Saturday Afternoon Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Thomas Piketty discusses our choice between developing models of global trade which actually produce positive results for people, or fueling the fire of Trump-style demogoguery:

The main lesson for Europe and the world is clear: as a matter of urgency, globalization must be fundamentally re-oriented. The main challenges of our times are the rise in inequality and global warming. We must therefore implement international treaties enabling us to respond to these challenges and to promote a model for fair and sustainable development.

Agreements of a new type can, if necessary, include measures aimed at facilitating these exchanges. But the question of liberalizing trade should no longer be the main focus. Trade must once again become a means in the service of higher ends. It never should have become anything other than that.

There should be no more signing of international agreements that reduce customs duties and other commercial barriers without including quantified and binding measures to combat fiscal and climate dumping in those same treaties. For example, there could be common minimum rates of corporation tax and targets for carbon emissions which can be verified and sanctioned. It is no longer possible to negotiate trade treaties for free trade with nothing in exchange.
...
It is time to change the political discourse on globalization: trade is a good thing, but fair and sustainable development also demands public services, infrastructure, health and education systems. In turn, these themselves demand fair taxation systems. If we fail to deliver these, Trumpism will prevail.

- Chris Hedges warns that the consequences of Trump's toxic campaign may be even worse than we expect once it becomes clear that his promises (both explicit and implicit) aren't going to be met. And Aditya Chakrabortty writes that the jobs currently under threat from neoliberal policies include most of the middle class in the developed world, not only the Rust Belt states which gave Trump his margin of victory.

- Angella MacEwen comments on the importance of listening to workers when developing international trade mechanisms. Michael Geist wonders whether the failure of the Trans-Pacific Partnership will do anything to stem the tide of secretive agreements biased toward the corporate sector - though I'm less than optimistic given that prominent past failures seems to have led to little more than minor delays. And Adam Parsons notes that the theme of global cooperation and harmonization has conspicuously failed to produce anything of the sort when it comes to avoiding corporate abuses.

- Ben Schiller points out that solar installations end up helping all power users by providing additional energy when it's needed most - representing a noteworthy contrast to the anti-social effects of corporate dominance which Alberta's NDP is trying to reverse. And Sarah Emerson reports on a U.S. class action lawsuit seeking to hold governments to account for the future financial impacts of climate change on generations to come.

- Finally, Pamela Cowan reports on the work Saskatchewan doctors are doing to incorporate social determinants of health into patient care.

Musical interlude

The Kooks - Bad Habit

New column day

Here, on how the impression that our votes for change don't produce the expected results can lead to the public putting up with a destructive alternative just to have an alternative at all.

For further reading...
- For background on Prince Edward Island's electoral reform plebiscite, see Susan Bradley's report on the results, Sara Fraser on the Liberal government's attempt to weasel its way out of enacting the voters' choice, and Kevin Yarr on Wade MacLauchlan's new announcement of a second vote in an effort to reverse the results of the first one.
- And while there are plenty of other sources on each of the other votes referenced in the column, I'll point out the BBC's report on Colombia's rejected peace deal to go with past links on Brexit and the U.S. election, respectively.

On decision points

Needless to say, it's disappointing that there now doesn't seem to be any prospect of a shift to a more proportional federal electoral system without a referendum. But the NDP's move to build a consensus among the opposition parties on a referendum offering a choice between mixed-member proportional representation and first-past-the-post makes sense given the apparent alternative.

After all, the Libs' surprise mass mailout on electoral reform could only have been intended to set them up as the sole arbiter as to public preference. And they've surely already written up their talking to the effect that if one squints just right, the steady stream of "we want PR!" received in response could be interpreted to mean "we want whatever Justin Trudeau sees as best for his own career prospects!".

That left multi-party cooperation as the only possible counterbalance to the Libs' attempt to take full control of any decisions. And while acceding to the Cons' desire for a referendum in exchange for agreement on PR as an option leaves open the possibility of a broken promise to end first-past-the-post (while also creating all kinds of logistical questions), it at least leaves the best possible reform on the table based on public support.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Kevin Connor reports that the more Ontario voters are exposed to the realities of public-private partnerships, the more they're turning against the idea - with a quarter or less of respondents seeing any upside to handing public services over to businesses. Tony Keller writes that Canada's history of corrupt infrastructure projects designed to enrich government supporters goes back at least to the Pacific Scandal. And David Dayen highlights why there's every reason to be suspicious of Donald Trump's privatized infrastructure plan for the U.S.:

This report from Peter Navarro, set to be one of Trump’s leading economists, lays out the blueprint. The government would sell $1 trillion in revenue-producing bonds, needing only to supply an equity cushion to ensure everyone gets paid. Navarro estimates around $140 billion in government funding when all is said and done, which you could easily get through repatriation.

Investors would get a tax credit to entice them to buy bonds, and Navarro claims that the tax revenue from new jobs created by the projects makes up for that cost. He also wants to contract out these projects, building in a 10 percent profit margin for the private contractor. Navarro claims that construction costs are higher when built by the government, and the private sector is more efficient.

Does this sound familiar? It’s the common justification for privatization, and it’s been a disaster virtually everywhere it’s been tried. First of all, this specifically ties infrastructure—designed for the common good—to a grab for profits. Private operators will only undertake projects if they promise a revenue stream. You may end up with another bridge in New York City or another road in Los Angeles, which can be monetized. But someplace that actually needs infrastructure investment is more dicey without user fees.
 ...
(T)he stock market may love this idea. But it’s designed to funnel money to big investors and contractors by essentially letting them purchase public assets. This could impoverish the people these projects are supposed to help, allow corporations to choose investment destinations, and further climate disasters. And given the likelihood of profit-gouging, there’s no guarantee it even has a net benefit for workers and communities over time.

- Richard Adams reports on the UK social mobility commission's conclusion that today's younger workers represent the first generation in recent memory facing worse income and career prospects than preceding ones. 

- Monika Dutt examines the evidence on two-tiered health care, and concludes that a for-profit stream only exacerbates the wait times and lack of resources in a public health care system.

- Finally, Kyle Curlew reminds us how Bill C-51 is designed to intrude on Canadians' rights. And Andrew Mitrovica points out that Canada's hands are far from clean when it comes to state spying on journalists trying to report in the public interest.

Tuesday Night Cat Blogging

Smooth operator cats.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Karl Nerenberg examines new research from the Canadian Centre for the Study of Living Standards showing how workers have seen hardly any benefit from four decades of productivity gains which have filled corporate coffers:

(I)n Canada, the productivity of labour -- the amount workers produce per unit of effort -- went up by over one per cent per year over the 38 years between 1976 and 2014.

The average worker's earnings, however, barely budged over that same period. The rise in wages was less than one tenth of one per cent per year. Put differently, the rise in productivity was more than ten times that of earnings.

We do not have comparable statistics for the U.S., but it would be a fair bet they are not that different.

The anecdotal evidence that a great many Americans are working harder, but getting nowhere economically, is abundant.
...
Thr growth of globalization has "allowed capital to seek the highest returns globally and, at the same time, has brought workers in Canada's traded goods sector into competition with the workers of low-wage countries." In other words, trade deals do indeed benefit corporations, but they often also weaken workers' rights with a race to the bottom.

Robotics and computer technology, the study's authors note, have tended replaced people with machines, eliminating production-line work, "computation-intensive white-collar work" and other routine technical tasks that once provided good middle-income jobs. Technological change has also weakened the bargaining power of workers, leading to an increasingly part-time, über-ized world.

And one of the biggest institutional changes has been a sharp decline in the unionization of workers. That decline has been steady in Canada, but much steeper and more dramatic in the U.S.
...
The CSLS points out that the unequal distribution of income growth is neither an inevitable nor irreparable fact of life. The Centre's economists argue that it is not too late for "policy to be used to adjust that distribution." And the fact that productivity is growing, the study's authors say, should make the task of devising new politics easier, not harder.

"It is easier," the study says, "To ensure that everyone receives a larger slice of the pie when the pie itself is growing."

But that hopeful conclusion comes with a big caveat. The forces that cause stagnating middle incomes are, the study tells us darkly, "unlikely to disappear in the near future."

- Bill Curry follows up on Justin Trudeau's plans to exacerbate the problem by treating infrastructure as a profit centre rather than a matter of public service. Maryse Zeidler discusses the predictable cost to Canadians of selling off airports. And the CP reports that Trudeau's plans include changing the law to hand even more concessions to outside capital.

- Laurie Penny writes that the corporate establishment treated as a foil by Donald Trump's campaign message in fact stands to be the only beneficiary of his election - and that an essential part of responding to Trump's presidency will be to make clear whose voices are actually being suppressed.

- Meanwhile, Tom Parkin highlights Niki Ashton's work to engage with the young workers who are seeing the worst from an economic system designed to extract more wealth for those who already have the most.

- Finally, Andrew Mitrovica points out that a lack of historical accountability makes it obvious why Canada's security establishment seems to figure it can act with impunity - and that it's long past time for illegal actions to carry real consequences.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Andrew Nikiforuk highlights how Donald Trump's election is just one more predictable consequence of the end of shared growth - even as it figures to perpetuate that reality. And Andrew Coyne argues that Trump's win under the U.S.' warped electoral rules should thoroughly debunk the theory that systems designed to promote two-party rule will do anything to keep unfit candidates away from power.

- Meanwhile, Joshua Benton theorizes that the disconnect between political solitudes (and the media sources which get heard by them) between will only grow following Trump's election - while providing plenty of examples of the glaring misinformation which may have helped him take power in the first place.

- Larry Pynn reports on the results of British Columbia's environmental inspections, and finds that a majority of operations are failing to comply with their obligations.

- Similarly, Douglas Todd notes that a combination of unaffordable housing and missing public revenue can be traced to a gross failure of enforcement of the law. And Philip Lee-Shanok points out the hidden poverty lurking in Vaughan and other seemingly wealthy areas - with a complete lack of available housing (which in turns forces people into below-the-radar rental arrangements) looking like one of the primary culprits.

- Finally, Ian MacLeod exposes the massive amount of funding being directed toward the Communications Security Establishment - even as the federal government plans to sell off assets which assist the public rather than monitoring it.

New column day

Here, a rare Saturday column on the lessons we should draw from the election of Donald Trump in how we organize and work within our political system.

For further reading (beyond the writing already linked here)...
- Others offering similar thoughts include Murray Dobbin, Rick Salutin, Kai Nagata and Robert Reich.
- Tabatha Southey highlights how racism fed into Trump's win, and argues that we shouldn't minimize its effect simply because of the election's result. Ari Berman comments on the desperately under-reported role of Republican vote suppression in electing Trump. And Gary Younge offers a thorough (and thoroughly disturbing) summary of the forces behind the election results.
- Joseph Heath offers his take on what we can expect from Trump's election - with the strengthening of anti-democratic sentiment around the globe rivaling any of the other types of damage.
- Finally, Paul Waldman describes the blatant con behind Trump's claim to the mantle of populism - and it's taken only days for Trump to make clear that anybody hoping for a break from a culture of insider self-dealing is in for a major disappointment.

Saturday Afternoon Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Arancha González Laya distinguishes between international trade and corporatism - arguing that we should be looking to ensure people benefit from the former by reining in the latter:

Making trade more inclusive requires action on three broad policy fronts: trade rules, domestic social protection, and international cooperation to complement the first two.

1. Negotiate trade agreements that work for most people

Governments should concentrate political capital on issues in trade negotiations that deliver broad-based benefits. Improving purchasing power is one key. Another lies in greater participation by small and medium-sized enterprises, which account for the majority of firms and jobs in any economy. Reducing fixed costs related to trade – from complex border procedures to the regulatory burden arising from product standards and other non-tariff measures – would yield disproportionate gains for smaller firms. Done right, it would not undermine product quality or consumer health and safety protections. All countries, not just developing economies, may need to make more investments on the supply side to help smaller businesses connect to world markets.

2. Domestic social policy to help those displaced by imports and machines

To address the disruptions and the distributional effects of trade and technology, governments need to respond across the board with investments in human capital, education, skills and vocational training to better match people with job opportunities. Active labour market policies will need to be coupled with measures to soften the blow of under- or unemployment, from higher minimum wages and wage top-ups to universal basic incomes. Redistributive policy is not solely an issue for advanced economies. As Martin Ravallion has shown, for all of the progress in reducing extreme poverty, the biggest income gains in developing countries have gone to the better off. Unless governments act effectively to expand opportunities for all, they too may eventually face a backlash of frustrated ambitions.

3. Cooperate internationally to support the first two objectives

Neither of these agendas will be cheap. Cooperation to curb corporate tax avoidance is one example of how governments could usefully work together at the international level to raise the revenue they need to keep citizens on board with globalization. Global companies with a long-term view should support this agenda.

Essential in all of this will be political honesty. While reviving growth would do much to ease economic angst, shoring up the fragile social license on which open markets rest requires government and business leaders to be up front with people. Trade, like technology, is good for most of us, but not everyone. More market opening needs to come with more redistributive social policy. That has a cost. And if anyone thinks it’s not worth paying – consider the costs of a backlash.

- Lana Payne discusses how greater gender equality at work and elsewhere would represent a major economic boon. And Jerry Dias criticizes Brian Pallister's Manitoba PCs for engaging in the latest round of gratuitous legislative attacks on union organizing.

- Michael Mann and Susan Joy Hassol note that most of the supposed goals of even the likes of Donald Trump are best served by a concerted push against climate change, while Kai Nagata suggests that the election of another major national leader who will serve as an obstacle to climate progress should push us to work on protecting the environment at the local level. And Andrew Nikiforuk highlights how Christy Clark's B.C. Libs are positively Trumpesque in their use of public money to back dirty fossil fuel development. 

- Finally, Laura Stone exposes how the RCMP decided to give Nigel Wright a free pass on potential corruption charges in the hope that it would better serve the cause of security convictions against Mike Duffy - which looks particularly dubious since the absence of any charges against any "bribers" managed to serve as a point in Duffy's successful defence.

Musical interlude

Non Tiq - Quiet

Friday Afternoon Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Anthony Hilton writes that stronger protections for workers tend to increase productivity. And Fiona McQuarrie makes clear that we don't have to settle for an economy where workers face constant fear and insecurity as a result of precarious work:

(J)ob churn and precarious employment incur other costs. High turnover requires employers to continually invest in recruiting, hiring and training. Employees relying on part-time or precarious work suffer stress from struggling to meet living expenses; they are usually unable to make major financial investments such as buying real estate or saving for retirement.

It’s been argued that workers, particularly millennials, want flexibility in jobs and careers – but workers taking part-time or short-term jobs may be doing so because they have no alternative.

...

Governments cannot dictate the kinds of jobs employers offer, but governments can certainly incentivize employer behaviour that facilitates stable employment. For example, tax benefits or subsidies for employers can be linked not only to the numbers but the types of jobs created.

Strong labour codes and employment standards legislation, and adequate support for the monitoring and enforcement, can discourage employers from using temporary or part-time work arrangements to undercut permanent full-time jobs, or from unduly exploiting precarious workers.

There will always be a need for flexibility. It’s unrealistic to expect job churn and precarious employment to completely disappear. But telling workers to get used to these arrangements is the wrong approach. Governments can make choices that will support stable, reliable jobs. Doing so will improve Canadians’ working lives, build healthy communities and economies and make a better society.

- Pamela Cowan reports on the difficulty many Saskatchewan citizens face trying to put healthy food on the table due to high costs and limited availability. 

- Ian Johnston discusses the new research showing how catastrophic climate change may be developing sooner and more quickly than previously anticipated. And David Roberts writes that Donald Trump's election may end any hope of limiting the damage to 2 degrees Celsius. But if anything, that reality should push the rest of the world to recognize the need for an economic transformation - and Celine Bak points out that decarbonization figures to offer an important competitive advantage in the long run (in addition to creating massive numbers of jobs in the short term).

- Finally, Thomas Walkom points out that Canada could well end up in a better position if Donald Trump pulls the U.S. out of NAFTA - which raises the question of why Justin Trudeau is going out of his way to ensure that tariff-free trade is paired with corporate control over public policy.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Wolfgang Munchau writes that the rise of right-wing insurrectionism can be traced largely to "centre-left" parties who have focused most of their attention on imposing austerity and catering to the corporate sector while offering little to citizens, while Naomi Klein comments on the role of neoliberal politics in laying the groundwork for Donald Trump's election. Owen Jones discusses the need for a new populist movement on the left - with particular emphasis on the importance of including working-class citizens. And Craig Scott and Nora Loreto each off some lessons we should learn from Trump's election, while David Cay Johnston makes clear that Trump will only make matters worse for the people who saw him as an agent of poorly-defined change.

- Emmanuel Saez examines (PDF) the results of the U.S.' 2013 top-end tax increase, and finds that aside from temporary tax avoidance at the point of the change it's proven to be a highly efficient and progressive way to raise revenue. 

- Stephen Tapp assesses the Trudeau Libs' fall economic statement, and notes that their massive infrastructure privatization scheme merely echoes a failed Con plan to the same effect. Jeff Spross notes that the promise of having private operators pay for infrastructure projects in exchange for turning public services into profit centres is just as empty coming from Trump. And Donald Cohen points out how past privatization is already responsible for the growth of inequality.

- Ted Bruce and David Peters discuss the potentially massive gains to be made by investing in population health - while noting that research in the area is all too often treated as an afterthought. And Jim Bender reports on new recommendations from Winnipeg's Social Planning Council as to how to develop and implement a poverty reduction strategy.

- Finally, Micheal Vonn offers some reasons for skepticism about the Libs' plans to hand still more surveillance mechanisms to the state, particularly given how regularly existing powers have been abused.

Burning questions

How does a new U.S. president focusing on actual protectionism (not "trade barriers" in the form of the incidental effects of governance in the public interest) affect the viability of Brad Wall's GTH and bypass projects which depend on perpetually expanding trade?

And are we stuck with the multi-billion-dollar costs the Saskatchewan Party has tried to lock us into even if we'd otherwise be best served reexamining what's being developed?

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Michal Rozworski writes that the Trudeau Libs' economic model has come into view, and that we should be fighting back against what it means for the public:

I’ve long argued that the Liberals are at the leading edge of rebuilding a centrist, neoliberal consensus for a low-growth world. This is mere tinkering at the edges of a rotting, fragile equilibrium. Rising debt, run-away housing costs, shitty jobs, a growing climate emergency—any solutions that would truly start to redistribute power and resources to deal with any of these pressing issues are out of bounds. Trudeau is showing what the global elite thinks is the perfect play for the moment. Poverty, inequality and precarity liberally pepper speeches and marketing materials, only problem is that the underlying phenomena stay the same.

Trudeau is capably steering Canada towards a new money-manager capitalism—one that uses government to guarantee profits for global asset owners while keeping a lid on discontent from the rest with vaguely progressive messaging. It is no longer individual firms like GM or Enbridge that get the most important meetings with ministers. Blackrock, the world’s largest asset manager, and McKinsey, the world’s largest consulting firm, are the new faces of government’s closest allies. Their executives are among the government’s closest advisors, most notably Dominic Barton, McKinsey’s managing director, who chaired Morneau’s growth advisory council.

There is real change from Harper’s regime, only the change Trudeau is slowly enacting isn’t one driven by remotely progressive economics but a realignment with different economic elites. Harper’s Conservatives had close ties to narrow sections of the elite, the fossil fuel industry for one. Their economic policy was also more transparently redistributive; for example, their income splitting plan if passed would have effectively given a massive tax cut to the top 10%.

Trudeau’s Liberals are in tune with a much broader elite and they are able to keep up some appearance of a an even broader coalition of interests. For example, the “middle class tax cut” was immensely successful rhetorically despite cutting taxes most for the second-to-top 5% (90-95%) of the income distribution. In other words, the Liberals are oriented towards the entire elite, and not just in Canada, while their policies are rhetorically in line with nascent sentiment against growing inequality. In the end, the Liberals still serve narrow interests, but more global than those Harper aligned with.

Trudeau’s economic plan might not come with as big billboards as Harper’s or such easy and obvious targets for opposition. It may seen friendlier, greener or more cosmopolitan. [Its] lasting effects, however, may be much harder to undo. Trudeau is slowly working to bind the hands of future governments to an economic vision written not for us but for the few.

- Meanwhile, Jim Tankersley writes that several U.S. states along the west coast are showing how a higher-revenue government providing improved benefits to its citizens can produce real economic growth.

- Andre Picard highlights the potential health benefits of a basic income among other key elements of Hugh Segal's proposal for Ontario, while Christo Aivalis recognizes how the design of a basic income can make it either a means of entrenching a reasonable standard of living as a matter of right, or an excuse to undermine needed social benefits. And CBC reports on a push for improved parental leave in Canada.

- Martin Regg Cohn questions the cruelty behind the use of sustained solitary confinement - with Adam Capay representing just one of far too many examples.

- PressProgress calls out Prince Edward Island's government for ignoring the results of a public vote in favour of proportional representation.

- Finally, for a first set of reading on last night's disastrous U.S. election, see David Remnick, Thomas Frank, Jonathan Chait, Aditya Chakrabortty, Brent Patterson, Susan Delacourt, Ben Tarnoff and Thomas Walkom - as well as advance warning from Matt Stoller.

Tuesday Night Cat Blogging

Huddled cats.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Karen Foster and Tamara Krawchenko discuss how policy can - and should - be designed to improve intergenerational equity:

Canada trails far behind other industrialized nations in its attention to intergenerational equity. The country could do far more to report on a carefully defined intergenerational equity, track progress, and target it in policy development. Studies in this area are conducted in an ad hoc manner rather than being built into a systemic and ongoing review process, but they point to growing gaps between young and old. We agree with Paul Kershaw of the lobby group Generation Squeeze, who writes: “we risk fostering intergenerational inequity if our governments continue to show less urgency in responding to challenges facing younger generations than we do in responding to challenges facing older Canadians.”

We would take it one step further and urge policy-makers in Canada to take advantage of “generation’s” multiple meanings and dimensions. They should emphasize policies that mimic the relationships (kinship) that exist between different age groups, supporting the exchange of resources that occur between the old and the young over the course of their lives. This means carefully structuring the investments that people need at distinct points in their lives: public education, public pensions, parental leave, organized recreation, and so on.

Policy-makers should be careful to ensure that whatever policies are adopted under the banner of intergenerational equity are truly, equally targeted at supporting older and younger Canadians. Finally, although they should take care when forecasting and projecting into the future that they do not write cheques that future Canadians cannot cash, policy-makers also must resist the temptation to use intergenerational justice as an excuse for austerity.

- Patrick Butler reports on a U.N. inquiry concluding that the UK's needless austerity is infringing on the basic human rights of people living with disabilities.

- Scott Sinclair debunks the spin being used to sell the Trans-Pacific Partnership to the public which will face worsening inequality, higher prices and deteriorating working conditions it if ever comes into effect.

- Yvette Brend reminds us how social conditions including geography and gender influence both opportunities and outcomes for children. And Tavia Grant reports on a massive increase in First Nation participation in Canada's census which will hopefully facilitate the development of evidence-based policy to improve living conditions, while the Ottawa Citizen weighs in on the need to stop delaying steps to end discrimination against indigenous peoples.

- Finally, Tanara Yelland outlines the recommendations of the Canadian Observatory on Homelessness as to how to end homelessness in Canada.

Monday Evening Links

Miscellaneous material for your Monday reading.

- Brent Patterson criticizes the Libs' short-sighted plans to privatize public services in lieu of any coherent economic policy. And Tom Parkin calls out their bait-and-switch approach to infrastructure.

- Robin McKie reports on Nicholas Stern's recognition that his much-cited work on the impacts of climate change only underestimated the damage we're doing to our planed. But Carol Linnitt writes that you'd never know the Libs had agreed to the Paris climate agreement from their destructive choices while in office.

- Gordon Kent points out that for all the implausible attempts to paint the oil industry as primarily providing jobs (rather than easy returns on capital), the workers actually making a living there are asking for more sustainable alternatives. And Samantha Page highlights the devastating environmental impacts of fracking.

- Kyle Curlew discusses Bill C-51 as a byproduct of Canada's long and embarrassing history of overreacting to minimal threats with extreme restrictions on our civil rights. The CP reports on the NDP's efforts to ensure at least a somewhat more effective system of parliamentary oversight than the Libs are prepared to offer - though even that falls short of the accountability we should expect of an agency which has taken on the right to disrupt citizens without warning. And Ian MacLeod reports that in addition to setting up an additional "oversight" mechanism which sees and reports only the information which the government wants to share, the Libs are slashing resources from existing watchdogs including SIRC.

- Finally, Susan Delacourt discusses the understandable frustration many Canadian have with our electoral system. And Susan Bradley reports that Prince Edward Island voters have expressed their preference for a mixed-member proportional system in a plebiscite.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Andrew Jackson writes that the Libs' fall economic statement represents a massive (and unjustified) shift away from promised infrastructure funding even while planning to privatize both existing operations and future developments. And Joie Warnock highlights why it would represent nothing short of scandalous mismanagement for the Wall government to follow through on its musings about selling off SaskTel.

- The Canadian Press reports on the Assembly of First Nations' call for immediate resources to meet a need for housing on Saskatchewan and Manitoba reserves. The Star's editorial board questions why the Libs haven't matched their rhetoric about reconciliation with substantive action. And Doug Cuthand suggests that a major part of the problem is a federal department designed for a colonial model rather than one oriented toward treaty relationships.

- Jaime Porras Ferreyra discusses the atrocious reputation of Canadian mining companies around the world - and how the Trudeau government is following the Harper Conservatives' pattern of facilitating their abuses:

Mr. Trudeau has been silent when it comes to one key issue for Latin Americans, an issue that has soiled Canada’s image with thick layers of sludge: the reprehensible behavior of mining companies in the region. Mr. Harper enthusiastically promoted Canadian participation in extractive industries beyond its borders, and in the last few years, between 50 percent and 70 percent of mining projects in Latin America have been carried out by Canadian companies.

Reports by the Council on Hemispheric Affairs and the Justice and Corporate Accountability Project have shown how some Canadian companies harm the environment, ignore the interests of indigenous communities, pressure governments to write favorable local laws, and support the criminalization of social protest, among other questionable behavior.

...

During a recent visit to Mexico, Guatemala and Honduras, Stéphane Dion, Mr. Trudeau’s foreign affairs minister, said that the Canadian government wanted its companies to operate according to the same standards inside and outside Canada. However, there’s been no information on how it will achieve this goal.

Canadian companies are not the only ones at fault. The long list of Latin American problems contributing to this situation is well known: deficient judiciary systems, rampant bribery, an urge to create employment in spite of social, economic and environmental costs.

...

Recommendations in the reports to address the problems include a Canadian monitoring office that would have real power, the possibility of ensuring effective access to justice before Canadian institutions, allowing legal actions in Canada by individuals or groups harmed abroad to obtain justice and reparation, and an end to government sponsorship of companies involved in human rights violations.

- Mike Seccombe points out how cherry-picked complaints about the amount of social benefits serve only to distract from how woefully inadequate they are to begin with. And Austin Frakt highlights the high costs of depriving workers of paid sick leave.

- Finally, Ingrid Peritz reports that Quebec will be holding an inquiry into police surveillance of journalists and their sources. And Nora Loreto rightly argues that the surveillance-state mindset and unconscionable tactics used to interfere with reporters are equally inexcusable when directed at activists and the general public.

Saturday Afternoon Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Neil Irwin examines one of the key ideas underlying the U.S. Democrats' economic plans, being that workers need to have meaningful choices rather than being trapped by a limited and slanted set of available employers and work structures:

Labor market monopsony is the idea that when there isn’t enough competition among businesses, it is bad news for workers. When an industry includes only a few big companies, they don’t have to compete with one another as hard to attract employees — and so end up paying their workers less than they would if there were true competition. It’s the flip side of how monopoly power lets companies charge higher prices to consumers.
...

The talk of monopsony is part of a shift in the policy tools that many left-of-center economic thinkers see as most promising for addressing the economic challenges of poor and middle-class Americans. Rather than focusing on policies that amount to redistribution — tax rates, the social welfare system — they are looking at how the rules of the economic game shape people’s outcomes.

Some use a term for this set of policies coined by the Yale political scientist Jacob Hacker: predistribution policy. This is policy that shapes how the market works in the first place, as opposed to redistribution policy, which assumes a free market will generate growth and then uses taxes and spending to give a lift to the economy’s losers.

...
Besides the monopsony research, the Obama White House has focused on evidence that inequality is fueled by a shift away from labor unions and by corporate consolidation within industries.

Elsewhere, the Roosevelt Institute, a think tank in New York, has explored the interplay between the outsize growth of the financial industry and pay for top corporate executives and the slow growth in the typical worker’s wages. And last week, the Washington Center for Equitable Growth issued recommended strategies for the next administration, which included ensuring that the minimum wage covers workers who depend on tips, and making sure that modern supply chains do not inhibit the creation of good jobs.

... 

Many of the policies under discussion — a higher minimum wage, or tougher antitrust enforcement — have long been supported by liberal economists and politicians. What has changed is that they are being emphasized as a first-order set of priorities, and as part of a unified body of work.

- Emma Teitel discusses new research showing that the gap in opportunity between generations can't be explained by differences in work ethic - as in fact, millenials are more willing than their baby-boomer predecessors to put work first. And Angella MacEwen comments on a joint effort to propose a more fair system of employment leave for today's workers.

- Laurie Monsebraaten reports on the structure of the Ontario basic income pilot project proposed by Hugh Segal. And Roderick Benns highlights the indicators which will signal the success of the concept.

- Mainstreet Research finds that a strong majority of Saskatchewan respondents want to see major changes to the province's political financing rules. And the Canadian Press reports that the Saskatchewan NDP is working to make those changes a reality despite the foot-dragging of a Wall government determined to keep the out-of-province donation taps flowing.

- Finally, Brett Dolter examines how Brad Wall's white paper is anything but a credible climate change plan - as it relies on little but cherry-picked assumptions and bluster to paper over a commitment to fighting against progress. And Bruce Johnstone writes that there's no reason to take Wall's posturing toward the federal government seriously. 

Musical interlude

Electrostatic - Duality (Fingertwister Remix)

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- John McDonnell outlines a progressive alternative to neoliberal economic policy:

The increasing automation of jobs, reduced dependence on carbon fuels, artificial intelligence and the so-called gig economy have provoked understandable anger among many workers whose jobs are under threat. More generally, concerns about the effect on the labour market are widespread: either threatening mass unemployment or a significant shift towards low-productivity, low-paid jobs.

This need not be the case. In a society where the benefits of technological advancement are shared, productivity gains can be made to work for the benefit of all. It requires original thinking – one possibility is a universal basic income – to suggest how we can make a society with less demand for medium-skilled labour become wealthier and less polarised.
...
(I)f we are to meet the needs of those who need health care, pensions and social security, we will need to find ways to tax wealth more effectively. Not just because it is fairer than taxing labour, but because our tax base has shrunk. And as more of the economy now goes to capital owners, taxing a fair share of this is essential to affording the public services that we want.

Finally, none of this is sustainable in the [long term] unless we change the ownership of this capital. Through new forms of democratic and small-scale ownership, such as employee-owned firms, and by sharing the ownership of society’s assets more broadly, we can reduce the need for redistributive intervention, while increasing society’s power to choose the future direction of our economy and address the urgent demands of climate change.

- Meanwhile, Amy Wood and Hadrian Mertins-Kirkwood highlight why the modification of CETA's dispute resolution provisions does little to address the fundamental flaws with the deal. 

- Laura Neidhart writes about the spread of precarity and poverty for younger workers. And Jessica Wynne Lockhart discusses the hidden poverty growing (with little public attention) in the suburbs of Toronto and other cities.

- Cory Collins comments on the regression in Atlantic Canada's labour legislation in recent decades - which, it should be noted, can't be seen as having had any economic effect other than to redistribute income and wealth upward. And Lynn Parramore compares our expectations for vacation time today to that of medieval peasants - concluding that despite centuries of productivity gains which were supposed to allow for increased leisure time, we're actually getting by with significantly less.

- Finally, Evan Balgord highlights new research from the Pembina Institute showing that the Saskatchewan Party's version of carbon capture and storage does nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as any carbon captured is matched by what's released by resulting oil production and consumption. 

New column day

Here, on what we need to do to clean up political funding - and how both the Saskatchewan and federal systems offer painful examples of the problems with big money in politics.

For further reading...
- Brad Wall's top-up pay from the Saskatchewan Party - being one of the many noteworthy uses of the corporate and out-of-province money finding its way to the party - was the subject of reporting here and here.
- Progress Alberta's report on the Saskatchewan Party's out-of-province fund-raising and other dubious practices is here. And it's particularly worth examining its comparison between provincial systems.
- For other reporting on the Saskatchewan Party's foreign ownership, see here, here and here.
- Robert Fife and Steven Chase reported on the federal Liberals' cash-for-access fund-raising. And Adrian Morrow summarizes a few of the questionable practices from Kathleen Wynne's Ontario government.
- And finally, Martin Regg Cohn and Andrew Coyne are among other commentators pointing out the need to get big money out of politics - whether through direct donations or through bundling.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Community Food Centres Canada highlights the need for social assistance benefits to keep up with the cost of living, while noting that Ontario (among other jurisdictions) has fallen well behind in that task:

It's been far too long since social assistance rates have been viewed through the lens of whether anyone can actually survive with dignity on them. Under Mike Harris's "Common Sense Revolution," social assistance rates were slashed by 21.6 per cent based on no criteria other than that government should spend less, that people deserved less, and that this approach would resonate with the public. Since then, rates have only inched up by tiny increments, never reaching anything close to what they were before the cuts.

In 2009, staff at The Stop Community Food Centre developed an online calculator as part of their Do the Math campaign. The campaign called for the public to input into the calculator the minimum amount of money they'd need to cover basic living expenses each. On average, people estimated that a single person in Ontario would need $1,400 to make it through the month -- more than double what people on social assistance actually receive, and still far below the poverty line.
...
At Community Food Centres Canada, our concern starts with food and food insecurity. But we understand something that governments of recent years have not acknowledged -- that food is intimately linked with all other budget items. The calculation of social assistance rates has to take into account the cost of housing, food and all other personal needs. Because when there's not enough money, food is the first to go. And when people go without food or turn to food banks, their health and well-being takes a serious hit.

We should care about this simply out of a sense of justice and empathy, of course, but there are also economic consequences: the University of Toronto's PROOF project on household food insecurity has estimated that health-care costs for food-insecure people are between 76 per cent and 121 per cent higher than those of adults who are food secure.

We applaud the fact that the Liberal government has a number of initiatives aimed at improving income security in Ontario, including a promising basic income pilot. But planning for and implementing this pilot will take time. The government needs to act now to fix a fundamental gap in the social assistance system, and help Ontario's poorest residents. We've been beggaring too many of our fellow citizens for too long, preventing them from having their basic needs met at a vulnerable time in their lives, and therefore from having a good shot at healthy and successful futures. Where is the common decency -- or common sense -- in that?

- Marc Lee makes the case for a progressive property tax as a first step toward putting idle wealth to work in the public interest. And Mark Leier reviews George Lakey's Viking Economics as setting out a useful model for a more equitable society.

- Preston Mulligan reports that Nova Scotia is paying $85.9 million to buy schools previously leased under a P3 model after a first-hand lesson in the costs of privatization. And D.C. Fraser reports on the Saskatchewan NDP's rightful observation that the Wall government's apparent plans to privatize Crowns would result in substantial revenue leakage to the federal government.

- Fiona Harvey points out that the greenhouse gas emission reductions promised at Paris fall far short of actually reaching the goal of avoiding catastrophic global warming. And Keith Stewart discusses the futility of Justin Trudeau's attempts to stay on the fence when it comes to fully tackling climate change. 

- Finally, Laurel Collins notes that the Libs' attempts to downplay broad support for proportional representation are contradicted by the strong views expressed through their electoral reform consultation process. And Marie-Danielle Smith reports on Maryam Monsef's admission that she and the Libs are carrying a preference on a new electoral model which may bear no resemblance to what's acceptable to the public or to other political actors.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- George Monbiot rightly makes the point that a general attitude of kindness is a must for a functioning society - while lamenting that anything of the sort is all too often lacking from public policy choices.

- James Di Fiore discusses Justin Trudeau's failed attempt at a triangulation strategy - as he's largely managed only to ensure nobody has reason to be satisfied with his government. Andrew Jackson criticizes the Libs' continued moves toward privatizing any common wealth at the federal level. And Michal Rozworski highlights how the Libs' infrastructure plans figure to little other than further enrich the rentier class:

(W)hile austerity may have fallen slightly out of favour among a section of the elite brokers of the global economy, privatization remains an important component of the new consensus being forged.  Even the IMF paper that argued neoliberalism is on its way out, and made so many headlines in the process, praised privatization as an important component of economic strategy. The private sector may not be investing enough on its own but we shouldn’t deprive it of profits! Canada has historically been open to policy experimentation from a “well-intentioned” technocratic elite. This is the 2016 model.

Compare Trudeau’s approach to a new national investment bank with a real progressive vision for the same thing put forward by Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell in the UK. While Morneau is concerned with raising rates of return, McDonnell talks about economic transformation, bringing more democracy into the economy and transforming ownership to put workers in control. The focus is putting the spare capacities of people, not spare capital, to use.

The Canada Infrastructure Bank fits with the Liberal belief in markets and market processes as the ultimate economic guide. Government can at best support markets or give a kick start. This is the consistent thread that runs through recent decisions. The Liberals just outdid EU technocrats in pushing ahead the CETA free trade deal, one only slightly about trade and more about extending corporate power. Or take climate policy: new pipelines may be OK’ed because we now have a market mechanism (carbon pricing) that will supposedly push funds towards the right projects in the long run. This is even though the carbon price is too small in foreseeable future to make a significant difference and regardless of the coordination failures that stop the private sector from taking on the massive green investment needed for a real rapid transition.

Canada is back and we’re doing woke neoliberalism better than ever. While Keynes is rolling in his grave, the rentiers who continue to walk the earth are rubbing their hands at the government-sponsored feast that awaits.

- John Paul Tasker notes the Liberals' eventual support for the NDP's motion to stop discrimination against indigenous children - which should offer a helpful signal that even the decision-makers withholding resources from people who need them aren't prepared to defend that choice when challenged. But Jorge Barrera notes that the Libs had previously gone out of their way to avoid mediation which might have smoothed the way to comply with the federal government's obligation to treat children on reserve fairly.

- Mike Moffatt and Hannah Rasmussen make the case for "thicker" labour markets - where workers can be reasonably assured that they'll have opportunities in their home city beyond any single job.

- Finally, Benjamin Shingler reports that Canada's police state mindset now extends to having police deliberately spy on journalists in order to expose sources.

Tuesday Night Cat Blogging

Paw patrol cats.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Toby Sanger offers some important background to the federal government's expected plan for privatized infrastructure by noting that the anticipated result would be to double the costs. And Luke Kawa notes that the Libs are already having trouble spending the money they've budgeted for infrastructure - leaving no excuse for agreeing to higher prices and worse services in order to bring private money in.

- Meanwhile, Simon Enoch responds to the Wall government's attempt to play word games with the definition of "privatization".

- Vaughn Palmer comments on the B.C. NDP's plan to win the province's next election by making bold commitments to improving citizens' lives. And Postmedia reports on a $10 per day child care plan as one of the most important promises John Horgan is offering to his province.

- Martin Regg Cohn writes that in order to avoid the influence of big money on our politics, we need to be willing to ensure enough public funding to support vibrant parties. And Emma Graney reports on the millions flowing from corporate Alberta to the Saskatchewan Party - which surely goes a long way toward explaining Brad Wall's lack of focus on the province he's supposed to be governing.

- Finally, Taylor Jackson and Lydia Miljan discuss why an alternative vote electoral system would only exacerbate the problems with first-past-the-post. PressProgress finds that even Conservative MPs are reporting substantial support for proportional representation after consulting with their constituents. And Marie-Danielle Smith notes that Justin Trudeau's own consultation reached the same result - though you'd never know it given the Libs' insistence on telling PR supporters that their opinions shouldn't count any more than their votes.

Monday Afternoon Links

Miscellaneous material for your Monday reading.

- Branko Milanovic highlights the futility of pretending that market mechanisms will produce anything other than profit-oriented outcomes - and the observation represents an obvious reason not to put public services in corporate hands. And David Sloan Wilson (in introducing an interview with Sigrun Aasland) points out how Norway's active government has produced better social and economic outcomes than business-focused policies elsewhere:

Modern society requires an extensive infrastructure, which does not emerge bottom-up from unregulated markets. This has always been the case, in America as elsewhere, as my recent interview with Daron Acemoglu attests. One reason that the Nordic nations work well might be because they have not—yet—succumbed to the siren’s song of free market fundamentalism.

A strong state capable of building infrastructure is not enough. It must also be an inclusive state that works for the benefit of everyone, as opposed to an extractive state that works only for the benefit of an elite few, as my interview with Acemoglu also makes clear. Inclusiveness requires a balance of power among the various sectors of the society. Perhaps the Nordic nations work well for this reason also—strong states working collaboratively with a strong private sector, strong labor unions, and a strong, well-informed, and trusting electorate.

Even this is only necessary and not sufficient. A national economy that works well is a complex adaptive system, like an automobile with many interdependent parts. Even a strong and inclusive state won’t work well if it doesn’t put the parts of its economy together in the right way, which is not an easy matter for any complex system.

- Nick Dearden discusses how the CETA is nothing more than a ticking time bomb for citizens. But fortunately, Scott Sinclair and Stuart Trew note that there will still be some opportunities to ensure it doesn't get ratified.

- David Macdonald offers a preview as to what to expect in the federal government's latest fiscal update. And Louis-Philippe Rochon reminds us not to obsess over deficit numbers when we have urgent needs going unmet.

- Ian MacLeod reports that the Libs are breaking another election promise by abandoning any pretense of providing for real-time oversight of Canada's security state. And Tom Parkin weighs in on Justin Trudeau's gross failure to improve the health and welfare of First Nations communities.

- Finally, Courtney Howard and Ryan Meili argue that a price on pollution will go a long way toward improving public health.

Deceptive by definition

The Saskatchewan Party's introduction of new legislation (Bill 40, PDF) to define massive Crown sell-offs as not being "privatization" has received plenty of due attention. But it's worth taking a close look at exactly what the Wall government is doing - and how it reflects an attempt to sneak the change through the back door for no obvious reason.

Let's start by taking a look at the Crown Corporations Public Ownership Act, which sets out two specific process requirements for legislative changes. One section of the CCPOA covers the privatization of a Crown (section 4), requiring a set of consultations including a provincial election between the announcement of an intention to privatize and an actual privatization. The other covers amendments to its own terms (section 5), and involves an increased level of public participation compared to other legislation.

The CCPOA also offers a hint as to what's considered privatization within its terms:

6  Nothing in this Act is to be construed as preventing or restricting a Crown corporation from carrying out operations, including selling, exchanging or otherwise disposing of its property, in the ordinary course of its business.

So for a Crown to carry on business as usual doesn't trigger a consultation requirement under the CCPOA. But the selling off of a Crown in whole or in part outside the ordinary course of business is intended to be included - barring some amendment to existing legislation.

To be clear, a definition could likely be added to the CCPOA itself using the consultation process set out under section 5. And that's effectively what the Wall government has done in introducing Bill 1 (PDF), which is intended to remove the Saskatchewan Liquor and Gaming Authority from the scope of the CCPOA.

Not to say there aren't some severe problems with Bill 1. (And indeed, there's all the more reason to be suspicious of the Sask Party's plans for SLGA if it pushes through Bill 1 while also trying to pass legislation which would remove its liquor retail plans from the definition of privatization.) But it at least doesn't attempt a blatant procedural end-run around the CCPOA's consultation requirements.

In contrast, the effect of Bill 40 is to add a definition of "privatize" to the Interpretation Act, 1995 - which would affect the interpretation of the CCPOA without actually amending the CCPOA.

To see why that should raise red flags, let's compare the new definition to the normal use of the general definition provisions of the Interpretation Act.

For example, section 27(1) of the Interpretation Act - which is intended to be amended by Bill 40 - includes a definition of "person". And it makes sense to have a general definition of that term which can be applied across Saskatchewan's legislation and regulations because it is used frequently and consistently. The word "person" appears in 1,588 different statutes and regulations, and it would be an administrative nightmare to have to amend each of those every time a single word needs to be clarified.

By way of comparison, the word "privatize" appears in exactly one Saskatchewan law. So the effect of Bill 40 is to use a method intended to clarify definitions of general application in order to specifically change the CCPOA alone, while avoiding the CCPOA's consultation requirements for a direct amendment.

That choice makes especially little sense given that the Sask Party actually applied the CCPOA's own amendment process with Bill 1. But it's clear that Wall and company recognize the significance of opening the door to massive Crown selloffs at every stage of ownership other than the one transferring control of an entity - and that they don't want the public having any say in the choice.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Larry Beinhart argues that aside from the gross unfairness and economic harm from growing inequality, there's a basic problem trusting the uber-rich to make reasonable decisions with massive amounts of wealth. And George Monbiot makes the case that even as he pretends to be an outsider, Donald Trump epitomizes the problems with a political culture designed to serve those who already have the most.

- Leo Panitch points out that more "trade" deals such as the CETA being pushed by self-proclaimed progressive governments will only strengthen the prejudiced right. Thomas Walkom writes that we shouldn't see a slightly modified side deal as reason to be satisfied with the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement - and notes that in fact, additional protections for European signatories only confirm that Canada is giving up more sovereignty than it needs to. And the Mound of Sound weighs in on the Libs' obsession with trade over people:

Trudeau's Harperesque pursuit of CETA and TPP demonstrates that he means business. This goes straight back to those mandate letters he issued to his freshly minted cabinet ministers as they were sworn in. Even Catherine McKenna's marching orders stipulate that her priorities are to be the economy and the environment. There's no doubt that she meant it when she said she was "as much an economic minister as an environmental minister."

Trade it is then. But, if you're going to make trade your priority, your dominant responsibility, then surely you have to accept full responsibility for the fallout from that pursuit. That's on you, Slick.

One element of that fallout is the rise of Canada's homegrown "precariat." It's a term used to describe the future this free-trading government has bequeathed to our youth. In case you're wondering, that's a future fraught with insecurity and economic peril.
...
Morneau won't mention how his own government and its predecessors laid the foundation for this upheaval and uncertainty through its obsessive pursuit of neoliberalism and global free trade, the constant downward spiral. He won't explain why, when even the World Bank and International Monetary Fund can no longer remain silent on the social and economic damage inflicted by globalism, his government remains a faithful adherent to this toxic ideology.

I'm sorry Morneau and you too, Trudeau, but, when you tell Canadians to forego their hopes and resign themselves to a future in the precariat, what you're really telling them is that you won't change course and liberal democracy be damned.

- Kelly Rose Pflug-Back and Ena͞emaehkiw Kesīqnaeh write that one person's accumulation tends to be directly linked to another's dispossession - particularly when it comes to resource extraction over the objections of affected First Nations communities.

- Ryan Maloney reports on Charlie Angus' continued efforts to get the Trudeau Libs to stop discrimination against children on reserve - this time by having to point out that tribunal-ordered funding to meet children's basic needs is not "confetti". And Jonathan Charlton notes that the Saskatoon Health Region's own research show the Lighthouse homeless shelter saving more than twice what it costs - meaning that the Saskatchewan Party's arbitrary cuts to it represent nothing but gratuitous harm to everybody concerned.

- Finally, Emily Peck discusses the World Economic Forum's latest report showing that women work far more than men while being paid significantly less.