks to increase costs to the province.

- And finally, Erin Weir suggests expanding the Bank of Canada's mandate to maximize employment and bolster economic stability, rather than being limited solely to addressing inflation targets.

The great giveaway

No, Brad Wall's new musings about changing Saskatchewan's resource royalty structure won't pass without comment from this corner. But it's worth noting that the reason for concern lies not a mere flip-flop from the Sask Party's 2011 election platform, but what's all too consistent in its behaviour since taking power.

At the outset, let's remember that Wall's position while in power has never been that the tax structure surrounding royalties is set in stone; instead, it's been that any change has to result in greater returns for corporate conglomerates at the expense of the province in order to be acceptable. So the Sask Party has been perfectly happy to hand out freebies such as head office tax credits on top of the system that was working perfectly well before it took power.

It's only when the NDP suggested that the province should benefit more from high prices and increased development that the Sask Party decided all existing arrangements were sacrosanct. Which leads to the foundation Wall is setting up for the mother of all resource giveaways:

Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall is musing about adjusting the way the province collects money from companies that extract natural resources.

Wall says companies should have royalty stability especially after they've spent billions investing in the economy.

But the premier also says it's important that taxpayers are properly compensated if in 20 years potash production has doubled.

The current complex system is based on price rather than volume and Wall says it needs to change.

So let's compare what we have now to what Wall seems to be proposing.

At the moment, Saskatchewan's royalty structure results in our province sharing in the value of our resources. If prices rise - reflecting no particular merit on the part of either developer or province, but an increase in value in the resources which we're allowing to be removed from our common wealth - then so too does the province's revenue. And it's that structure which allows for the prospect of a Bright Futures Fund which ensures that money is invested for the province's benefit when times are good, and available to meet our needs when prices drop.

In contrast, Wall apparently sees it as unacceptable that Saskatchewan, as the owner of the resources being extracted, should share at all in the gains when those resources increase in price. Instead, he's setting out to establish "royalty stability" based strictly on the volume of resources removed from our province. And if prices happen to rise - well, as far as Wall is concerned, that windfall belongs solely to his corporate benefactors.

Needless to say, his resource-sector puppeteers will have every reason to be happy with that outcome. But once again, it's the people of Saskatchewan who stand to lose out from a system designed to eliminate the benefit we'd otherwise enjoy from our own resources. And if Wall is indeed planning to force through changes during the course of this term in office, then the resource question may be the most important fight we face over the next few years.

[Edit: fixed formatting.]

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- I'll follow up with one extra note from Mark Carney's address to the CAW - as the headlines seem to have missed a rather important point about the relative effect of the Canadian dollar and even the widest possible definition of labour issues:

He noted Canada’s export performance was the second-worst in the G20 over the last decade, with only 9 per cent of exports going to fast-growing emerging markets such as China and India.

But he sought to dispel the notion that the high loonie bears the bulk of the blame.

“Some blame this on the persistent strength of the Canadian dollar,” Mr. Carney said in prepared remarks ahead of his address.

“While there is some truth to that, it is not the most important reason. Over the past decade, our poor export performance has been explained two-thirds by market structure and one-third by competitiveness. Of the latter about two-thirds is the currency while the rest is labour costs and productivity.

“So, net, our strong currency explains only about 20 per cent of our poor export performance.”

By Carney's own account, then, "labour costs and productivity" have had only half as much effect as the boosted Canadian dollar on exports. Which (for anybody willing to listen) should thoroughly undermine the claim that there's any validity to a Con position pretending the dollar is no issue at all, while attacking the far smaller labour factor at every turn in the name of competitiveness.

- Though I suppose we shouldn't operate under the illusion that the Cons' economic plans have anything to do with accomplishing anything useful - as Jim Flaherty is rerunning his thoroughly-discredited "do what I ask, or I'll ask again more pitifully" strategy to deal with the glut of uninvested corporate cash.

- And in case anybody thought a new set of MPs might help rein in the Cons' worst impulses, here's a shorter Chris Alexander:

Lousy media, refusing to accept that all inconvenient prior statements have been declared inoperative. Why won't they just transcribe the word of the Ministry of Truth and leave it at that?

- Finally, David McGrane takes on the Saskatchewan Cons' sad attempts to preserve poor representation for their constituents by pointing out what representation is supposed to accomplish:

Optimal democratic representation means having an MP exclusively devoted to representing your concerns. The proposed constituencies map improves democratic representation by having more rural residents represented by exclusively rural MPs, and more urban residents represented by exclusively urban MPs. It's a win for both the city and the countryside.

No other province has split rural-urban ridings, making Saskatchewan the outlier of Canadian democracy. Other provinces have realized that separating urban and rural residents into different ridings provides better democratic representation and conforms to electoral law that stipulates that ridings must contain residents with similar identities and similar "communities of interest."

If we take a step back and consider, we realize that the proposed boundaries are best for democracy. That's what really counts.

New column day

Here, on the tendency for political parties to try to glorify past leaders by plastering their names and faces on the map - and the potential for Jack Layton's legacy to be based on a far more direct connection to citizens.

For further reading...
- Politico documents some of the Republicans' general efforts to rename everything in sight after Ronald Reagan, while Rebecca Schoenkopf highlights the latest example.
- Tim Harper discusses the Cons' attempts to rebrand Canadian landmarks for partisan gain, while Tim Stanley highlights the :Aryan character" values of John A. MacDonald.
- And the first couple of examples of sites named for Layton are reported here and here.