Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- No, the aftershocks of an e. coli outbreak which has unfortunately given both Canadians and export markets reason for concern about the safety of some of our major food sources aren't about to end simply because the Cons are again pretending everything's fine. And the president of the union local representing XL Foods workers points out one of the major steps needed to ensure problems aren't allowed to fester due to managerial neglect:

Under the UFCW’s collective agreement, O’Halloran said, line workers can inform a supervisor only if they spot a safety issue, but the decision about whether to slow the line remains with management.

He said he wants the company to allow workers to go public with their food safety concerns if they are ignored by XL. It’s a demand he will reiterate at a press conference Wednesday alongside other labour leaders and Alberta New Democrat leader Brian Mason.

- Meanwhile, pogge and Pat Atkinson rightly call for accountability from the Cons - however certain it is that they'll offer nothing of the sort. Thomas Walkom connects the health issues caused by unsafe food to those arising from fast-tracked drugs. David Climenhaga worries about the destruction of the brand of Alberta beef. And Duncan Cameron fits the Cons' false claims about new inspectors into a broader theme as to the need for more facts in politics.

- But then, Lawrence Martin points out why our more cynical politicians seem to think that lying is a cost-free strategy:

Truth shaving of a serious kind has become so commonplace in politics today that it is expected. In the news business anything that is expected, that happens often, is of declining news value. And so the media over time has lost its sense of outrage when politicians wilfully distort or lie. The media don’t hold politicians to as a high as a standard as they used to. You’ll rarely, for example, see a front page headline saying “Cabinet Minister Caught Up In Baldfaced Lie.” Criticisms will usually come in the body of the story or on the inside pages. Political strategists realize the story will be one-day wonder, forgotten the next. No big deal.

In the case of the Harper government, numerous cases of willfull deceit have been documented by the press. Rarely a week goes by without some damning report, this week’s example being the government’s decision to close down water-monitoring stations in the north. Prior to this, we saw Conservative attacks slamming the New Democrats for favouring a carbon tax. They don’t. They favour a cap and trade system. Costs for cap and trade – a policy initially favoured by the Conservatives themselves – can get passed on to the consumer just as costs from the Conservatives’ regulatory measures to combat greenhouses gasses can be.

But as election results have shown, the Harper Conservatives, at least to date, haven’t paid much of a price for in-your-face duplicity. So why should they change their approach?

...

In trying to hold the government to account, it is usually the media that bears the burden. The media can either go along with the fall in standards or they can take a much stronger stance. Journalists have to find a way to respond that embarrasses offending politicians to a degree that makes them fear for their reputations. As of now the politicians pay no such price and, as can be seen in the presidential campaign, the downward spiral picks up speed.

- And indeed the Cons seem to be trying to outdo one another in how blatantly they mislead the Canadian public.

- Finally, Alex Himelfarb comments on the state of our democracy:

(G)rowing inequality makes it almost impossible to imagine ever formulating a shared sense of the good life. The very idea becomes a stretch given the profoundly different ways in which the super rich, the poor and the majority experience life. They breathe different air. Their kids go to different schools. They live in different neighbourhoods. Money always matters, but in an increasingly privatized world, it has never mattered more.

At the top, the extraordinary gains of a small global elite have given them an outsized capacity to shape the agenda and at the same time to secede from much of society. And even as extreme inequality undermines equality of opportunity, the myth of meritocracy emboldens many to believe that they are entitled to all they have. Down the economic scale, just as the very rich want to see taxes cut to hold on to what they have, so too do the majority want to withhold their money from a state they no longer trust. Even if recent events have shaken confidence in the promise of markets, they have not restored confidence in governments — and why should they? Look at the lost manufacturing jobs, tainted meat, deteriorating institutions and hollow politics. And, in a perfect self-fulfilling prophecy, taxes are cut, the state shrinks and becomes less trustworthy, the services it provides less relevant and increasingly shoddy, and the distrust grows and curdles into cynicism.

The result: a marketized politics of propaganda and pandering. It’s understandable then that, increasingly, those who want something better are looking outside of conventional politics: to their communities or global causes or to the streets. It was striking how many of the participants in the Quebec student protests found a new solidarity — and expressed a new sense of the common good — in their activism. Clearly some do care about our democracy, but many, especially young Canadians, have given up on the impoverished version offered up by our politics. That is both understandable and dangerous. The new activism and rebuilding of an independent civil society are essential but not enough.

Tuesday Night Cat Blogging

Cats with clothes.

#withoutanewstadium

I've written plenty about Regina's municipal election over the past few days. But I'll take some time to encourage readers to join the conversation as early voting approaches.

With the City having released a stadium design concept at the start of the election campaign, it's been far too easy to fall into the trap of assuming that it's both a reality and a done deal. But it should be fairly simple to take to Twitter and offer some reminders that there's plenty we can do in Regina...#withoutanewstadium.

So how can we put the hashtag to good use? Well, here are a few suggestions.

First, by contrasting the current council's stadium obsession against other policy choices...

We could start building needed housing *now* #withoutanewstadium

We'll be able to save public money for far better purposes #withoutanewstadium

Second, with a dose of humour...

ZOMG!!! #withoutanewstadium, the #riders will TOTALLY move to *FLIN FLON*!

However will we teach young Reginans about "cost overruns" #withoutanewstadium?

And finally, as a response to the constant flow of business jingoism which so conveniently neglects the fact that our current stadium isn't exactly standing between Regina and the corporate community's goals either:

2668 jobs on saskjobs for yqr #withoutanewstadium

Riders generate $82 million impact annually - and #withoutanewstadium!

Of course, there are other important issues to be dealt with in the campaign as well. And I certainly hope readers and voters will take them into account at the polls.

But the most immediate choice facing for our municipal representatives is whether to let proponents of a new stadium buy their way to the front of the line while more important issues are left unaddressed. And it's long past time to recognize that Regina can keep thriving #withoutanewstadium.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Ed Broadbent and the Broadbent Institute are putting together a strong public push on the problem of growing inequality - featuring a video, op-ed and research paper (PDF). For more, see coverage from Rachel Mendleson, Natalie Stechyson, and CBC News.

- Today's handy reporting tip from Bill Curry: when corporate profits rise at the same time as rates are reduced, that's irrefutable evidence of causation. But when corporate profits were previously higher under a higher rate, that's a "blip" to be ignored.

- Jill Lepore offers a history of the political lie factory intended to reduce voters to mere consumers. And Allen Gregg follows up on the importance of reason in politics with a simple suggestion as to how to turn the tide:

What’s disconcerting about all of 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 sending more potheads to jail is a good thing. But before we make those decisions, let’s look at all the facts; have a full and rational debate; and make a reasoned decision on what is best for all the parties involved. For voters to determine whether they support these measures 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 gobbledygook of double speak, governments are admitting their intentions probably lack both support and respect. This too explains this government’s obsession with secrecy, message control and misdirection.
...
History has also shown that tyrants can have a truncated shelf life if the citizenry enters the public forum and, armed with facts, reasoned arguments, and thoughtful ideas, engages in a loud debate. In the case of those who would stand against reason, our silence will be perceived as consent. There’s too much at stake to be silent.

If it feels lame to suggest that the solution about what to do next is to talk to each other more, I invite you to review history and ask yourselves what role public discourse has had in the toppling of dictators and despots. Right now, there seems to be a very one-sided conversation going on and the powers that be are leading it. We have our hands on the easiest levers the world has ever known by which to spread an idea and lead our own conversation. Let’s use them. 

 - Finally, Mike Sandler proposes a citizen's dividend as a means of addressing both inequality and economic stagnation.

Tuesday Morning 'Rider Blogging

The first half of yesterday's win over the Argos was filled with missed opportunities for the Saskatchewan Roughriders.

Yes, it's generally a plus to hold a 9-point lead at the half. But between a couple of dropped interceptions and an unusually ineffective short-yardage offence, the 'Riders held that small margin despite outplaying the Argos in all phases of the game. And with the Argos obviously hoping for big plays on defence or special teams to make up for a toothless offence, something figured to give in the second half.

Fortunately, the main difference was that the 'Riders' point production matched their overall effectiveness. Two long third-quarter touchdowns gave Saskatchewan a daunting lead, and the 'Riders' defence held the fort from there.

But again, the game always figured to be a relatively friendly one for a defence facing a mediocre offensive team's backups at quarterback and running back. Instead, it's the offence and special teams that looked particularly impressive in producing against the Argos' strengths.

Aside from the two third-quarter eruptions, the 'Riders didn't do much more than to play an effective possession game on offence. But they managed at least that much throughout the game, pairing another 100-yard game for Kory Sheets with a high-efficiency passing attack that more than doubled the Argos' yards per attempt. (Of particular note, Taj Smith had his best all-around game of the year - not merely taking advantage of breakdowns as he's done before, but making big plays both catching the ball in traffic and shedding tacklers.)

Meanwhile, special teams looked to be a high-risk area against one of the CFL's elite returners. But full credit goes to Craig Dickenson for a stunning performance by the 'Riders' cover teams: Chad Owens managed only one long punt return, while the Argos repeatedly started from deep in their own end due to penalties and/or negligible returns.

We'll find out this weekend whether the 'Riders can keep up that style of play against Edmonton on short rest. But it should help that the Esks rely on much the same turnover-driven game plan as the Argos. And for now, the 'Riders have kept themselves in contention for the top spots in the West.

The litmus test

Regina's municipal election is fast approaching - with advance voting set to begin this week. Unfortunately, the sheer volume of candidates (which, to be clear, I take to be a positive sign as to public interest in the election) will limit my ability to write about all of the options individually. But I'll take some time to discuss both the criteria I'm looking for in determining who to support, and a few candidates who look particularly promising as potential additions to Regina's municipal governing bodies.

At the outset, in the absence of a party system, it's absolutely essential for a successful municipal representative to be able to work with others and try to build consensus around issues. It's possible to make plenty of noise criticizing the status quo, but impossible to actually bring about change without some ability to reach out to others who won't agree on all issues.

But a healthy interest in cooperation shouldn't be seen as a reason to turn the city's governing bodies into closed clubs with no interest in listening to public input. And that's where matters have gone off the rails in recent years: all too often, our representatives have done nothing but circle the wagons and shut down debate on issues which plainly call for serious discussion.

What's more, in addition to ensuring that representatives are out of touch generally, that philosophy also ensures that city policy is easily captured by the big-money special interests who have hand-selected so many of our candidates.

So my two-part test for municipal candidates is this. Does the candidate hold a strong enough core of values to ensure that he or she will be more than just a yes-person parroting whatever schemes get drawn up for a rubber-stamp? And at the same time, does the candidate have the inclination and skill to put those values into practice by working with others?

Needless to say, the above isn't an easy test to meet. But again, I'll offer a few suggestions in a future post.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your Monday reading.

- Jim Stanford reviews the effect of NAFTA (and associated corporatist policy choices) on Canada's economy:

Quantity of exports: In the mid-1980s, before Brian Mulroney and Ronald Reagan inked their deal, Canada’s exports to the United States accounted for 19 per cent of Canadian GDP. Today, they account for 19 per cent of Canadian GDP. Any boost to exports from the deal was temporary, and has since been completely reversed.

Composition of exports: In the mid-1980s, most of Canada’s exports to the U.S. consisted of relatively sophisticated manufactured goods (including automobiles, electronics and machinery). Today, most of our southbound exports consist of unprocessed or barely processed primary and resource products.

U.S. market: In the mid-1980s, 19 per cent of all U.S. imports came from Canada. Today, our share of their imports is just 14 per cent. So much for “special access.” Yet, we still rely on the U.S. for 75 per cent of all our export sales – just as high as before the deal.

Productivity: In the mid-1980s, average productivity in Canadian businesses equalled 90 per cent of U.S. levels. Free-trade advocates predicted that continental integration would eliminate that gap – but we’ve gone backward, and fast. Today, our productivity is just 72 per cent of U.S. levels.

Incomes: Proponents also promised that productivity gains from free trade would translate into higher incomes. There’s been no productivity dividend, and no income growth, either. In fact, last year’s median family incomes, adjusted for inflation, were exactly the same as in 1980 – not a dollar of income growth over the whole period.

In short, it’s hard to find any concrete economic evidence whatsoever that this historic deal actually helped Canada.

- Meanwhile, Murray Dobbin wonders whether Justin Trudeau has any intention of recognizing any weaknesses in the Libs' policy choices while presenting himself as a candidate of change. And Marc Lavoie and Mario Seccareccia make abundantly clear that the Bank of Canada isn't interested in learning from false assumptions about the relationship between inflation rates and growth.

- It's a tough contest as to which story is most emblematic of the Cons' stay in government: a deliberate choice to neglect public infrastructure until it can be sold off, or reckless public service cuts followed by lies going all the way to Stephen Harper to try to insulate the Cons from their choices.

- Finally, Don Braid laments the lack of commitment to access to information from the Cons and other Canadian governments. And no, a federal pilot project limited to fee-for-service online request submissions doesn't offer any particular reason for reassurance.

Free speech for me, but not for thee

Needless to say, the Regina Chamber of Commerce's attempts to paint concerns about its purporting to speak on behalf of the City as having anything to do with free speech generally have no basis in reality.

But if we want to look for somebody who's making a concerted effort to silence key voices on the political scene, we can look no further than...the Regina Chamber of Commerce, seeking to make it more difficult for unions to participate in politics through its submission to the provincial employment law consultation (PDF; bold in original, italics added):

Are trade unions sufficiently accountable?

No, the issue is that unions will on many occasions support causes or political parties that do not reflect some of the membership.
...
Should union members be able to stipulate what their dues are used for?

Yes, this would stop unions from being quasi political entities and force them to represent the interest of the workers they represent.

So let's ask a few questions: does the Chamber assert that every single one of its members supports every single political statement it's making surrounding the municipal election? Does its dues process include some means to ensure businesses who disagree don't see any of their contributions go to the Chamber's advertising?

And how in the world can it reconcile its bleatings about "free speech" on behalf of a representative organization with an express intention to "stop unions from being quasi political entities"?

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Murray Mandryk and Bruce Johnstone both thoroughly slam Gerry Ritz and the Cons for their food-safety negligence. But Johnstone hints at the larger issue:

Ritz, for all his faults, is not the cause of this latest debacle. He's merely a symptom of a bigger problem with the Harper government: specifically, it's (sic) ideological fixation on smaller government, it's (sic) blind faith in self-regulation and its tendency to micromanage every aspect of government policy.

- And Lana Payne reminds us why we should know better than to think there's any merit to anti-regulatory corporatism:

The latest food safety scandal begs the question: does anyone sitting in the federal Conservative caucus remember the lessons of Walkerton?

It was, after all, just a little over a decade ago that Canada’s worst outbreak of E. coli in the water supply of the small Ontario community of Walkerton took place, killing seven people. Another 2,300 residents fell ill in the same tainted water scandal.

The deaths and the subsequent outrage forced then Conservative premier Mike Harris to call a judicial inquiry — an inquiry he, as premier, was also compelled to testify at.

Certainly federal ministers Jim Flaherty and Tony Clement should remember the lessons of Walkerton. After all, they were part of the Harris government that ravaged public services, privatized important safety tests and gutted regulations.

Justice Dennis O’Connor, in his January 2002 report into the Walkerton tainted water scandal, concluded that had funding at the Department of Environment not been slashed, the worst-outbreak of E. coli could have been avoided. In other words, government cutbacks were partly to blame for the death of seven Ontarians.

And here we are again.

Some of the faces are the same. Certainly the ideology is. Hacking and slashing government jobs, programs and services without a mind or a thought to how those cuts will impact or hurt Canadians.

- Meanwhile, Stephen Maher reports that the Cons aren't exactly escaping responsibility for drinking their own Kool-Aid in other areas - as MPs are now on the hook for costs after a dismally-failed attempt to put roadblocks in the way of the Council of Canadians' challenge to Robocon-influenced election results.

- Finally, Susan Riley points out that we shouldn't be too quick to assume that younger politicians will offer up new ideas - especially if relative inexperience make a younger leader more easily captured by party insiders.

Leadership 2013 Roundup

Assorted news from the Saskatchewan NDP's leadership campaign over the past few days...

- Ryan Meili explained his choice not to start unveiling policy just yet by suggesting that leadership starts with listening - and the list of user-submitted ideas on his website looks to be expanding nicely to signal that people are interested in contributing. Meanwhile, Meili was also the subject of the most frivolous campaign story of the week.

- Erin Weir commented on the general effect of free trade agreements, raising a natural question as to what he'd plan to do to counter the chilling effect of such agreements:

Economist Erin Weir of the Progressive Economics Forum adds another negative, as he sees it.

He says FTA and NAFTA, which followed five years later, have restricted the power of governments to intervene in the economy to push back against global forces, namely because they fear law suits for protectionist practices. He cites the $130-million payout to AbitibiBowater in return for expropriated assets by Newfoundland after the company shut down its Grand-Falls Windsor pulp and paper mill.

- Cam Broten and Trent Wotherspoon unveiled assorted endorsements, while Wotherspoon also earned a report in the Nipawin Journal.

- Finally, Joe Couture reported on the candidates' websites. But it's worth noting that while it's probably true that all of the sites are relatively safe in terms of candidate-driven content (which I'd think would be expected), all but Broten's have at least some form of publicly-submitted content as well. And I'd expect candidates' interactions with visitors to make for one of the more significant signs as to how they'll engage with the public.

On blurred lines

In today's Leader-Post, John Hopkins responds to this week's column. But while he tries to point some fingers away from the Regina Chamber of Commerce, he only raises larger issues as to the relationship between the Chamber and the City.

In effect, Hopkins argues that it wasn't the Chamber that copied the City's "Regina Votes" theme, but the other way around. (Which is difficult to verify, as archives seem to be rather sparse in trying to track down the history of both sites.)

But of course, that doesn't address the use of what's unmistakably a City logo (and indeed, now an updated one) on the Chamber's site. And more importantly, it simply feeds into the concern that we have no way of knowing where our public institutions end and where the Chamber's influence begins.

If the current city administration has indeed copied an election theme from the Chamber, and doesn't see any concern with the Chamber in turn splashing its logo on an advocacy site, all at the same time that the City hawks the Chamber-backed stadium project in the middle of an election campaign which should determine whether or not Regina residents actually want to push ahead...well, that looks all the worse to me as a matter of overall perception and electoral fairness, even if it shifts a bit of the immediate blame from the Chamber to the City.

At higher levels of government, similar issues are resolved by drawing clear lines between general administration, electoral oversight and campaigning. But this year's campaign is only highlighting a glaring absence of similar protections at the municipal level. And if the Chamber genuinely doesn't see why anybody would be concerned, that probably signals that it sees itself as benefitting from a city administration which hasn't addressed the issue.

[Edit: fixed typo, wording.]

On contrasting treatment

BigCityLib comments on the Cons' hasty backtracking over Helen MacMurchy. But I find it particularly interesting to note the contrast between their treatment of MacMurchy and their handling of John A. MacDonald.

Remember that MacDonald's fervent commitment to an "Aryan Canada" and racial purity was publicly noted just as the Cons named a freeway after him. But in his case, the Cons conceded nothing at all.

So does that suggest that the Cons see the line for acceptable views on race somehow falling somewhere between MacDonald's views...

In 1885, John A. Macdonald told the House of Commons that, if the Chinese were not excluded from Canada, “the Aryan character of the future of British America should be destroyed …” This was the precise moment in the histories of Canada and the British Dominions when Macdonald personally introduced race as a defining legal principle of the state.

He did this not just in any piece of legislation, but in the Electoral Franchise Act, an act that defined the federal polity of adult male property holders and that he called “my greatest achievement.”

Macdonald’s comments came as he justified an amendment taking the vote away from anyone “of Mongolian or Chinese race.” He warned that, if the Chinese (who had been in British Columbia as long as Europeans) were allowed to vote, “they might control the vote of that whole Province” and their “Chinese representatives” would foist “Asiatic principles,” “immoralities,” and “eccentricities” on the House “which are abhorrent to the Aryan race and Aryan principles.” He further claimed that “the Aryan races will not wholesomely amalgamate with the Africans or the Asiatics” and that “the cross of those races, like the cross of the dog and the fox, is not successful; it cannot be, and never will be.” For Macdonald, Canada was to be the country that restored a pure Aryan race to its past glory, and the Chinese threatened this purity. 

...and MacMurchy's?

MacMurchy, a medical doctor who was the first head of the federal Department of Health’s child welfare division, was the most prominent promoter of eugenics in Canada in the early part of the 20th Century.

The doctrine of eugenics invoked science to claim that parents deemed unfit — in Canada, typically immigrants, unwed mothers, the disabled, the poor and First Nations people — passed on their inferior traits to their offspring, diluting and weakening the gene pool.
...
In an interview, Smith said that had she known of MacMurchy’s involvement in eugenics, she would have “run from the ceremony. I don’t care what she’s done. Anybody who has a philosophy like that, it’s appalling.”

Or is this once again a matter of gender and perceived dispensability serving as the Cons' dividing lines as to what they're prepared to defend - with a few crocodile tears about past abuses thrown in for good measure only when discussing the people they choose to toss overboard?

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Michelle Ervin discusses Ed Broadbent's ideas to start closing Canada's yawning income gap:

Broadbent outlined four broad prescriptions for bridging this gap, and ultimately, for creating a fairer society: investing in good jobs, strengthening income supports, increasing access to public services and reforming the tax regime to make it more progressive.

He wasn’t short on specifics either. Concrete actions toward these goals might include funding skills development in such sectors as early childhood education; introducing a minimum guaranteed income modeled on the system we have for seniors; expanding affordable housing and creating a national child care program; and cracking down on tax evasion and closing “boutique” tax loopholes.

- CBC reports on the Cons' announcement that only Christian chaplains will be employed in Canadian prisons (and in the name of not picking and choosing between religions no less). Malcolm offers up the due response.

- Meanwhile, the NDP is making a concerned effort to call out the Cons' backbenchers for being nothing more than mindless talking-point dispensers. And while I'd normally be skeptical of the likelihood of shaming the Cons into changing course, their partial EI reversal offers a bit more reason for hope than we've seen in quite some time.

- Dan Gardner rightly notes that a commitment to evidence-based policy necessarily implies a willingness to invest in new ideas to actually generate evidence. But I'd think it's worth challenging Gardner's commitment to his own standards: would he support, say, "government-as-player" rather than "government-as-referee" not only for the purpose of research, but also in areas where direct intervention works in practice?

- Finally, the Young Turks discuss Mitt Romney's distaste for PBS. And the desire to attack culture and alternative sources of information is no less obvious among the Sask Party, the Harper Cons and the Republicans' other Canadian cousins:

Musical interlude

Barenaked Ladies - Brian Wilson

Loopholes and leverage

I've previously wondered whether we'd see many substantial policy differences between Saskatchewan's NDP leadership candidates. But Erin Weir hasn't taken long to challenge what's often seen as party orthodoxy:

NDP leadership candidate Erin Weir is proposing to focus Saskatchewan’s Small Business Deduction on genuinely small businesses with taxable profits of up to $100,000. This policy would increase provincial revenues and fund targeted tax measures directly linked to investment and employment.
... 
“We should close business tax loopholes that are not connected to investment or employment,” said Weir. “To help create jobs, I would rebate workers’ compensation premiums for the first four years that a newly hired worker is employed and restore the Saskatchewan Film Employment Tax Credit.”

To encourage investment, Weir is proposing a tax credit equal to 2% of the first $100,000 of capital invested by any corporation. Under this plan, a genuinely small business that reinvests its profits in Saskatchewan would pay no provincial tax.
...
[The change in the small business deduction threshold] would recoup at least $200 million of annual provincial revenue. The premium rebate would cost $30 million when fully phased-in and the investment tax credit would cost $70 million, leaving a further $100 million to fund other public priorities. 

Now, Weir's proposal doesn't entirely close what he identifies as a loophole. (Nor would it entirely fix what strikes me as the most obvious problem with a small-business threshold in encouraging the proliferation of multiple corporate entities to avoid growing to a particular size - as the per-business tax credits and premium rebates would mimic the same effect to a lesser extent).

But it's well worth asking whether it actually makes sense to provide more favourable treatment to some businesses based solely on their size in the name of small-business jingoism.

Instead, Weir's plan provides incentives for growth in both capital investment and hiring. Which means that incentives would then be directed toward the activities that actually increase economic development, rather than falling into the all-too-frequent trap of declaring "we want X to like us, let's give favourable tax treatment to X".

Needless to say, there's reason to doubt that the small business tax proposal will be met with the same universal agreement as Weir's previous push to eliminate corporate and union donations to provincial political parties. But how the other candidates respond will say plenty about both the role they see for the provincial government in economic development, and their willingness to deal with that question based on principle rather than political expediency.

Update: Scott has more here. And as Erin notes in comments, Cam Broten and Ryan Meili have already responded - but have done so by falling back on the "small business" mantra without substantively addressing the question of whether more targeted incentives can encourage growth for less cost than broad loopholes.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Michael Harris follows up on the previous activism to save the Experimental Lakes Area by noting that efforts to work with the Harper Cons are providing both divisive and disastrous:

(J)ust a few months after the Death of Evidence rally, another event is playing out behind the scenes that is partly the way of the world and partly full-blown tragedy.  If those same scientists held a rally today, they would have to call it by another name. Judging from what is happening in that penumbral zone where idealism and power politics collide, a good title might be the Death of Innocence.

In a sad act of political naiveté and myopic thinking, of cowardice posing as pragmatism, the movement to save the ELA has been strategically sidelined. In its place, there is a fevered attempt to reduce the momentous public policy issues involved to one, short-term, panic-stricken objective  – finding a new operator for this unique scientific program at all costs.

The scientists who just a few short months ago asked the public to support their cause against oppressive politicians are now shunning the media, hopping in bed with the government, and fighting amongst themselves. The PhD student who gave up her studies to single-handedly run the movement to save the ELA, has been asked to “go silent” by her colleagues and mentors. The people who asked her to do that are the same people who encouraged her to fight the good fight for ELA, her fellow scientists at the top levels of this betrayed national treasure.

Why? Politics. The senior scientists have decided not to antagonize the Harper government with embarrassing reminders of the harsh facts: ELA was not shuttered to save $2 million, or because it no longer fit the agenda of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, or because recent scientific studies there had been disappointing. It was cancelled because the science being produced at ELA was a potential obstacle to the untrammeled development of projects like the oil sands. It provided the one thing an ideology-driven government can’t abide; independent, verifiable, and impartial facts.

- Meanwhile, Jeffrey Simpson theorizes that the continued movement questioning the Northern Gateway pipeline will win out in the end.

- Trish Hennessy storifies a noteworthy debate between Armine Yalnizyan and Andrew Coyne on income inequality.

- David Climenhaga calls out the media for thoughtlessly repeating Fraser-fabricated "facts" with no basis in reality.

- Duncan Cameron discusses why the Harper Cons have no interest in engaging with the rest of the world through the UN:

In another view, the UN is a coherent international organization with a mandate to promote its charter, and live up to the expectations of its founders that what unites the people's of the world is greater than what divides them. This second conception of an activist UN was what motivated Lester Pearson, Dag Hammarskjöld, and generations of idealists who believed that many issues do not bear passports, and that the world needs action from a world scale organization on issues as diverse as AIDS, social statistics, child nutrition, tourism, arms control, control of nuclear energy, and protection of heritage sites.

In its preamble, the UN charter defines its first purpose as "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which ... has brought untold sorrow to mankind."

Serious differences loom between those like the Harper government who believe political problems can be dealt with by military action, and those who are convinced that means exist to resolve the most serious differences without resort to violence.

Those in the second camp still support the UN despite its own participation in wars because, as the Swedish ambassador to Norway said in accepting the posthumous award of the Nobel Peace Prize to  Dag Hammarskjöld, quoting  Hammarskjöld'ss last article: "... set-backs in efforts to implement an ideal do not prove that the ideal is wrong." 

- Finally, regular reader and commenter Dan Tan has started a blog of his own - with the first post featuring his take on Justin Trudeau and empty-vessel politics.

New column day

Here, on how the Regina Chamber of Commerce is taking election misdirection to new lows in this fall's municipal campaign.

For further reading...
- Vanda Schmokel pointed out the same issue earlier this week.
- The Chamber's Regina Votes site is here. The City of Regina's official site with the same theme is here. The City's rules surrounding the use of its logo (or at least its latest version) are here.
- In contrast to the Chamber, David Robert Loblaw's entirely neutral site includes a clear statement to avoid confusion (along with a thorough set of information about the candidates):

This is NOT an official election website.  The official City of Regina election site is at Regina.ca/residents/elections
Election questions should be directed to the official City Election Office

- Finally, CUPE Local 21's Wants vs Needs site doesn't pretend to be official - but it does mention some of the issues conspicuously excluded by the Chamber.

On image reinforcement

I won't disagree with those who have criticized Barack Obama's debate performance last night as listless. But did nobody else notice that the candidate who's rightly been criticized for his glee in firing workers and shipping jobs overseas had this to say as one of his supposed "zingers"?

The second topic, which is you said you get a deduction for taking a plant overseas. Look, I've been in business for 25 years. I have no idea what you're talking about. I maybe need to get a new accountant.

That's right: Mitt Romney's first response to talk of tax rewards for job cuts...was to ask, "how can I get a piece of that action for myself?" Which looks to me to be far more telling than, say, a mere $10,000 bet offer as evidence of Romney's out-of-touch, exploitative mindset - even if he spent the rest of the debate repudiating every anti-social policy he and his party promote when there's no opponent on stage to rebut them.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Mitchell Anderson's final report on Norway's highly successful management of its oil resources puts Canada's current philosophy to the test:

Seen through this lens, how is Canada doing? Abysmally...:

1. Dependency. Even with our vast oil wealth, Canada currently relies on other countries for about 50 per cent of our supply -- so-called "unethical oil" from the volatile Middle East. Proposals to pipe unrefined bitumen from western Canada to Asia will increase this dangerous dependence since Alberta will have to import vast amounts of condensate from the Middle East to dilute thick bitumen enough for pipeline transport.

2. Staying in the red. Alberta has been unable to balance the books since 2007, burning through $17.7 billion of past oil wealth, with another $3 billion deficit forecast for the coming budget.

3. Draining at full tilt. Labour and production costs are through the roof, at least until the next employment bust. Both the Alberta Federation of Labour and the late premier Peter Lougheed have both called for slower (sic) the pace of oil sands growth. Ten proposed upgrades have been cancelled since the 2007 recession, replaced instead with pipeline proposals for unprocessed diluted bitumen. With resource values rising relative to global currencies, what's the rush?

4. Getting global black eye. The oil sands have such a credibility problem the Alberta government spends $25 million a year countering "baseless" criticism from environmental groups. 

 - Ken Coran and Ken Lewenza highlight the value of allowing unions and management to reach deals that make sense for a particular workplace, rather than having decrees issued from on high. But sadly, the only negotiations the McGuinty Libs seem prepared to accept are their own dealings with Tim Hudak and his party to eliminate workers' right to bargain collectively.

- Thomas Walkom describes the XL Beef E. coli disaster as the Harper Cons' Walkerton moment - and it would indeed seem to be about time to recognize the practical consequences of ineffective regulation. But Postmedia reports that the Cons aren't done making matters worse - planning instead to cut food safety programs by tens of millions of dollars more.

- Finally, Polly Toynbee discusses Ed Miliband's new "One Nation Labour" theme - with a particular focus on how it serves to promote cooperation rather than competition in public services:

Watch [the Conservatives] writhe as One Nation Labour encapsulates everything divisive they do, from Cameron's tax bonus for millionaires to his cruellest cuts for the disabled. Divide and rule is the Cameron hallmark, north against south, the in-work against the workless, private against public employees, young against old, exam-passers versus plebs. How clever to pilfer a Tory phrase with no intention of blurring boundaries or triangulating into Tory turf.

Subtlety is Miliband's style. So when he said to voters he understood "why you turned away from Labour", that was enough, everyone knows the reasons why. Of Cameron, he said he understood "why people gave him the benefit of the doubt" – but then he walloped him from here to kingdom come for inflicting all this pain to cut the deficit only to send it soaring higher than ever.

His words on the NHS brought the hall to its feet. A One Nation NHS means repealing the act that forces hospital to compete with hospital, instead of co-operating in common cause. Banks, businesses, schools, jobs – that One Nation phrase will suit everything Labour needs to say. It stands for the squeezed middle as well as the poor.

Leadership 2013 Roundup

A few notes from the Saskatchewan NDP's leadership campaign over the past few days...

- Cam Broten's supporters have been highlighting his statement of values, with his focus on long-term thinking offering a particularly noteworthy development if put into practice (while also setting up a noteworthy test for Broten on the campaign trail):

Thinking in generations

Cam knows that the generations to come will feel the impacts of the decisions we make today and the decisions we put off making. Much better policies are made when decision-makers take a long-term perspective and are fundamentally committed to being fair and generous to not only current generations, but also future generations.

- Ryan Meili's campaign is encouraging site visitors to offer their own policy proposals. And Dave Mitchell's suggestion of a progressive legislation wiki looks to deserve a long look no matter what else happens during the course of the leadership race: it would seem just as easily set up by an individual or group as through the party, and indeed might be best developed outside formal party structures to encourage unfiltered discussion.

- Scott posts the contents of Erin Weir's first digital town hall, including this succinct statement of Weir's top policy priorities:

Q: What two measurable and quantifiable outcomes will be indicate that your time as leader was a success?

A: Reducing greenhouse gas emissions and poverty. 

- Finally, Trent Wotherspoon's tour around the province has earned him plenty of local media coverage. And after pointing to another report yesterday, I'll highlight Wotherspoon's comments on education from the Lloydminster Source:

Wotherspoon said he will be laying out his platform as the six-month campaign unfolds. He did say that some of the themes he will be focusing on is making sure education fits the needs of families in the province and the economy.

“I think in many ways we see areas where there is constraint occurring in the education system but also, in many ways, a system that was built for another era and a different economy,” said Wotherspoon.

Tuesday Night Cat Blogging

Embedded cats.

Deep thought

I'm pretty sure the monorail salesmen concerned business interests spending so much money equating "keeping Regina growing" with "sticking Regina with the tab for a new stadium" will start showing their evidence linking the two any day now. Yesiree, any day now...

Leadership 2013 Candidate Profile: Trent Wotherspoon

By most accounts, Trent Wotherspoon's campaign launch vaulted him immediately to frontrunner status. But let's take a closer look at whether he's likely to maintain that lead throughout the Saskatchewan NDP leadership race.

Strengths

Wotherspoon starts out with two significant advantages over his competitors. First, he's a natural retail politician: not just comfortable and friendly but downright gregarious in working any room, with seemingly boundless energy to put that skill to regular use. And second, there's a strong organization which allowed him to start the leadership campaign with a massive show of support.

And those two factors aren't operating in isolation. Wotherspoon has started the leadership campaign with an ambitious travel schedule, ensuring that he reaches out to the maximum number of potential voters before support has solidified - and presumably making a positive impression along the way.

Weaknesses

But then, there's this:



Or in written form..."What I'm excited about doing is building with purpose and bringing people together towards the common cause that exists, towards making that crystal clear focus that we are about making the improvements in the lives of Saskatchewan people in our communities..."

Now, the above isn't in response to a difficult question in a press scrum: instead, it's Wotherspoon's opening pitch which goes out of its way to avoid defining his campaign's animating "common cause". And while Wotherspoon has sounded far more convincing in some other formats (see e.g. his take on inter-connectivity and inequality here), it can't be a good sign if his official campaign message consists of word salad - particularly if the plan is to have Wotherspoon defend non-specifics in a debate format against his policy-savvy competitors.

Key Indicator

Of course, Wotherspoon's base may not see a campaign of broad generalities as reason to change course. But we'll want to keep a close eye on his approval among other candidates' supporters and undecided voters: if weaknesses in Wotherspoon's message and presentation are seen to trump his charisma among those without a personal stake in his campaign, he may be in for a rough race.

Key Opponent

Not surprisingly, the most important opponent for Wotherspoon looks to be Cam Broten - who has thus far combined a comparable level of institutional support with a more clear set of values.

Wotherspoon may have separate paths to victory based on either taking an insurmountable lead on the first ballot, or assembling enough support within the Meili and Weir camps to fend off Broten in a multi-ballot vote. But the two may involve substantially different strategies as the campaign progresses.
 
Plausible Outcomes
Best-case: First-ballot victory based on strong organization and personal appeal
Worst-case: Mid-place finish as members coalesce around other candidates' values and policy proposals

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- The Star recognizes the danger facing anybody who tries to convince a Con MP to listen to constituents' concerns - as the Cons don't care enough to respond to specific appeals, but will be happy to use whatever information they can gather for future marketing purposes.

- Meanwhile, Don Lenihan suggests we should be more concerned with properly regulating location-based data generally than the comparatively small amount of personal information collected by political parties. But I'm not sure how he draws a distinction between location information and other personal information - and if anything, the argument to regulate political parties' use of data looks even stronger to me if there's a real possibility that location-based data might allow them to anticipate or determine where any voter is at any given time.

- The Harper Cons may have decided to axe the National Council on Welfare. But thanks to Sixth Estate, the Council's work won't be similarly disappeared.

- Finally, Joan Bryden reports on the current state of statements by members in the House of Commons. But I'm particularly skeptical of the proposed reform by one former Harper staffer:

Beardsley said the Speaker should formulate strict, new guidelines for members' statements or "do away with them altogether."

Of course, that wouldn't stop the Cons from being as abusive as they like during ongoing debates in Parliament. But it would severely restrict the range of subjects discussed, as statements by members and question period are effectively the only two times when MPs can choose their topic rather than being bound by a schedule that's mostly imposed by the Cons.

Which means that Beardsley's proposal really looks to be just one more attempt to declare that the Cons' abuses should limit other parties' MPs in making use of a valuable tool to raise topics of interest which don't figure in the Harper agenda.

Leadership 2013 Candidate Profile: Ryan Meili

Ryan Meili started the 2009 Saskatchewan NDP leadership campaign at a distinct disadvantage against his opponents in terms of both time and name recognition. But he nonetheless came within just over five hundred votes of emerging as the party's leader.

For the 2013 campaign, Meili starts out as much more of a known quantity. But this doesn't look to be the type of contest where the previous runner-up is anointed as a favourite. So will he end up doing as well in a radically different race?

Strengths

Once again, there's plenty of upside to Meili's candidacy. In the previous campaign, he built on a solid resume by proving himself to be both an engaging campaigner and a strong policy thinker. And Meili has developed both of those strengths in the time since - writing a well-received book and making connections around the country to expand on those he developed in 2009.

In addition, Meili should have some organizational advantages based on the fact that he's run a leadership campaign before. But as I'll discuss shortly, it's not yet clear how much of a plus that factor will be. 

Weaknesses

While Meili stood out among the crowd in the previous leadership campaign, this isn't the 2009 field of candidates - where Yens Pedersen struggled to gain traction, Deb Higgins got stuck in neutral, and Dwain Lingenfelter provided an ideal foil for a message of youth and renewal. Instead, Meili will have three tough competitors for the title of "fresh young face" to lead the party - all of whom have spent more time in the public eye than he has over the past few years.

Moreover, Meili won't have the element of surprise on his side this time. And that means he'll likely face far more scrutiny from his rivals' camps than he did last time out, even as he faces a more difficult task in drawing contrasts that work in his favour.
 
Key Indicator

At the outset, the key question for Meili looks to be how much of his previous support is still in his camp and actively engaged to start the new campaign.

If he starts out with a machine of similar size, skill and enthusiasm as the one which wound up in his camp by the end of the previous campaign, Meili could once again far outperform expectations - which this time might mean a resounding victory. But if he hasn't locked in that past support, he may face a much tougher fight in trying to grow from his existing base.

Key Opponent

While I don't rule out the possibility that Meili could win on the first ballot (after all, sometimes past performance does hint at future results), his more likely path to victory would involve a final-ballot contest against Trent Wotherspoon. And it'll be particularly important for Meili not to be left behind by Wotherspoon's fast start in member outreach - lest he lose out on the HOAG factor based on his simply not reaching as many voters.
 
Plausible Outcomes
Best-case: First-ballot victory as more experience, time and exposure pave the way for a resounding win
Worst-case: Fourth-place finish as competitors eat into previous areas of growth

On likely stories

Yes, last week's attempt to call anti-immigrant bigots to testify before the Standing Committee on Immigration turned into a debacle for the Cons (thanks in no small part to a quick opposition response). But there's reason to doubt any claim that it was merely an innocent mistake.

After all, one of the Cons' first strategies to control committee proceedings (as contained in their dirty tricks manual) was to exercise strict top-down control over witness lists:

Last year, the governing Conservatives prepared a secret handbook on how to disrupt parliamentary committees and create chaos. No mere pamphlet, the book ran to 200 pages.

It instructed committee chairmen to select blatantly biased witnesses and tutor them in advance.

Nothing seems to have changed since the Cons took a majority in Parliament: they've continued to dictate who they want to allow to testify while shutting out anybody who might have anything inconvenient to say. And indeed, it was just last year that the Cons made a coordinated effort to institutionalize secrecy as to how witnesses were selected.

So barring some rather compelling evidence to the contrary, the general rule looks to be that witness selection is just as much a matter of party control as anything else the Cons do.

At the very least, that should create serious doubt about the Cons' story that their own witnesses are being chosen through a haphazard, second-cousin-of-a-constituent-who-heard-of-a-guy process. Which is the closest to an excuse they've offered for singling out hate groups to talk about immigration - conceding utter incompetence on the part of one MP in order to try to escape questions about the entire party's sympathy for bigotry.

That itself would create reason for criticism. But there's reason to be skeptical of the Cons' cover story - and the more control they continue to exercise over witnesses and how they're chosen, the more reason there will be to doubt that their choice of immigration witnesses was really a matter of one MP acting alone.

Sunday Afternoon Links

Assorted content to end your weekend.

- For those wondering where progressive leaders are going with their policy proposals, the last week offered a couple of noteworthy examples. At home, Tom Mulcair's Canadian Club speech commented on the importance of real roles for the government and the public in making economic decisions:

A thriving private sector will, thankfully, always be at the heart of our national economy, and the engine of our economic growth.

But there’s also a commonsense role for government to play in building the fairer, more prosperous Canada that we all want.

There’s a commonsense role for government to play in creating the right environment of stability and predictability that business relies on to profit.

In ensuring sound economic policy that fosters productivity and competitiveness—without sacrificing long-term sustainability.

And investing in an economy better equipped to meet the demands of the 21st century: In knowledge, in research and development, in a more skilled workforce, in matching skills to jobs.

There is a pretty convincing argument for the role of government in science, education and innovation.

The best way to create wealth in a society is to increase knowledge.

 - Meanwhile, Ed Miliband made the case for greater wage "predistribution" as an essential part of a fairer society:

Instead of redistributing wealth through the tax and benefit system, there should be more "predistribution", the Labour leader said in a speech.

That meant better vocational training in schools - but also a change in attitude from business.

He called for more "responsible" firms that focused on the long-term.

...
"Predistribution is about saying, 'We cannot allow ourselves to be stuck with permanently being a low-wage economy and hope that through taxes and benefits we can make up the shortfall.'

"It's not just, nor does it enable us to pay our way in the world.

"Our aim must be to transform our economy so it is a much higher skill, much higher wage economy.

"Think about somebody working in a call centre, a supermarket, or in an old peoples' home.

"Redistribution offers a top-up to their wages. Predistribution seeks to go further - higher skills with higher wages."

- Meanwhile, we've also seen plenty of examples of the opposite goals from the Cons. Bruce Johnstone discusses how they've quite deliberately given away the farm in the name of trade deals without actually getting anything in return, while pogge rightly notes that the price of deregulation (using the latest e. coli outbreak as an example) is unacceptable even leaving aside the consumer toll.

- Finally, a group of labour researchers responds to the right-wing attempt to shackle unions in the name of "accountability" with a few suggestions as to how the Wall government could try to improve in that area itself.

Leadership 2013 Candidate Profile: Erin Weir

Erin Weir has wasted no time in carving out a place within the Saskatchewan NDP's leadership campaign - with a pre-campaign "draft" movement presaging a quick launch once the campaign officially started. But what can we expect from him as the leadership race progresses? 

Strengths

First and foremost, Weir brings to the leadership campaign a strong base of economic and public-policy expertise - with a focus on resource royalties which ties in ideally to the decisions Saskatchewan faces as a province in the midst of a resource boom. So his campaign enjoys a ready-made central theme and rallying point.

In addition, Weir has ample experience and skill as a public advocate - meaning that he has a chance to stand out within the field in media and debate settings on topics going beyond economics.

Weaknesses

But it's less clear how Weir will fare when it comes to winning over actual and potential members in up-close-and-personal settings - particularly in contrast to Trent Wotherspoon and Ryan Meili. And I"m not sure that the campaign's current workaround will pay off in the end.

In fairness, Weir is engaging in some innovative means of reaching out to people with an interest in the race, and putting in plenty of appearances at public events. But he also looks to be putting substantial effort into media appearances as a perpetual voice in response to economic news - which looks to me to distract from both his ability to reach out to people in person, and his potential to chart a strong policy course which forces his leadership competitors and the Saskatchewan Party to respond on his terms.

Key Indicator

Which is to say that the defining question for Weir figures to be this: how much time and effort will other key political figures in the province spend responding to his cues on policy?

If Weir is able to both define the policy parameters of the leadership race and ensure that they're a major topic of discussion, then members will have to take a close look at how that ability might translate into the broader political scene. But if the main focus isn't on policy, then Weir may have trouble gaining much traction.

Key Opponent

The most obvious hurdle for Weir will be getting ahead of one opponent whose supporters might select him as a second choice - with the best-case scenario for him likely being a fourth-place finish for Meili which frees up the votes of non-establishment members.

That said, the larger issue is whether Weir can then win over supporters of one of the MLAs in the race once there are only two choices remaining. And that makes Cam Broten the most important opponent for Weir's chances: it's entirely plausible that Broten's supporters might see Weir as a preferable choice on a final ballot against Wotherspoon, but less likely that any of the factors leading to first-ballot support for Wotherspoon would do Weir much good on a final ballot against Broten.
 
Plausible Outcomes
Best-case: Late-ballot victory based on uniting activists and policy-focused voters
Worst-case: Fourth-place finish as other candidates maintain their higher profiles

Comments

Since Echo's comment system is being discontinued, I've reverted back to Blogspot's commenting system for now.

Please let me know if you have any issues in posting new comments. I'll be working on importing previous comments, and will hopefully have all of them together before too long.

Sunday Morning 'Rider Blogging

The last time the Saskatchewan Roughriders beat the B.C. Lions, the storyline involved Saskatchewan getting just enough breaks to overcome a seeming gap in talent. But last night, the 'Riders managed to win an entirely different type of game.

The 'Riders' offence was perfectly prepared for the CFL's toughest defence: a constant two-back threat from Kory Sheets and Jock Sanders kept the ball moving on nearly every 'Rider possession, while Weston Dressler took advantage of some unusual breakdowns in coverage to put together what may be the best half of play I've ever seen from a Saskatchewan receiver. And Darian Durant (behind a remarkably effective offensive line) neatly took advantage of the opportunities to put 27 points on the board - including a crucial late touchdown strike to Greg Carr at the point in the game when his offence has all too often shut down.

Meanwhile, the 'Riders' defence put together what may have been its best performance of the season, overmatching one of the CFL's top offences through most of the game.

Even with their full, star-studded slate of receivers on the field in the first half, the Lions couldn't put together any big plays against the 'Riders. And the entire defence deserves credit for that result: Travis Lulay faced blanket coverage when he did throw deep passes, and also had his timing disrupted by a steady pass rush.

Nor did B.C. manage much of a ball-control game through the better part of four quarters. Instead, the Lions' two touchdown drives were built on desperation heaves at the end of the game - at the point when throwing into coverage and hoping for the best was their only option.

Like the offence, the 'Riders' defence then rose to the occasion when it counted most, shutting down the Lions' final drive without allowing a single completion.

What's more, the fact that the Lions came as close as they did was mostly the result of a number of fluke plays going against the 'Riders. The single turnover in the 'Riders' favour before the final drive was immediately followed by Durant's lone interception; Drew Willy uncharacteristically turned the ball over on a short-yardage play to hand B.C. the ball with great field position; and Taj Smith gave the Lions one last chance by muffing an onside kick reception.

Which means that as much as the 'Riders proved in yesterday's win, they once again have significant room to do better. And neither B.C. nor Calgary figures to have an easy job trying to stay ahead of the 'Riders in the standings as long as Saskatchewan keeps up yesterday's performance level.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Thomas Walkom discusses how the McGuinty Libs are going beyond imposing immediate pay freezes on the public sector, and instead passing what's better seen as the War on Workers Measures Act - giving Ontario's government the power to dictate labour outcomes by decree without any forum for review:

If approved by the legislature, the Protecting Public Services bill would allow the government to not just freeze the wages it pays to unionized employees — ranging from nurses to home care workers to hydro linemen — but roll them back.

It would give cabinet the power to scrap or modify salary grids — as it has already done with the province’s teachers. The government would also be able to unilaterally change or eliminate any non-wage benefits unionized public sector workers now receive.

And the bill would bar unions from either striking or appealing such decisions to the courts.
For essential services such as hospitals, where workers are already barred from striking, the bill would prevent contract arbitrators from basing their rulings on either the Canadian constitution or the Ontario Human Rights Code.

Indeed, the arbitration section is perhaps the most internally contradictory part of the draft legislation.

Arbitration is based on the notion of having a fair-minded umpire decide issues that management and workers cannot. But this bill would allow that fair-minded umpire’s decision to be overturned by the government, which to all intents and purposes is management.

 - Toby Sanger points out that even the Fraser Institute's latest studies serve to thoroughly undermine blind faith in a corporatist market - at least, if one reads past the heavily-spun headlines to the actual data.

- George Monbiot highlights the social denialism of the uber-rich:

We could call it Romnesia: the ability of the very rich to forget the context in which they made their money. To forget their education, inheritance, family networks, contacts and introductions. To forget the workers whose labour enriched them. To forget the infrastructure and security, the educated workforce, the contracts, subsidies and bailouts the government provided.
...
As the developed nations succumb to extreme inequality and social immobility, the myth of the self-made man becomes ever more potent. It is used to justify its polar opposite: an unassailable rent-seeking class, deploying its inherited money to finance the seizure of other people's wealth.
The crudest exponent of Romnesia is the Australian mining magnate Gina Rinehart. "There is no monopoly on becoming a millionaire," she insists. "If you're jealous of those with more money, don't just sit there and complain; do something to make more money yourselves – spend less time drinking or smoking and socialising and more time working … Remember our roots, and create your own success."

Remembering her roots is what Rinehart fails to do. She forgot to add that if you want to become a millionaire – in her case a billionaire – it helps to inherit an iron ore mine and a fortune from your father and to ride a spectacular commodities boom. Had she spent her life lying in bed and throwing darts at the wall, she would still be stupendously rich.

Rich lists are stuffed with people who either inherited their money or who made it through rent-seeking activities: by means other than innovation and productive effort. They're a catalogue of speculators, property barons, dukes, IT monopolists, loan sharks, bank chiefs, oil sheikhs, mining magnates, oligarchs and chief executives paid out of all proportion to any value they generate. Looters, in short. The richest mining barons are those to whom governments sold natural resources for a song. Russian, Mexican and British oligarchs acquired underpriced public assets through privatisation, and now run a toll-booth economy. Bankers use incomprehensible instruments to fleece their clients and the taxpayer. But as rentiers capture the economy, the opposite story must be told.

- But even as the corporatist worldview is exposed as a sham, Patrick Diamond notes that there's still plenty of need for progressive parties to better describe and defend an alternative.

- Finally, Gerald Caplan responds to the inevitable wave of talk about a Justin Trudeau leadership run by asking a rather pertinent question as to whether the Libs themselves take him seriously based on his roles in the party's caucus.

Musical interlude

Paul van Dyk feat. Plumb - I Don't Deserve You

Friday Morning 'Rider Blogging

Like so many games this season, the 'Riders' most recent win against Calgary ended up closer than it had to. But at least this time, Saskatchewan emerged on top - signalling that the 'Riders are starting to combine the ability to outplay their opponents throughout the game with a late-game killer instinct just when it matters most.

Throughout the game, the 'Riders' offensive line (though still in a state of flux) stood out in providing protection for a hobbled Darian Durant, while also clearing space for a rushing attack featuring both Kory Sheets and Jock Sanders. And the extra bit of time and space was enough to get the entire offence working better than it has through much of the season - a particularly important development late in the game when the Stamps were bound to pressure the 'Riders on every play.

Moreover, Durant finally looks to be managing the play clock and using his snap count against opposing defenders. For ages, his habit has been to let the clock run down on nearly every play, giving the defence time to set and eliminating any doubt about when the ball has to be snapped. But Sunday he drew at least one offside penalty, and generally seemed to keep the Stamps confused as to when plays were starting. Which should make for an extra challenge for defences who are already facing a growing range of different threats.

Meanwhile, the 'Riders' defence was stellar through three quarters (giving up its lone touchdown following a failed fake punt). And even after multiple injuries, it was just good enough to shut down the Stamps' late-game comeback attempt.

On that front, I'll give credit to Odell Willis for standing out when it mattered most. No, he hasn't consistently managed to keep pressure on opposing quarterbacks after being hailed as a major acquisition: in fact, one of the biggest problems in the 'Riders' previous late-game collapses has been their inability to disrupt opposing offences. But with two defensive linemen injured against Calgary, Willis turned into a one-man pass rush at the end of the game - and the 'Riders can more than afford the occasional drive-extending penalty if Willis can keep the opponent's quarterback from making plays.

Finally, I'll note that yesterday's game likely made for the first time in 2012 the 'Riders were able to beat a tough divisional opponent in a game where plenty could have gone better. The aforementioned fake punt was likely a shrewd call even if it didn't turn out; the injuries on defence forced Saskatchewan to improvise its late-game lineup; and the 'Riders' defence came within inches of several more interceptions than the two that registered in the stat line. Which means that even after an important victory, there's ample room left to grow as the season winds down.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Althia Raj reports on the Cons' concerted effort to undermine organized labour in Canada (along with anybody else who might object to putting the interests of dirty oil and dirty money above the needs of citizens):

Behind the rhetoric about “union bosses” and “transparency” lies a strategy, political observers say, that stokes controversies and throws up red herrings in order to force key opponents on the defensive — in this case, Canada’s labour movement and the NDP.

“The whole approach is not to push your guy but to totally demean and to discredit and to vilify your opponent so that the only person left standing in the ring is your own person,” said Nelson Wiseman, a political scientist at University of Toronto.
...
Critics of the government, such as Sierra Club of Canada executive director John Bennett, see a wider game of political distraction at play — the kind the Tories perfected last winter when they accused environmental groups of being radicals backed by foreign interests.

For months, environmentalists were forced to explain their activities and funding sources while the Harper government crafted a budget that scrapped decades of environmental legislation the groups had fought for.

The campaign began in January, when Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver suggested “radical groups” were out to destroy Canada’s economy. Environment Minister Peter Kent raised the spectre of charitable groups “laundering” foreign funds in Canada. And Conservative senators launched an inquiry into the "interference of foreign foundations in Canada’s domestic affairs and their abuse of Canada’s existing Revenue Canada charitable status.”

“It was a total distraction,” Bennett said. “I think that is what they wanted us to do — to be messaging not the vision of a sustainable future but rather the complaints of an interest group.

“And I think they are doing the same thing to the unions,” he said.

- Meanwhile, Kathryn May highlights the next step in the attack on public-sector workers, as the Cons are trying to impose a two-tier workforce.

- And Adam Radwanski discusses the McGuinty Libs' plans to test the limits as to how many labour rights they can strip away under the Charter. Which would be a dubious enough strategy even if it wasn't based on a false claim that public-sector wages are headed in a different direction than private-sector ones.

- Charmaine Borg stands up for the privacy concerns of Canadians in the wake of Facebook's timeline fiasco. And Megan Leslie calls for an end to the Cons' shredding of environmental standards.

- Finally, Paul Wells catches some major problems in the China trade deal the Cons want to push through without debate:

Why am I dragging you through all this business about dispute-settlement arbitration? Because things are getting crazy out there, and by “out there” I mean “wherever China doesn’t like the way a business deal turns out.” Say hello to Belgium, where on Monday the Chinese insurance company Ping An filed an arbitration claim worth $3 billion. In 2008 a Chinese SOE bought a Belgian bank. The global economy went through the ensuing turmoil and the Chinese firm lost its shirt. Which is, you know, life, but the Chinese firm figures the government of Belgium owes it the $3 billion it lost, and the arbitration mechanism will now consider the claim seriously.

“This might signal the beginning of a wave of Chinese claims if you think about the commodities they’ve been buying, and the investments they’ve made in commodity-related companies around the world,” a British trade lawyer told Reuters, while freaking ominous music played in the background if you’re reading his quote in Canada. ”There are bound to be any number of outward investments they have made in the last five to ten years which may now be starting to run into problems.”

So, you know, good luck. The FIPA, tabled yesterday, is available for consultation at the link above for 21 Parliamentary sitting days, at which point it comes into force without need for a vote in the House of Commons.

That's right: in addition to facilitating a takeover of our natural resources, the Cons may also be committing to have the Canadian public foot the bill for any investments that don't turn out as hoped. 

On healthy choices

It looks like the federal NDP is starting to highlight some of its priorities as an alternative government in order to better frame Canada's political debate. And while its first offering on health care includes some relatively low-hanging fruit (it's truly sad that "not gratuitously boosting drug costs by billions" makes for a genuine point of contrast rather than an obvious consensus view), a focus on the social determinants of health looks like a major step forward in tying the public's concerns about health to broader social issues:

What the federal government should do:
Promote living conditions that support good health through many different initiatives:

• Decent incomes: making sure every Canadian has access to decent jobs and working conditions;
• Food: establishing a pan-Canadian strategy for ensuring access to quality food;
• Housing: working with the provinces to establish a national affordable housing strategy;
• Strong social safety net: ensuring secure pensions, accessible Employment Insurance and policies to end poverty;
• Aboriginal living conditions: the federal government has failed in its responsibility to ensure proper health services, education, housing and clean water in aboriginal communities. It is time these communities had the resources they need.

And I'll be particularly curious to see how Canada's other federal parties will respond.

For the Cons, the NDP's health message neatly answers the Harper dodge about jurisdiction: even if health care is a matter of provincial administrative responsibility, there's plenty the federal government could and should be doing to promote a healthier Canada. And the recognition that the Cons will have to respond to an alternative political vision generally figures to limit their ability to control our federal political debate.

Meanwhile, a strong set of policy proposals from the NDP figures to shape the platforms of Lib leadership contenders looking for messages which will be amplified elsewhere on the Canadian political scene. But if too many candidates end up merely echoing ideas already on offer from the official opposition, that may only encourage questions as to whether the Libs serve any useful purpose as a party.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- The CCPA's Christopher Schenk offers up a detailed response to the Sask Party's attacks on workers, featuring this conclusion:

In a period of widening inequality restrictive labour laws are blatantly unnecessary and regressive. Indeed, their consideration is shocking when one considers that 34% of the workforce has neither full-time work nor job security, but occupies jobs that are termed contingent or precarious, including casual employment, irregular part time work, contract work, temporary work and self employment... This growing percentage of the workforce, which generally receives low pay and no benefits, needs an economic lift and unionization, not laws that negatively impact living standards. The literature discussed above strongly suggests that RTW-type laws, contrary to Rand formula-based laws, are both inefficient and serve to slow economic growth. Saskatchewan and the rest of Canada need to move away from austerity policies and weak economic recovery and toward environmentally sustainable economic growth that allows those who need and want to work to do so in a more democratic, equitable society. Unionization contributes to this end and labour laws should respond accordingly.

- Eric Grenier criticizes an increased level of partisanship in Parliamentary statements by members. But I'll note that there's a happy medium to be found between dispensing talking points and Grenier's mention of "(wishing) good luck to the contestants in that year’s edition of Canadian Idol" as an example of civility. And so the better measure of whether MPs are making effective use of their opportunities should probably be how many actually talk about policy, rather than how many use the time for messages that are of little relevance to functions of government.

- pogge comments on how the Cons are going ever further in trying to shut down the flow of any information which might reveal what they're doing while in power - with Kevin Page's Parliamentary Budget Office being frozen out just as thoroughly as the opposition and the public.

- Finally, Murray Mandryk rightly points out some examples of how a lack of investment in needed infrastructure can have direct and disastrous consequences for citizens. And Heather Scoffield reports that investing in housing in particular can save far higher costs of providing emergency services.

New column day

Here, on how Mitt Romney's attacks on 47% of American voters is an all-too-natural consequence of rhetoric about taking citizens "off the tax rolls".

For further reading...
- Chuck Marr and Chye-Ching Huang discuss the real tax rate faced by people who bring in less than the income-tax threshold here.
- For examples of exactly that principle being used in Canada, see here, here, here and here (PDF, at p. 8).
- But while it was far too willing to buy into the message in government, the Saskatchewan NDP isn't far off the mark in responding while in opposition.