Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Lawrence Mishel and Heidi Shierholz write that we shouldn't let governments and businesses off the hook for regressive policy choices by blaming technology. And Ben Tarnoff points out that any effects on the distribution of income and wealth can be dealt with through a fair tax system.

- Simon Tilford likewise argues that the most important problems with our current economic system lie not in the concept of globalization, but in the decisions made by governments to put businesses ahead of people:

(S)uccessive American and British governments were not forced by ‘globalisation’ to allow executive pay to balloon. This reflects failures of corporate governance. While pretty much all developed countries have seen rapid pay growth at the top, nowhere has the explosion of boardroom pay been as big as in the Anglo-Saxon countries.

Similarly, the US choice to cut taxes for the wealthy over the last 35 years was a domestic one, aimed allegedly at releasing animal spirits and driving entrepreneurship. US governments were not compelled to do so in order to bolster the country’s attractiveness to international investors. After all, not all developed countries have followed this route and they have not suffered for it. On the contrary, many of the countries that have flourished from globalisation – the Nordics, for example – are those that levy high income taxes on the wealthy and relatively high taxes on wealth.
...
Governments need to do much more to ease the burden of adjustment in areas negatively affected by increased trade, much as they need to do more to support areas whose established industries have been wiped out by technological change. Some countries have been successful at doing this, investing in active training policies, and infrastructure in affected areas. Others, notably the US and the UK, have been less effective in doing so.

However, some things do require greater international governance. First, there is some evidence that globalisation does make it harder to raise the tax needed to address inequality and combat declining social mobility. Multinationals can pay tax where tax rates are low rather than where they generate their revenue, and some have chosen this route. As a result, many governments have competed to lower taxes on business, which has meant having to raise taxes elsewhere, usually on low to average earners, and on consumption. Globalisation has made it easier for high earners to avoid tax, because it is now more straightforward to hold wealth offshore and the wealthy derive much of their income from wealth.

Multinationals should be taxed where they generate their cash flow or add value, not where tax rates are lowest. The OECD has done a lot of work on how co-ordination between member-states' governments could bring this about, but implementation has been slow, not least because of opposition from governments of countries that act as tax havens. Closer coordination between national tax authorities is making it harder for the wealthy to hold wealth offshore, but here too there is a long way to go. In the meantime, national governments could also do more to ensure the tax burden is equitable, for example by increasing taxes on immobile factors, such as land, rather than loading more tax onto labour and consumption.
...
There is little mystery why popular frustration and resentment are rising in many developed countries. Economic growth has been weak for a decade. Living standards are under pressure. The benefits of what growth there has been has largely accrued to the wealthy, and social mobility is under pressure. The responsibility for these trends does not lie with remote, unaccountable global forces, but largely with national governments. Globalisation does not render them powerless. And where it does undercut their power, they could work together to bolster their influence.

- Myriam Alexander-Kearns and Alison Cassady write that the Trump administration and Republican Congress are going far out of their way to endanger public health and safety in the name of easy corporate profits. And CBC reports on the continued leakage of mercury near the Grassy Narrows First Nation, while PressProgress exposes how public funding promised for indigenous children is instead finding its way into the pockets of the mining sector.

- Barrie McKenna takes note of Timothy Lane's justified warnings that climate change stands to radically reshape our economy and society. And Calla Wahlquist discusses the dangers of extreme heat in particular.

- Finally, Jesse McLaren highlights how the fight for fair wages and work conditions ties into the overall goal of greater social health.

New column day

Here, on the first few steps of the federal NDP's leadership race.

For further reading...
- CBC News reported on Peter Julian's campaign launch, while Alex Ballingall covered Charlie Angus' and Aaron Wherry wrote about Guy Caron's. And Mia Rabson reports that Niki Ashton will officially announce her candidacy next week.
- So far Peter Julian looks to be the only candidate with an active leadership website, which is worth a visit particularly for its forum for policy discussion.
- John Paul Tasker also took a general look at the campaign. Chantal Hebert discussed the importance of a focus on policy, while Ed Broadbent offered some advice for the candidates.
- And finally, Susan Delacourt expands on the role Caron's basic income proposal may play in the wider political scene.

Thursday Evening Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Olivia Loveridge-Greene comments on new research showing how many workers may be forced to keep working into their 70s or beyond in order to be able to stay afloat. And Don Pittis explains why tax-free savings accounts and other giveaways to the wealthy won't do anything to help the people who most need an opportunity to save for retirement:

(S)ince the late Conservative finance minister Jim Flaherty adopted Kesselman's idea and introduced the tax-free savings account in 2009, research shows that neither it nor RRSPs are doing what economists had hoped and expected.

"Is the effect more saving or less saving?" Kesselman asks. Once all the studies are done, the results are "pretty mixed," he says.

Kesselman, who now holds the Canada Research Chair in Public Finance at Simon Fraser University, says the tax-free accounts aren't having their intended effect, with the danger they will once again be perceived, as the RRSP once was, as "tax relief for high earners."
...
Despite championing tax-free savings accounts more than a decade ago, Kesselman has changed his tune.

Since tax breaks have failed to motivate people to save for retirement, he has now reluctantly begun advocating a compulsory savings plan, under which savers are forced to contribute to a pension big enough to support themselves through their retirement.

- Meanwhile, Kate McGillivray reports on how exorbitant housing prices are driving an entire generation away from Toronto's core.

- Jubilee Debt Campaign highlights how the UK's disastrous experience with high-priced P3s should serve as a warning to the rest of the world. And Thomas Walkom notes that Ontario's NDP is rightly looking to reverse any push toward privatization - unlike the Libs who prefer to lock in more corporate payoffs.

- Martin Kenney discusses Canada's shameful role in facilitating global tax evasion. And Harvey Cashore, Kimberly Ivany, Frederic Zalac and Gillian Findlay report on KPMG's tax dodges in particular.

- Finally, Katie Hyslop points out that even in an election-year budget, Christy Clark's B.C. Libs couldn't be bothered to lift a finger to deal with child poverty. CBC offers a reminder as to how poverty affects a child's ability to learn in school. And Patrick Butler examines the close link between child poverty and family disruption as children are taken into state care.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- François Côté-Vaillancourt suggests a greater focus on redistributing wealth and income to ensure a secure standard of living, rather than seeking primarily to put people to work:

(I)nstead of fighting job losses, I would suggest that maybe the most important thing we could do would be to raise taxes on the rich. What does taxes have to do with unemployed workers? Well, in our example, the gain of producing slightly more tractors with less expenses is clearly not received by the 50 who have lost their jobs, nor the 150 workers left (the real income for most workers have stagnated over the last decades despite significant growth). Instead, it goes to the owners (whether a single person or multiple stock-holders). But here is the thing: the owners are not necessarily working longer than before, having better marketing strategies or more genius insights. They have simply been allowed to capture all the benefits from our society’s efficiency gains.

This is why taxes and redistribution are essential, and now more than ever. We must make sure that the owners still get a share of the efficiency gains, but the same goes for the workers who continue to work, and perhaps more importantly, we must make sure that those who are displaced from the workforce are not left with nothing for their sacrifice. For they are, in a very real way, sacrificing themselves for the benefit of the whole by no longer working.

Politicians on the right have long argued that redistribution toward the unemployed promotes laziness and weakens the country, but actually, more and more, our gains in efficiency in the industrial sector force people out of work in a way that has nothing to do with their will to work or their talents—and the same was true in past centuries in the farming sector. Full employment might not be a coherent goal after all. We probably should not have everybody producing goods and services on the market, since there is a point at which the consumers do not need 2 more tractors each, or a new phone every week. In other words, our efficiency is so great that it must now manifest as less work rather than evermore output. And thus, unemployment, if handled correctly, could be a good sign for all of us, rather than an indicator of economic, political and ethical failure.
...
It is time to take the pulse of our times, and to fight for massive wealth redistribution and against the idea that anyone who does not work is lazy and undeserving. Right now, too many of us blind ourselves into blaming China or trade for unemployment in the industrial sector, thus demonizing an external enemy while chasing the mirage of full employment, without realising all the good our efficiency gains could mean for all of us if, and only if, wealth redistribution was keeping up with our economy.

- But Liz Alderman notes that Denmark is generating more jobs than it can fill while collecting a fair share of public revenue. And Chris Dillow examines the relative effects of neoliberal and social democratic policies, and finds that the latter have led to superior economic development.

- Meanwhile, Matt O'Brien highlights how the effects of austerity have been even worse than anticipated across Europe - including by increasing exactly the debt levels which were supposed to be reduced.

- The Star and the Globe and Mail each offer their support for a national pharmacare program (starting with a list of commonly-prescribed drugs).

- Finally, Tory Gillis reports on the impact of Regina's Housing First program - concluding that it has improved outcomes for the people able to participate, but fallen far short of reaching as many people as it should due to a lack of resources. And Liz Barney discusses a proposal in Hawaii to allow doctors to prescribe a home where homelessness is connected to medical conditions.

Tuesday Night Cat Blogging

Cats in toyland.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- CBC reports on Nav Persaud's research showing how universal prescription drug coverage could produce improved health outcomes for a lower cost. But Scott Sinclair and Stuart Trew note that the Libs are instead taking us in the opposite direction with a combination of trade deals which tie governments' hands, and approvals of dubious foreign takeovers which lock those rules in place.

- Peter Chapman, Robert Walker, Herve Guez and Clare Payn highlight how a smart climate policy - including a plan to transition toward cheaper and cleaner energy sources, rather than relying unduly on fossil fuels - is essential for any province's economic future.

- Robert Benzie reports that the Wynne Libs are bringing back privatizer Ed Clark to dismantle what's left of Ontario's public service in what appear to be the waning days of their government. And Martyn Brown makes the case for campaign finance reform in British Columbia from the perspective of a writer who's benefited from the cozy relationship between the B.C. Libs and the corporate sector.

- But then, that relationship likely answers Stephen Quinn's question as to why citizens on social assistance are being left out of government plans. 

- Finally, Sarah Berman details what happens to refugees who get trapped by the terms of Canada's indefensible "safe third country" agreement with the U.S.

NDP Leadership 2017 Opening Comments

The consensus list of prospective candidates in this year's federal NDP leadership race seems to be set, with Peter Julian and Charlie Angus having already declared their intention to run, and Guy Caron, Niki Ashton and Jagmeet Singh looking likely to do so as well. And with the leadership campaign now starting in earnest, I'll be starting to comment regularly on how it develops.

For now, though, I'll offer a few thoughts on what's most noticeably absent from the slate of candidates so far. 

As part of my analysis of the 2012 campaign, I started off by discussing the issues and voter pools the NDP figured to need to target. And as I'll discuss in future posts, the five apparent candidates largely cover the field on both fronts (though there may be room for more duplication than we're seeing so far).

But there are a couple of areas where there may be room for additional candidates to fill in gaps in the campaign as it's shaping up.

Geographically, the most noteworthy omission in the existing pool (assuming all of the above candidates join the race) is the lack of a contestant with strong links to Atlantic Canada. While Caron has handled critic responsibilities for the region since the 2015 election, it's uncertain how much of a regional profile and base of support he'd be able to carry into the leadership campaign.

The absence of an obvious magnet for Atlantic support was somewhat of a factor in 2012 as well, particularly after Robert Chisholm withdrew from the race. But with governing Liberals letting their masks slide both at the provincial and federal levels across the Atlantic provinces, we'd ideally see somebody step forward to build regional strength both during the leadership campaign and beyond.

The other obvious omission from the current slate of candidates is a substantial amount of experience in government.

The NDP's two previous leaders had substantial governing experience. And they in turn offered examples as to how that background can be a mixed blessing: Jack Layton made effective use of his profile and experience from Toronto's City Council (particularly in negotiating with other parties within minority Parliaments), while Thomas Mulcair demonstrated his mastery of the legislative chamber but was hurt by parts of his governing record during the 2015 campaign.

Now, the above shouldn't be taken as the start of a Draft Sterling Belliveau campaign: there are plenty of opportunities for the NDP to build in advance of the next federal election, both through public outreach and candidate recruitment. But it does offer some indication as to where there's room for additional candidates to step forward.

Sunday Afternoon Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Dietrich Vollrath discusses both what's included in our societal capital, and how best to think of redistributive policies as means of fairly dealing with it:

(T)axes are a way of collecting the royalties on trust and scale that we inherited and/or create ourselves. Taxes are the rents to idea of playing “cooperate” or having scale. And the proper use of those rents, if I am reading him correctly, is in ensuring that those endowments are perpetuated and handed off to our own children.
...
How then, do you justify the collection of the rents that, arguably, rightfully belong to all of us, and ensure that we pass on the trust and scale necessary for prosperity to the next generation? And do so in a way that is palatable to all parties?

One idea is that you can use the idea of rents or royalties as a positive justifcation [sic] of taxation. We are collecting on the royalties due to us as a citizenry for our trust and scale, the same way that Apple collects royalties due to them as a designer of useful touchscreen emoji delivery machines. In this concept, taxation is not theft, or a necessary evil, but rather the enforcement of our intellectual property rights over trust and scale.

On the other end, the distribution of those rents is perhaps more palatable when seen not as a handout (which makes people feel like a deadbeat) but as something like a dividend on shared ownership of an asset. I feel like this would be one way to think of how a universal basic income could be framed - everyone is getting their share of the collective dividend payment due to the owners of the “ideas” of trust and scale. It is a sign of ownership, not dependence.

- But Josh Bornstein writes that nominally left-wing parties and governments have failed to identify (let alone implement) meaningful challenges to neoliberal policies oriented instead toward extracting social capital for corporate gain. And Patrick Iber notes that genuinely socialist politics are just now returning to the U.S. in particular - while pointing out the challenges of organizing for progressive systemic change under a Trump presidency.

- Imana Guwanan interviews Ichiro Kawachi about the relationship between inequality and poor health. And Phil Heidenriech reports on the success of an Edmonton project in reducing overall social costs by providing supportive housing.

- Meanwhile, Carly Weeks points out the extreme costs of prescriptions drugs faced by people with rare diseases.

- Finally, Charles Marohn discusses California's Oroville Dam as an example of the dangers of failing to invest in needed maintenance due to the political advantages of funding shiny new infrastructure instead. 

Saturday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your weekend reading.

- David Giles reports on the increasing cost of living in Saskatchewan. And Barbara Ehrenreich writes about the future of the U.S.' working class - including the reality that its major recent success has involved improving minimum wage levels:

Now when politicians invoke “the working class,” they are likely to gesture, anachronistically, to an abandoned factory. They might more accurately use a hospital or a fast-food restaurant as a prop. The new working class contains many of the traditional blue-collar occupations — truck driver, electrician, plumber — but by and large its members are more likely to wield mops than hammers, and bedpans rather than trowels. Demographically, too, the working class has evolved from the heavily white male grouping that used to assemble at my house in the 1980s; black and Hispanic people have long been a big, if unacknowledged, part of the working class, and now it’s more female and contains many more immigrants as well. If the stereotype of the old working class was a man in a hard hat, the new one is better represented as a woman chanting, “El pueblo unido jamás será vencido!” (The people united will never be defeated!)

The old jobs aren’t coming back, but there is another way to address the crisis brought about by deindustrialization: Pay all workers better. The big labor innovation of the 21st century has been campaigns seeking to raise local or state minimum wages. Activists have succeeded in passing living-wage laws in more than a hundred counties and municipalities since 1994 by appealing to a simple sense of justice: Why should someone work full time, year-round, and not make enough to pay for rent and other basics? Surveys found large majorities favoring an increase in the minimum wage; college students, church members and unions rallied to local campaigns. Unions started taking on formerly neglected constituencies like janitors, home health aides and day laborers. And where the unions have faltered, entirely new kinds of organizations sprang up...

- Meanwhile, Christopher Pollon, Christopher Cheung and Chris Wood point out the tax policy roots of the growing wealth gap between people who can afford to own homes, and people who are stuck in the rental market.

- Craig Wong reports that the Canada Revenue Agency expects to identify $400 million in taxes owed this year - and more in future years - by cracking down on tax havens. But the Department of Finance's study on tax expenditures highlights the fact that there's an awful lot more potential revenue being left on the table (and often for questionable returns).

- Finally, Scott McAnsh and Amir Attaran discuss how investor-state dispute settlement provisions such as those in the CETA can be disastrous for the environment:

Bilcon’s win (so far) in the NAFTA tribunal sends a chill over environmental policy in Canada. The Joint Review Panel put weight on socio-economic factors as part of the environmental assessment, but got into trouble for it. This is highly likely to make future panels shy away from socio-economic considerations in their assessments. It may also make the federal government cautious about including a consideration of socio-economic impacts in any new environmental assessment legislation — a review of which is currently ongoing.

If every negative environmental assessment risks hundreds of millions of dollars under an ISDS system run amok, how many environmental assessments will governments allow to be negative, and what does that mean for the future of environmental protection?

Musical interlude

Hooverphonic - You Love Me To Death

Friday Afternoon Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Paul Wells discusses how the Justin Trudeau Libs have been reduced to bluster and reannouncements as a substitute for their promise of improved equality. And Michael Harris notes that some of the people who were crucial to Trudeau's election in B.C. are seeing through his dishonesty.

- Meanwhile, John Paul Tasker reports that a year has passed since the federal government was ordered to stop discriminating against children on reserve. And APTN highlights the fact that the federal government has absolutely no idea when it might deign to comply with its obligations.

- Steven Chase points out that the Libs' approval of the takeover of a large B.C. retirement home chain by Anbang Insurance includes no assurances about jobs. And the Globe and Mail's editorial board is skeptical of putting a public service in the hands of a shadowy organization which has been rejected by potential business partners and regulators due to its lack of transparency.

- Patti Tamara Lenard discusses the need for progressives to push Canada to live up to its self-proclaimed reputation for openness and tolerance. And Carmen Cheung and Samer Muscati expose one example of our falling far short, as a Syrian 16-year-old was condemned to solitary confinement after seeking out a better life as a refugee. 

- Finally, Danyaal Raza and Joel Lexchin write about the need to ensure that the public interest in a sustainable health care system doesn't get lost in disputes as to physicians' compensation. And Raquel Figueroa and Nadia Pabani offer some policy suggestions to ensuring that people facing diabetes and other health conditions can afford to treat them:

What we now need is all levels of government (municipal, provincial and federal) to take concrete actions to improve our collective health. This means taking action in four areas:

• income equity with policies, such as a basic income guarantee, that ensure everyone can afford their most basic needs;
• decent employment with policies that ensure people are not discriminated based on their chronic conditions and can take paid leave when they are sick;
• affordable housing, which includes a housing first policy, to ensure everyone’s right to shelter and eliminate the need to sacrifice other basic needs for rent;
• affordable medications and supplies with better policies, like pharmacare, that ensure people can afford necessary medications and supplies to better manage and prevent diabetes complications.

Almost one in three Canadians has diabetes or pre-diabetes, and a significant number of them cannot afford to manage their condition. This is unacceptable. To really take action on diabetes, we must acknowledge the significant role that poverty plays, create space in our own practices to mitigate its effects and then demand our government take responsibility to break that link.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Frances Ryan discusses the precarity facing far too many UK residents who are a single missed bill payment away from financial disaster:

There are now 19 million people in this country living below the minimum income standard (an income required for what the wider public view as “socially acceptable” living standards), according to figures released by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) this month. Around 8 million of them could be classed as Theresa May’s “just about managing” families: those who can, say, afford to put food on the table and clothe their children but are plagued by financial insecurity. The other 11 million live far below the minimum income standard and are, the JRF warns, “at high risk of falling into severe poverty”.

We are entering a period not simply of growing hardship in this country but of what I would call precarious poverty: the sort that isn’t characterised by the traditional image of lifelong, deep-seated deprivation, but which can hit in a matter of days: a broken washing machine, a late child tax credit payment, an injury that leads to time off work.

In an economic climate that is normalising low-income families having to live hand to mouth, increasingly, for a whole economic class, one small unexpected cost can trigger a spiral into debt.
...
The average UK household now owes a record £12,887, even before mortgages are taken into account, according to the TUC. Around 1.6m households are in what is termed extreme debt: that means paying out 40% or more of their entire income to creditors.

This is not a problem that’s going away, as wages stagnate, benefits are cut and prices rise. This is a sign of what’s to come. As we enter a five-year squeeze on living standards that’s set to be worse than the aftermath of the global crash, there is a real risk that millions of families will not be able to keep their heads above water. Precarious poverty will soon be hard to ignore.

- And Sarah O'Connor reports that contrary to conventional wisdom, younger workers are actually more likely than their predecessors to cling to the jobs they have (and likely missing out on higher wages as a result) - with high debt loads and poor prospects elsewhere looming as obvious explanations.

- Nicholas Carnes and Noam Lupu examine the financial background of politicians, and note that the disproportionate number of wealthy people in positions of power looks to have everything to do with inequality of political opportunity rather than voter preferences.

- Emilie Taman questions the Libs' choice to sign away Canadian sovereignty and individuals' privacy by empowering U.S. border guards to limit our freedom. And Kelsey Johnsen reports that the Libs are also endangering refugees by ignoring the Trump administration's clear declarations that they won't receive any fair opportunity to claim asylum in the U.S.

- Finally, Barry Saxifrage discusses Canada's highly risky bet on dying dirty fuels at a time when they're becoming obsolete due to both environmental factors and cheaper alternatives.

New column day

Here, on how Justin Trudeau is about the least plausible possible advocate as to the importance of building trust in leaders and public institutions.

For further reading...
- The text of Trudeau's Hamburg speech is here. And both Paul Wells and Susan Delacourt wonder whether it signals a shift in the Libs' plans, though the more plausible reading looks to be that it merely reflects the gap between their rhetoric and actions.
- Daniel Tencer rightly argues that if Trudeau was serious about empowering the public, the last thing he'd be doing is pushing the CETA and other trade deals designed to give businesses a veto over public policy.
- And Duncan Cameron also addresses the Libs' predictable choice to govern from the corporate right, no matter how much progressive posturing they offer on the stump (or when they're spouting empty words).

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Daniel Tencer reports on Pierre Kohler and Servaas Storm's study showing that the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement figures to cost jobs and wages in Canada and across Europe. 

- Jim Tankersley explains the initial rise of the stock market since November's U.S. election, while offering reason to doubt that any boost will last. And Robert Reich points out that Donald Trump's actual plans are only likely to cause economic harm in the long run.

- Joseph Stiglitz writes that the only way to ride out Trump's stay in office will be to stay alert and resist.

- Molly Worthen tries to offer some places to find hope during Trump's tenure - though she conspicuously doesn't include any particular reason to include Canada on the list. And Andrew Mitrovica reminds us that we're far from free of bigoted demagogues, while Laurel Russwurm notes that Justin Trudeau has chosen to preserve an electoral system which favours them.

- Lauren Heuser makes a case for electoral reform based on the U.S.' cautionary tale as to the limitations of a duopoly. And Rick Smith points out that the Libs' refusal to work on a more fair electoral system in Canada seems to be based primarily on their desire to foment right-wing extremism to give them something to run against.

- Finally, Sonia Sodha examines the returns so far from Finland's experiment with a basic income.

Tuesday Night Cat Blogging

Familial cats.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Paul Buchheit comments on the continued spread of global inequality - as a combination of top-heavy gains and lost wealth among all but the privileged few has reduced to 6 the number of billionaires with as much wealth as half of humanity.

- Bill Curry reports on Justin Trudeau's cynical pitch for the type of personal security for workers which he's doing nothing to implement in Canada. And Rick Salutin highlights the problem with politicians prioritizing the desire to look smart over the inclination to do good, while Mike Colledge theorizes that public trust in government is declining in no small part due to its withdrawal from areas where it should be helping people.

- Lewis Perkins discusses the prospect of developing a more sustainable economy by encouraging the development of products designed for reuse and repair, rather than quick replacement. (Though it's worth noting that in light of the large number of people currently lacking access to many of the comforts we take for granted, the wider results could also include broader distribution as well as a reduced environmental footprint.)

- And Hassan Yussuff, Robert Walker and Steven Fish point out the need for a transition toward a cleaner economy which accounts for the circumstances of workers who currently depend on the resource sector.

- Jared Bernstein comments on the importance of a labour regulator which understands the needs of workers generally.

- Finally, Andre Picard writes that the real problem facing Canada's health care system isn't wait times in narrow areas, but the lack of a cohesive primary care structure to avoid pushing problems into sickness care. And Hasan Sheikh notes how a lack of access to primary dental care feeds into the overuse of emergency rooms.

Monday Afternoon Links

Miscellaneous material for your Monday reading.

- Martin Lukacs argues that the way to avoid a Canadian Donald Trump is to ensure people have a progressive challenger to the corporate establishment:

Trudeau’s social liberalism has been partnered with the very economic policies that have cemented inequality and savaged people’s quality of life—and which are now fuelling such unprecedented rage at politicians. The Liberal government’s plan to privatize our world-class public sector, a pro-business trade agenda, tax loopholes for the rich, the short-changing of healthcare, and climate policies that go easy on polluting corporations: this is a sure-fire recipe to continue enriching the wealthy and pissing off the rest of us.

For four decades, the Liberals as much as the Conservatives have been shredding our social programs and starving state spending, showing through such neoliberal policies their true colours: subservience to the corporate elite. These kind of policies are what have created such fertile ground for the new right-wing populism that has viciously triumphed in the United States and is now emerging in Canada.
...
It’s long past time to direct anger in the right direction. A report produced last month by Oxfam revealed that two individuals—David Thomson and Galen Weston Sr—own as much wealth as the bottom 30 percent of Canadians, or 11 million people. Why is the New Democratic Party not broadcasting this scandalous fact from every conceivable pulpit? The rich are treated to off-shore havens and historic low tax rates rates, while the rest of us have to make do with less and less, roiled by anxiety that our children will have it even worse. Canada is practically screaming for a bold and unapologetic redistributive agenda.
...
There are no quick fixes, no easy way of stopping O’Leary or spurring Trudeau. It will take face-to-face organizing among hundreds of thousands of people in Canada, part of a task of fostering new momentum behind left-wing movements. But the country is as primed for it as it ever will be. You don’t want a Canadian Trump to ascend in Canada? Start building this progressive populist alternative.

- Meanwhile, Michael Laxer responds that the crucial part of that analysis is the presence of a genuine left-wing option. And Stephany Griffith-Jones offers her suggestions as to the alternative progressive policies needed to give voters a real choice.

- Noah Richler highlights how the Libs' sudden reversal on electoral reform reflects their contempt for Canada's voters (and associated sense of entitlement). And James Wilt examines just a few of the Libs' key broken promises when it comes to the environment and indigenous rights.

- Stephen Hume discusses how a meager, election-year trinket from Christy Clark falls far short of what's needed to ensure that British Columbians with disabilities can live with dignity, while the Star's editorial board is rightly skeptical about the federal Libs' delays on a national anti-poverty strategy. And Nick Falvo and Chidom Otogwu write that Rachel Notley's Alberta NDP offers an example of how to turn a commitment to poverty reduction into action - while also noting there's still plenty left to be done.

- Finally, Jordan Brennan discusses how corporate mergers serve only to enrich insiders at the expense of the broader economy. And Nick Dyrenfurth writes that it's long past time to stop pretending that self-regulation is an answer to excessive executive pay and inequality (among other problems which involve the corporate extraction of wealth from society at large).

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Jordy Cummings exposes the shady side of Justin Trudeau's shin persona. Dimitri Lascaris interviews Nora Loreto about Canada's relationship with the U.S. And Michal Rozworski challenges Trudeau's decision to serve as a prop for Donald Trump rather than defending Canadian values:

The point to remember is that there would be intense pressure from within the US business world to prevent a trade war in the first place. Given today’s highly integrated supply chains, even a proportionately small volume of trade can still be crucial. It matters less that trade with Canada accounts for just 5% of GDP if some of that 5% is specialized parts and inputs that can cripple production. And it’s not that easy to replace Canadian-made goods in this case: doing so would require long-term investments with considerable fixed costs in plant and equipment. It could be done, but it won’t be the result of one critical statement.

Nevertheless, Trudeau acts as if that’s a real risk. Even if there might be no personal love lost between our cosmopolitan neoliberal leader and his nativist protectionist counterpart, officially this week it was all smiles and handshakes. Trudeau ducked questions from reporters at his joint press conference, stating, “The last thing Canadians expect is for me to come down and lecture another country on how they chose to govern themselves.” This condescension misses the fact that a majority thinks that even worsening trade relationships would be a price worth paying for standing up to Trump—nevermind that fears of a worsening are overblown. Past prime ministers have been willing to stand up to US presidents over smaller things despite the trading relationship.

Trudeau has to be aware of Canada’s unequal standing in its relationship with the US but he doesn’t have to cower in the corner waiting for a strike from the bully that may never come. Being in less powerful in a trading relationship doesn’t equate to moral paralysis in other spheres. Economic disruption cannot be a cover for lack of spine. My hunch is that Trudeau knows this—that his failure to stand up to Trump is cowardice that has its source in political calculation not economic necessity.

- Brent Patterson comments on the need for Canada to seriously evaluate the dangers of the CETA and other corporate control agreements. And Stuart Trew and Scott Sinclair map out the road ahead as CETA undergoes scrutiny from the EU's member states.

- Alex Hemingway and Iglika Ivanova examine how the B.C. Libs have gone out of their way to impose a regressive tax system. And Marco Chown Oved reports on the Conference Board of Canada's study showing that Canada may be missing out on up to $50 billion every year in uncollected taxes.

- Meanwhile, the Economist notes that one of Trump's first major moves has been to facilitate bribery and corruption by allowing resource giants to conceal payments to foreign governments.

- Finally, Dan Durcan and Faiza Shaheen take a look at the realities of work in the U.K., where reasonable surface numbers of jobs are outweighed by the fact that the new work is generally low-quality and precarious.

On non-solutions

Tammy Robert thoroughly documents how Brad Wall's billion-dollar deficit has nothing to do with either resource revenues (being Wall's primary excuse for blowing up the budget), or public services (which are his first target for attacks):

I can’t consider the way the Saskatchewan government has handled the prospect of streamlining public service – or even this deficit – credible, because all they’ve demonstrated so far is that they’re primarily interested in brazenly protecting their political tails by dividing and confusing the narrative, instead of even pretending to consider well-planned or strategic spending decisions.

What I know for sure that the mess we’re in is not just about reduced resource and taxation revenue (the latter of which has been at a record high, thanks in part to both increased population numbers and a run of successful years in agriculture).

No, the financial dumpster fire we’re fighting has everything to do with the fact that this government has jacked up spending – even with the best of intentions – to unsustainable levels, and has simultaneously ran out of money trees, aka the GFSF and the Crown Corporations, to continue to fund their spending habits.

Meanwhile, in case anybody was under the illusion that the Saskatchewan Party's current spin about a sudden budget crisis represents anything but an excuse to open up a new front in Wall's long-running war on public servants, here's his finance minister (emphasis added):

Doherty said the goal would be to hold compensation costs steady or reduce them if possible.

The austerity measures would be maintained over the long term, not just for the upcoming year, he said.

If Wall wanted to deal with the full range of options to improve Saskatchewan's fiscal picture, provincial employees would be well down the list of logical places to look. (On that front, CBC's look at the revenue effect of tax changes shows that merely mirroring Manitoba's PST could pay for all of the province's public service salaries another time over.)

And if he was acting reasonably in response to budget problems which he thought were temporary, he'd be asking for "sacrifices" which fit that bill - rather than demanding permanent reductions in the standard of living experienced by the people who keep Saskatchewan running, while asking nothing of his corporate benefactors other than that they keep funneling copious amounts of money into his political machine.

Instead, Wall is making abundantly clear that he sees his own billion-dollar deficit as nothing more than one more excuse to keep slashing away at Saskatchewan's workers. And it's about time that both the blame and the responsibility for fixing Wall's mess were placed squarely on his shoulders.

Musical interlude

Matthew Good Band - Strange Days

Thursday Afternoon Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Jonathan Charlton interviews Danielle Martin about the health benefits of eliminating poverty. And the Equality Trust studies expenditures by household income level, finding among other areas of gross inequality that the rich are able to spend more on restaurants than the poor are able to put toward housing and energy.

- Bruce Livesey, Robert Cribb and Marco Oved report on the precedent set by FINTRAC in allowing a bank to break the law with total anonymity. And Neel Kashkari looks at capital requirements as another area where banks are allowed to operate under different and more favourable rules than mere people.

- Tyler Kustra examines Justin Trudeau's broken promise of electoral reform. And Colin Walmsley highlights how it figures to facilitate the rise of the Canadian Trump by keeping in place a system which artificially consolidates power based on a minority of votes.

- Meanwhile, the Star's editorial board recognizes a developing crisis of trust which can only be exacerbated by Trudeau's self-serving politics.

- Finally, Martin Regg Cohn discusses why we shouldn't treat the Trump administration as an excuse to back off of action against climate change.

New column day

Here, on Brad Wall's choice to cover up the truth behind the Saskatchewan Party's Global Transportation Hub scandal - and the most plausible (if still inadequate) explanations for that decision.

For further reading...
- Again, the latest public revelation was Geoff Leo's reporting of political pressure to pay inflated prices for land. And Leo also reported on the role of Saskatchewan Party MLAs in the coverup, including by refusing to allow people who were actually involved in dubious land deals to answer questions about them. 
- And Murray Mandryk writes about the GTH deal as a precedent for other land acquisitions. But I'd think its significance goes much further in demonstrating the utter lack of judgment of the Wall government - particularly at a time when it's asking the province to accept massive cuts.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Tom Parkin calls out the Libs' latest laughable excuse for breaking their promise of electoral reform - being the threat that a party like the one which just held power for 10 years might win a few seats. Andrew Coyne notes that we shouldn't accept Justin Trudeau's bogeyman as an excuse for doing nothing. And Abbas Rana and Derek Abma report that the focus of Lib MPs is to avoid political fallout from their party's betrayal of voters, rather than to try to live up to their commitment.

- Meanwhile, Susan Delacourt sees the electoral reform farce as a prime example of the Libs using a surface consultation process to paper over their basic lack of interest in actually listening to the public.

- Ellen Smirl examines the conservative voting patterns of many rural residents despite their commitment to co-operatives, credit unions and other collective alternatives to domination by the market. 

- Conor Dougherty hypothesizes as to how our economy would be different - and fairer - if we didn't rely so heavily on housing as an investment.

- Finally, Carole Cadwalladr interviews Daniel Dennett about the costs of declining co-operation and trust. And Trevor Hancock comments on how increasing inequality eats away at both:

“When inequality becomes too great, the idea of community becomes impossible”. If you want to create a healthier community, you need to address this issue head-on.
...
It’s hard to imagine the super-wealthy, or even the wealthy, having much shared understanding of the situation of their fellow citizens. This is compounded by the deliberate strategy, coming from the right, of labelling people as taxpayers rather than citizens. As taxpayers, people focus on their taxes, and are encouraged to resent paying them; this makes tax dodging and even tax-evasion socially acceptable.

Yet the whole point about community is a sense of shared identity and interest. But when the gap between the wealthy and the poor becomes so great there is no ‘we’, just ‘them’ and ‘us’. And pretty quickly ‘we’ don’t want to pay for ‘their’ children’s education, ‘their’ health care, ‘their’ public transit, roads or pavements.

But citizens, seeing themselves as part of a community, focus on their shared interests, common purpose and the common good. They understand, as US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes put it a century ago, that taxes are the price we pay for civilisation.

Revolution is an understandable response to exclusion and unacceptable inequality. Arguably, what we have just seen in the US is a revolution, although in this case a revolution from the right, as was the case in Germany in the 1930s. But it’s not the best or healthiest way to change society. Here in Canada, we still have time for evolution and reform. If we want healthier communities and a healthier society, we need to embrace that opportunity.

Tuesday Night Cat Blogging

Feline flops.

Tuesday Afternoon Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Martin Kenney comments on Canada's continuing role in "snow washing" offshore tax evasion. The Conference Board of Canada examines the massive gap between what Canada should receive in public revenues, and what's actually taken in to keep our society functioning. And Kamal Ahmed highlights how employers are avoiding their responsibilities by relabeling work relationships.

- Joe Romm points out that Donald Trump's obsession with coal power - like that of other right-wing politicians - is doomed due to the ready availability of more efficient energy sources. Andrew Nikiforuk points out the $30 billion liability for inactive wells which may be absorbed by Alberta's citizens due to the lack of any requirement for the oil sector to clean up its own messes. Carol Linnitt notes that the Libs' promised tanker ban on British Columbia's north coast is anything but. Zoe Todd reports on still more research showing the connection between fracking and earthquake activity. And Melissa Davey discusses new research showing that the impact human activity on our changing climate far outweighs any natural effects.

- Nicholas Kristof reminds us how the trumped-up threat of terrorism pales in comparison to risks we think nothing about facing every day.

- Evan Dyer reports on the Libs' plans to sacrifice national sovereignty along with travellers' privacy and security in the interest of appeasing the U.S.' irrational fears. And Stuart Trew examines the lamentable track record of cross-border deregulation which has harmed the public in Canada and the U.S. alike. So suffice it to say that Michael Harris' hope that Justin Trudeau would doing anything besides go along with Donald Trump to get along is sadly misplaced.

- Finally, Sam Wong points out that even monkeys and dogs judge humans based on how well they treat others - making it all the more bizarre that so many voter pools seem to have decided to do otherwise.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- David Suzuki discusses the merits of a four-day work week in improving both working and living conditions:

 It’s absurd that so many people still work eight hours a day, five days a week — or more — with only a few weeks’ vacation a year, often needing two incomes to support a household. Our economic system was developed when resources seemed plentiful if not inexhaustible, and physical infrastructure was lacking. We need an overhaul to meet today’s conditions rather than those that existed decades ago when we were unaware of many of the potential negative consequences of our actions.

Research points to many advantages of reforms such as reduced work hours and universal basic income. In Gothenburg, Sweden, workers at a care home for the elderly were put on a six-hour workday as part of a two-year controlled study. Although hiring 15 new employees to cover the workload drove costs up by about 22 per cent, spending was reduced in areas like covering sick leave, which dropped by 10 per cent. Workers reported health improvements at rates 50 per cent higher than workers at institutions with regular working hours. Patient care also improved. Women with children benefited substantially.
...
A better work-life balance also brings many individual and societal advantages. Family life is strengthened, people have more time for creative or educational pursuits, and happier, rested employees are more productive. As more people share in available jobs, social service costs go down and more people are able to contribute to economic prosperity.

A lot needs to be done to reform our economic systems and to address critical issues like pollution and climate change. Reducing work hours is one way to make substantial gains.

- C.J. Polychroniou interviews Ha-Joon Chang about the myths of neoliberalism, including the belief that it's either inevitable or desirable to continue imposing burdens on workers to benefit the wealthy.

- Thomas Frank highlights how Donald Trump was able to harness the understandable frustrations of workers - due in no small part to the impression that other politicians weren't willing to pursue meaningful change of any sort. And Andrew Sullivan discusses the disastrous results for the U.S. of allowing a reality-averse megalomaniac to take power, while Andrew Coyne comments on the need for collective action internationally to stand up to Trump.

- Warren Bell examines the undemocratic implications of Justin Trudeau's broken promise of a more fair electoral system.

- And finally, Simon Enoch tears into Brad Wall's obsession with privatizing SaskTel by pointing out how a selloff would be disastrous for Saskatchewan's residents as citizens, consumers and workers alike.

Saturday Afternoon Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Kate Pickett and Richard Wilkinson comment on the moral and practical harm done by continued inequality:

Inequality matters because, as a robust and growing body of evidence shows, the populations of societies with bigger income differences tend to have poorer physical and mental health, more illicit drug use, and more obesity. More unequal societies are marked by more violence, weaker community life, and less trust. Inequality also damages children’s wellbeing, reducing educational attainment and social mobility.
...

You might think that evidence of harm, alongside the growing concerns of world leaders, academics, business, civil society, and government would be enough to turn this problem around. But from our perspective as social epidemiologists working on inequalities, the record on tackling health inequalities does not inspire optimism. Decades of research has led to a consensus among public health academics and professionals that we need to tackle the structural determinants of health if we want to reduce health inequalities; yet this has not happened and health inequalities have not diminished. In many cities in the UK and US, for example, we continue to see life expectancy gaps of five to 10 years, and occasionally 15 to 20 years, between the richest and poorest areas.

The long term failure, even of ostensibly progressive governments, to tackle these glaring injustices is perhaps one of the reasons why public opinion has swung so strongly away from the established political parties. And the public’s sense of being left behind will only be exacerbated by the negative health effects of austerity, which are starting to emerge in our health statistics.

...

During the last generation, economic growth ceased to improve health, happiness, and the quality of life in rich countries. Now, more than ever, we need an inspiring vision of a future capable of creating more equal societies that increase sustainable wellbeing for all of us and for the planet.

- On that front, Andrew MacLeod examines how British Columbia's disability income assistance is nowhere near enough to allow people to live with security and dignity. And Lynne Fernandez and Simon Enoch write that Brad Wall and Brian Pallister seem determined to inflict austerity measures which will make matters even worse for people already facing an uphill battle to get by in Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

- David Cay Johnston highlights how Donald Trump's economic policy looks to instead reflect nothing more than allowing the corporate sector to shamelessly fleece the public without repercussions. And Sean McElwee, Jesse Rhodes, and Brian Schaffner discuss how big money distorts the U.S.' political system.

- Finally, Jesse Winter reports on today's protests against Justin Trudeau's broken promise of electoral reform, while PressProgress weighs in on the unprecedented 100,000 signatories to Nathan Cullen's petition demanding the Libs live up to their commitments. John Ivison notes that Trudeau's tone-deafness is making him a punchline for progressive Canadians, while Greg Squires examines the bridges he's burned among core voting groups. But Karl Nerenberg argues that the greatest danger arising out of the preservation of first-past-the-post is to Canadian democracy, not merely to the Libs' political fortunes.

Musical interlude

Tame Impala - Feels Like We Only Go Backwards

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Bruce Campbell points out how Donald Trump's blind hatred toward any type of regulation can impose costs in Canada and elsewhere to the extent we're bound by trade deals which make "harmonization" an expected standard. And Pia Eberhardt recognizes that there's no point in locking ourselves into the CETA as a response to Trump's view of trade - though that excuse should ring particularly hollow given that the same voices pushing it were demanding exactly the same corporate privileges when Barack Obama was setting the U.S.' trade policy.

- Meanwhile, the Tax Justice Network highlights the latest revelations from the Panama Papers showing that thousands of U.K. intermediaries have been facilitating offshore tax evasion.

- Sheila Block examines the effects of Ontario's increased taxes on the 1%, and concludes that they substantially increased public revenues without doing anything to affect gross incomes.

- The Star's editorial board makes the case for Canada to suspend its "safe third party" agreement with the U.S. until there's some reason to think refugees are actually going to receive a fair hearing under the Trump administration.

- Finally, Tom Parkin writes that Justin Trudeau's broken promise of electoral reform was exactly what made him seem different from his failed predecessors. And Laurin Liu calls out Trudeau for using women as political cover for his most dubious choices.

Thursday Evening Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Simon Enoch explains why the Sask Party's plans to inflict an austerian beating until economic morale improves is doomed to failure:

It is now abundantly clear that the Saskatchewan government’s “transformational change” agenda is in reality a not-so-subtle euphemism for provincewide austerity in response to the current economic downturn. Premier Wall’s recent comments suggesting “very deep cuts” to education, health care, municipal revenue sharing and civil service salaries make it clear that the government’s plan for the economy is to “cut its way to growth.”

The problem with this plan is that it is exactly the worst possible course of action to take while the province is still mired in economic stagnation.

As a latecomer to economic downturn, Saskatchewan has the advantage of being able to assess the efficacy of policy responses by those who have gone before us, as national and state-level governments across North America and Europe have sought to effectively respond to the economic downturn inaugurated by the 2008 financial crisis. What this wealth of examples clearly demonstrates is that austerity measures undertaken during an economic downturn have the perverse effect of prolonging economic stagnation, increasing unemployment, exacerbating deficits and hindering economic recovery.
...
In addition to the economic argument against austerity, there is also a moral one that governments must consider. Austerity assumes that everyone shares in the pain of cuts equally. This is simply not true. Given that austerity measures primarily target public spending for programs and services, the effect will be to punish those who rely on these programs and services far more than those who do not — in particular the poorest and most vulnerable in the province. It seems particularly cruel to put the burden of cuts on those at the bottom of the income distribution who were least likely to have shared in the province’s prosperity during the boom period, and may have even been negatively impacted by the rising living costs associated with the boom years.

The sad truth is that the government relied far too much on inflated resource prices as a major source of revenue during the boom period. These resource revenues were effectively used to subsidize tax cuts that with the end of the commodity boom now appear unwise and unsustainable. The decline of revenues now has the government contemplating certain tax increases. As the government considers new sources of revenue, we would ask the government to consider the moral argument of austerity — ensuring that those least able to absorb tax increases are not asked to bear the majority of the burden for the rest of us.
...
The Saskatchewan government is in its current fiscal position because it made certain choices during the economic boom that have now come back to haunt us. The government needs to seriously consider the available evidence on austerity and recognize that the path it has set upon — while perhaps politically the easiest — is not necessarily the wisest.

- Meanwhile, Jeff Labine reports on some of the effect of the Sask Party's cuts - including limiting the ability of school divisions to work on ensuring higher graduation rates.

- But Geoff Leo's latest revelations about the Global Transportation Hub scandal signal that good advice to the Wall government from anywhere - including from officials pointing out the foolishness of lining donors' pockets at the public's expense - tends to be ignored and buried.

- Marc Lee highlights B.C.'s giveaway of natural gas resources. And Brad Plumer points out that solar energy is new far outperforming coal in generating jobs, while being well on its way to doing the same in terms of power sources.

- Finally, Thomas Walkom notes that Bill Morneau seems to be following the all-too-familiar pattern of confusing the concept of free money for rich people (and an attitude of "let them eat cake" for everybody else) with a viable economic plan. And Michal Rozworski goes into more detail about the bad ideas on tap from Morneau's hand-picked advisory council.

New column day

Here, expanding on this post about the Libs' electoral reform betrayal - and the likelihood that it will encourage future Stephen Harpers to exploit the distortions created by first-past-the-post.

For further reading...
- I've linked to plenty of other commentary on the Libs' broken promise here, here and here. And we can add new material from the Council of Canadians and Shawn Garbutt, along with a useful refresher from Max Fawcett.
- The Government of Canada page highlighting the problems with first-past-the-post was once here - though it (along with other related content) seems to have now been removed. But fortunately Jason Wagar has preserved it for posterity.
- And finally, the formal petition sponsored by Nathan Cullen pushing for the Libs to live up to their promise is here - and rapidly approaching its 100,000th signature.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Louis-Philippe Rochon writes that while American voters had to know what they'd get in casting their most recent ballots, far too many Canadians may have believed the Libs' promises of something else:

On this side of the 49th parallel, however, when Canadians elected Trudeau a little over 15 months ago, on Oct. 19, 2015, we were led to believe he was some sort of a progressive politician with respect to social and economic issues, which essentially is what got him elected.

What a difference a year makes.

In recent months Trudeau has behaved very little like a progressive economist and has instead embraced with great fanfare some oddly conservative policies. In doing so, has Trudeau revealed himself to be a conservative wolf in liberal clothing? If so, it would appear the fix is in: Canadians voted for one guy but got another.  It was the classic political bait and switch: the great Canadian hoodwink.
...
[Under a privatized structure,] any infrastructure project will easily cost twice as much over a 30-year period. In other words, for any project, Canadian taxpayers will end up holding the fiscal bag through higher fees and taxes, whereas the government could finance the project at much cheaper rates. This makes no economic sense, which raises the question, is the government doing this simply as a way of thanking their financial supporters?

There is a more sinister argument looming under all this, and it regards the role of public spending and the privatization of the state. Indeed, with all these musings about privatizing airports, ports and public spending, Trudeau is in fact championing the privatization of the state itself, robbing it further of its powers to create jobs and regulate unstable markets. This is clearly not what Canadians were expecting when they elected him last year.

- Christopher Majka highlights how Justin Trudeau's choice to break a core promise on electoral reform can only be explained by his taking Canadian voters for fools, while Scott Baker and Mark Dance write that it's bound to fuel voter cynicism. Tom Parkin discusses Trudeau's dishonesty on the issue, while Lawrence Martin emphasizes the damage the decision will do to Trudeau's core brand. And Karl Nerenberg points out how the retention of first-past-the-post is a gift to the right wing.

- Meanwhile, Michael Taube rightly observes that the Liberals' choice to nix electoral reform doesn't mean the issue will disappear. And Michael Morden and Michael Crawford Urban comment on the need for improved voter turnout as a means of ensuring better governance.

- Jugal Patel reports on a giant crack in Antarctica's ice shelf as yet another vivid reminder of the drastic effects of climate change.

- Finally, Andre Picard rightly questions why the Quebec City mosque massacre hasn't led to a discussion of gun control.

Tuesday Night Cat Blogging

Floored cats.