On implausible impersonators

Other commentators have taken note of Erin O'Toole's attempt to co-opt the language of labour unions in an effort to portray himself as less hostile than his predecessors.

There's certainly reason to be concerned about this being yet another area where right-wing leaders pretend to be sympathetic on fundamental issues while planning to do as much damage as possible if given the chance. But in assessing how credible voters should find O'Toole's pitch, let's note that his attacks on unions aren't even limited to what would be expected from a garden-variety Con MP.

It's true, as others have noted, that O'Toole voted in favour of the Cons' attacks on labour rights in bills C-377 and C-525. But it's particularly worth noting that he did so gratuitously in at least the former case: while five Con MPs voting against intrusions into union operations in the third-reading vote which passed C-377, O'Toole wasn't one of them.

Moreover, one can tell what O'Toole really thinks about unions from what he's chosen to say beyond the limitations on a single-bill vote.

On that front, he's dismissed as "not sincere" advocacy and activism on behalf of veterans based solely on the fact that union support was involved. 

He went out of his way to fight the the legislation which ultimately repealed C-377 and C-525.

And in launching his leadership campaign, he's brought out the "union boss" trope (aimed at Unifor's Jerry Dias) as part of his fund-raising efforts.

So O'Toole's idea of an acceptable union is one with no leadership, no role in advocating for people in the community at large, and needless barriers in its way if it tries to get certified or represent its members. 

Needless to say, solidarity on those stunted terms would do nothing but further enrich the O'Toole class of elites and corporate owners. And there should be a teaching opportunity in contrasting O'Toole's impoverished idea of labour against what unions can actually accomplish.

On private determinations

Paul Willcocks has previously pointed out why there's reason for skepticism about Andrew Scheer's attempt to play both sides as to whether or not the Cons will try to limit access to abortion. But it's worth looking at a case study as to how the Harper Cons flouted any distinction between private member's bills and government bills when it suited their purposes.

Bill C-377, designed to impose reporting requirements on unions which don't apply to any other organization, was never included in any Con election platform. It was introduced as a private member's bill by Russ Heibert to make use of an advantageous draw in the order of priority, while avoiding the scrutiny that applies to government bills.

But the Senate returned it to the House of Commons with amendments. And at that point, the Cons made clear that it was Stephen Harper, not any MP acting on behalf of any constituents, who was dictating what to do with the legislation - and moreover that reintroducing it as a government bill was on the table:

Despite this being a private member’s bill, the Prime Minister’s Office has been moved to issue a statement.

We continue to support union transparency and the principles of the bill, which will be returned to the House as part of the normal process.
As per Parliamentary convention, we expect that the Senate will respect the will of the House of Commons should the Bill be returned to the Senate.

A Conservative source tells the Canadian Press that the bill will now be reintroduced as a government bill.

That didn't happen in the House of Commons. But it did eventually happen in the Senate, as Harper's Cons broke the Senate's rules to retroactively reclassify C-377 as a "government bill" to allow it to be rammed through in the final session before the 2015 election:

The government has powerful tools to push forward on "government business" — important legislation such as budgets. But C-377 falls under "other business" because it is a private member's bill from a Conservative backbench MP.

Carignan wanted to have C-377 declared a government bill so that he could force it to a vote. The problem is that it clearly isn't government business. The government itself introduced it as "other business."

A government motion would have retroactively redefined C-377 as a government bill. This was the motion Speaker Housakos declared was against the rules and undermined the traditions of the Senate.

By overruling Housakos, government senators can now use tools intended for government bills to push forward a private member's bill that many have warned is unconstitutional.

In light of that background, what does Scheer have to say about anti-choice legislation?

Scheer’s efforts to clarify his views on abortion just made things murkier. “I will not re-open this debate and I will oppose any plan to re-open this debate,” he told reporters.

But he also said Conservative MPs would be allowed to introduce legislation limiting access to abortion. And to vote for restricting access, if that was their personal view. And while he would expect cabinet ministers to vote against limiting access, he wouldn’t demand they do.

So Scheer's supposed acceptance of the continued availability of abortion is limited to personally opposing a move to "re-open" debate. But that can be done by any MP introducing a private member's bill. And Scheer has signalled his willingness to permit that step within a party which exercises strict control over those bills in the first place - meaning that he'll be providing tacit approval even if he feigns public dismay.

And once that step has been taken? Scheer won't demand that any of his MPs vote to preserve the right to abortion access. And based on his own words, any step after the first one has been left open.

There's thus every reason for concern that Scheer will follow his predecessor's playbook. And any promise to leave the Cons' dirty work to private member's bills should only be taken as a reminder that they've used that mechanism to grease the skids for controversial legislation before.

Update: And Scheer's declaration that he'll use the Senate as a tool to exercise strict partisan control certainly doesn't help matters.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Aditya Chakrabortty exposes the massive amounts of money gifted from the UK's public purse to its corporate elite. And Paul Weinberg writes that the Cons are only exacerbating Canada's practice of encouraging revenue leakage into tax havens:

The United States, European Union and several other Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development nations are grappling with the contagion of tax avoidance by global companies, with its potential to hurt government finances. But, as Deneault discovered in researching his book, Canada is marching to a different beat.

“Officially, Canada shows solidarity with other western countries about tackling tax avoidance. I have informants in other countries, people whom I talk to when I travel, and they say that Canada, in the meeting rooms, is also always fighting against any kind of proposal that would make it difficult for corporations to use tax havens,” he says in a recent interview. Deneault highlights how Canada, as a major player at the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, provides representation for smaller nations in the English-speaking Caribbean (The Bahamas and Barbados) and Ireland that do not have seats at either of these bodies, and which, incidentally, happen to be major havens.

“Canada is trying to look like its creatures (tax havens) to have the same strategies to attract capital,” says Deneault. “You will find that in Alberta with respect to oil, you will find that in Ontario with respect to the mining industry.”...

Real tax reform, he maintains, begins with examining how Canada has morphed into a tax haven itself, with exceptionally low corporate tax policies at the federal and provincial levels, and a number of legal loopholes that allow corporations and wealthy investors to avoid paying their fair contribution to Canada’s social wealth.

- Meanwhile, David Dayen notes that as part of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the U.S. (along with Canada) is signing on to standardizing labour standards with countries which have active human trafficking and effective slavery.

- Simon Houpt discusses the unionization of digital media. And Ella Bedard writes that Canadian unions will be fighting the Cons' attacks both in this fall's election campaign and through the courts.

- Ralph Surette points out that after being muzzled for a decade, Canada's civil servants are starting to offer long-suppressed facts about the Cons' abuses of power.

- Finally, Scott Santens writes that a basic income could both serve as a much-needed link between productivity gains and the sharing of prosperity, and reduce the amount of work needed from people who are being pushed into more than they want:

We are indeed creating new jobs, but these jobs are not 1:1 replacements. When someone who graduated from a free high school loses a 40 hours per week manufacturing job with benefits they've worked for 20 years that paid $50,000 per year because technology has eliminated the need for a human to fill that role, and the only job they can find without taking out a second mortgage to go back to school is a 30 hours per week temp job without benefits in the service industry that pays $20,000 per year if they're lucky, they've indeed gone from one job to another, but are they better off? Is the consumer economy better off with the notable hit to consumer spending power? Does the fact that robotic manufacturing allows this person to buy a dishwasher for $500 instead of $700 counteract the $30,000 loss in salary and security? Does the ability to purchase an iPhone 6 for the same price they paid for an iPhone 3 a few years ago make up for that loss in income either?

Advancing technology is not being allowed to improve our lives to the degree it could, if we were to make other decisions as a society. Instead, we're actively forcing ourselves to work a greater number of hours thanks to the effectiveness of the tools we created to require fewer hours. Does this outcome make any real sense? Is all this new and extra work in the labor market truly necessary or are we performing it because a job, however unnecessary is currently necessary to live?
...
If technology has reached the point where hardware and software are together doing much of our work for us, then we have to pay each other what our technology is not earning as income and not spending into the economy as a consumer. We have to give it to ourselves and spend it ourselves, because our technology is not going to. This can be thought of as a technological dividend required to upshift our economy instead of letting it slowly grind to a halt, and it's more widely known as the idea of basic income.

We need to make sure everyone starts earning a non-work related income so that everyone can be consumers in an economy increasingly populated by non-consuming non-human labor. By doing this, we will also be transforming all work into voluntary work, and see all the effects this makes possible from the economic growth of increased engagement to the higher wages of increased individual bargaining power.

If we take that path, the basic income path, then we can automate even more labor away and grow the basic income even further as productivity reaches new heights.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Jeffrey Sachs writes about the need to shape a more moral, less exploitative economy. So needless to say, the Cons are instead working on promoting corruption.

- Mark Weisbrot discusses how the Troika's attempt to impose continued austerity on Greece in the face of public resistance can't be seen as much more than an attempt at coercive regime change. And John Nichols reports on just a few of the voices rightly lauding the refusal of Greece's electorate to go along with that plan.

- Scott Eric Kaufman talks to Erik Loomis about the systematic outsourcing of dangerous and abusive jobs to countries where workers have no means of improving their conditions. And Jeremy Nuttall reports that while the Cons are trying to reduce the reported numbers from the temporary foreign worker program, they're going out of their way to set up alternative channels for easily-exploited labour.

- Meanwhile, Nicholas Keung reports on the Cons' profiling and blanket rejection of Roma visitors from Hungary.

- Dan Leger highlights how the Cons are interested in imposing strict and arbitrary accountability requirements on everybody except themselves as the government in power. And Stephen Maher is right to note that the political system generally tends to operate under different rules than nearly any other activity.

- Finally, Gerald Caplan discusses how the Cons are essentially defined by their mean streak. And Michael Harris writes about the widespread disenchantment of one-time PCs and Conservatives in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Jerry Dias sees the forced passage of an unamended Bill C-377 as a definitive answer in the negative to the question of whether the Senate will ever justify its own existence. And Nora Loreto emphasizes that the bill has no purpose other than to attack unions:

The amendments contained in C-377 to the Income Tax Act are sweeping, broad and idiotic. If Canadians need any example that the Harper Conservatives care more about personal vendettas than good governance, the proof is wrapped up in C-377.

C-377 requires a ridiculous level of compliance from labour organizations and trusts. It forces unions, labour organizations, labour federations, organizations comprised of different unions, labour trusts and professional associations to publically report all expenditures of over $5000 and itemize exactly what that the money was dedicated to.

Everyone's salaries, everyone's timesheets and all contracts will be made public. This places an enormous burden on the bureaucratic structures of the labour movement.
...
It's easy to see why the Harper Conservatives hate unions. Unions are the final major roadblock in their campaign to fully transform Canada. Unions demand rights for working people, decent wages and benefits, all which constitute barriers towards full-scale and unregulated resource extraction and international trade deals.

Unionization and labour rights are fundamental within a free and democratic society. The ability of working people to gather, elect their own leadership and direct their own political campaigns is a tenet of democracy. It is the membership who has the right to make demands of the leadership; no one else.

- Meanwhile, Daniel Tencer points out that public service workers and unionized workers tend to have the type of secure retirement we should all be able to plan on. And May Warren reports on the effects of precarious work in Guelph.

- Iman Sheikh writes that immigrants to Canada tend to be disproportionately healthy on arrival only to see their health decline - which surely signals there's far more work to do in making sure new Canadians have access to needed social supports.

- Charles Mandel interviews Bill McKibben about Canada's obstructionist role in global climate talks under the Harper Cons. But Kim Covert notes that the precedent recently set by a Dutch court in mandating emission reductions could well be followed here if our politicians don't live up to their responsibilities first.

- Finally, Michael Grunwald examines the most recent leak from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, including its massive handouts to big pharma at the expense of the health care system of every participating country. And the CCPA's latest issue of the Monitor nicely covers the false promise and serious damage done by trade agreements.

Wednesday Afternoon Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- The Star's editorial board writes that five years after police committed serious human rights violations at Toronto's G20 summit, nobody seems to have learned any lessons from the abuses. And David Lavallee tells his story of being interrogated for a "precursor to terrorist behaviour" based solely on his having filmed a pipeline for a documentary.

- Ian Gill argues that the impending federal election will may represent a last opportunity to take Canada off of a path toward environmental destruction. And Brian Kahn notes that the rest of the world is predictably shifting toward cleaner energy whether we're on board or not.

- Gillian Steward reports on Rachel Notley's precedent-setting participation in the UN's next climate-change conference (in contrast to past Alberta premiers who tried to fight climate action). And Dennis Howlett points out that to the extent there was any doubt, Saskatchewan is now Canada's worst climate laggard.

- Sara Mojtehedzadeh reports on widespread wage theft in Ontario, along with the distinct lack of enforcement mechanisms to reliably recoup what workers are owed.

- Finally, Robyn Benson highlights how the Cons had to break every rule in the book to force Bill C-377 through the Senate. And Bill Tieleman writes that the result is to impose exactly the type of useless red tape the Cons claim to oppose everywhere else on Canada's labour movement.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- The Broadbent Institute details Rhys Kesselman's research on how the Cons' expanded TFSAs are nothing but a giveaway to the wealthy. And Dean Beeby reports on their withholding of EI supplements from the families who most need them - paired with a complete lack of responsibility or contrition now that the problem has been discovered.

- Matt Saccaro discusses the widespread burnout among U.S. workers as huge increases in hours worked and productivity have done nothing to improve wages or living conditions over a period of decades. And Bill Tieleman slams the Cons for gratuitously attacking the unions who offer the best chance of improving the lives of workers.

- Marc Lee summarizes the Cons' failed energy and climate change policies, as their only accomplishment has been to set back both our opportunities and our expectations when it comes to building a sustainable economy.

- Dr. Dawg writes about Aaron Driver's case as an appalling example of an individual being locked up for precrime. And Shannon Gormley argues that we don't face a choice between security and privacy, and that in fact overreaching legislation like C-51 threatens both:

So if a mass surveillance apparatus had only one job — preventing terror attacks — it might have fallen under the proud ownership of a trash collector by now. But cyber spies have other uses. It’s bleakly effortless to imagine a government getting creative with a system ostensibly designed to track security threats but — oh, what’s this? — also tracks every digital movement of political opponents, economic competitors, media critics and internal whistleblowers.

We needn’t imagine much. We already know: that Britain’s spy agency has listed investigative journalists as security threats and that its sticky tentacles have pocketed emails from the world’s top news organizations; that the NSA has mused that within the next 10-20 years it might conduct surveillance in a such a way that its “findings would be useful to U.S. industry”; that it has spied on Brazilian oil company Petrobras; and that its Five Eyes counterpart, the Australian Signals Directorate, has spied on an American law firm representing Indonesia when Indonesia was in a trade dispute with the U.S and — another exemplar of generosity of spirit — offered to share its findings with the U.S.

But even if surveillance agencies had a track record of intercepting and only targeting security threats, we might be troubled by something more fundamental: the assumption that privacy rights aren’t part of what people need secured.

A privacy violation is a serious security breach. When we can’t make a call to a client or send an email to a lover or type a character into a search bar without an overpaid 20-something in a far-off cubicle being able to know about it, then it’s not just our privacy that has being rudely violated. It’s our security as well.

And more besides. If people are partly made by what they think, and partly made by the ways they choose to share their thoughts, then in an age where our communication with each other is monitored relentlessly and without our consent, how is our personhood not under attack?

- But the B.C. Civil Liberties Association makes clear that the fight over C-51 is far from over, as voters will have every opportunity to judge Canada's political parties on their response to a threat to our civil rights. And Justin Ling reports on new polling confirming that its principled opposition to the Cons' fearmongering has been an important element in the NDP's rise in the polls.

On rewriting

There's plenty of justified outrage over Stephen Harper's unelected Senate lapdogs choosing to tear up the Parliamentary rule book to force through an attack on unions in the form of Bill C-377. But I'm wondering whether the procedural move used to end debate might itself affect the validity of the bill.

On that front, is there any precedent for a bill becoming law after being passed as a private member's bill in one chamber, but as a government bill in the other given that both chambers have specific rules governing the review and approval of each type of bill?

And if not, isn't there an argument to be made that even if C-377 passes on the Cons' artificial terms in the Senate, it then won't have been approved at all in the House as a government bill?

(Meanwhile, I'd also be curious as to what other procedural options are available if the Senate opposition wants to push back against the holding of a vote. But hopefully those are under close examination already.)

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Paul Krugman highlights the policy areas where we need to look to the public sector for leadership - including those such as health care and income security where we all have a strong interest in making sure that nobody's left behind. And Andre Picard reminds us of one of the major gaps in Canada's health care system, as expensive prescription drugs can make for a devastating barrier to needed care.

- Meanwhile, Paul Buchheit duly criticizes the combination of increasing wealth for the lucky few in the U.S., and increasing poverty at the bottom of the income scale.

- Warren Bell looks back at the years of deliberate attacks on environmental protection that led to the English Bay oil spill crisis, while Tim Harper argues that Canada's federal government would be a great place to start cleaning up the mess. Kai Nagata notes that public outcry over exactly the types of issues raised by English Bay may have succeeded in stopping the Northern Gateway pipeline. And Andrew Leach rightly makes the point that Stephen Harper bears personal responsibility for Canada's pattern of delay and denial on greenhouse gas emissions from the oil and gas sector:

Over the course of the prime minister’s time in office, oil prices have gone from the $50s to the $140s, down to the $30s, back above $100, back to the $40s and sit around $50 today. We’ve had proposals for regulations, cap-and-trade, and regulations again, but it seems that no policy which would restrict GHG emissions from the oil sands can get to the finish line. Why? It’s not prices, and it’s not the oil and gas lobby. It’s one thing – a prime minister who, to use MacDougall’s words, hasn’t seen fit to instruct, “the entire team (to put) its shoulder to the wheel until victory is achieved,” and a policy is imposed.

Stephen Harper is happy to see these difficult policy choices pushed to a later date and, in so doing, will have us make exactly the mistakes he said we wouldn’t make again – promising aggressive action and not delivering it. When the world meets in Paris in late 2015, Canada will still likely not have policies imposed on its oil sands sector and, despite the oil price crash, will still expect emissions to increase far beyond our Copenhagen commitment. Will the world, again, be willing to take the word of a prime minister, whoever it may be, who says we won’t make the same mistake three times?

- Scott Clark and Peter DeVries see the Cons' false balanced budget legislation as being absolutely hilarious in light of their track record of fiscal mismanagement. But Rick Smith notes that the Cons' anti-labour zealotry is rather less amusing - particularly as C-377 gets pushed through the legislative process yet again (minus the amendments which would have made it at least somewhat less toxic).

- Finally, Brent Patterson offers yet another example of how trade agreements can severely limit democratic decision-making, as Argentina stands to lose hundreds of millions of dollars for prioritizing usable water above a profiteer's revenue stream.

On single battles

There's been plenty of press this week about the Senate's amendments to the Cons' odious anti-union legislation (dressed up as a private member's bill to avoid the scrutiny that would come from honestly-labeled government legislation). And it's certainly a plus to see C-377 delayed and amended.

But it's worth both contrasting the treatment of C-377 against that of other bills to assess the Senate's supposed independence, and pointing out how any victory may be only temporary.

To start with, for all the talk about the single amendment by Hugh Segal "gutting" C-377, the fact is that the bill remains live, well and set to be reconsidered (and potentially pushed through again in its original form) by the House of Commons. Which makes for a stark contrast to how Harper's trained seals in the Senate trashed previous legislation which had been approved by Canada's actual elected representatives - voting it down altogether rather than amending it for reconsideration.

If the best case to be made for the Senate's continued existence is as a check on the out-of-control executive, then, the Senate's actions under Harper suggest that it's broadly failing in that role - and the improvements to C-377 make at best a minor dent in the overall impression.

But what of C-377 itself? The obvious danger from this point forward is that the anti-labour Cons will simply return the bill to the Senate in its original form - meaning that the effect of this week's vote would be merely to delay its implementation. But there's another possibility which would could result in similar damage in a much shorter time frame.

The actual amendment approved by the Senate (scroll down somewhat from here) primarily tinkers with the dollar thresholds and technical reporting requirements set out in the initial bill - which are set out in subsection 3 as particulars of the information required to be provided. But for unions or organizations with more than 50,000 members, it leaves intact the following general provision as amended:

(2) Subject to subsection 149.01(6), every labour organization and every labour trust shall, by way of electronic filing (as defined in subsection 150.1(1)) and within six months from the end of each fiscal period, file with the Minister an information return for the year, in prescribed form and containing prescribed information.

So who gets to assemble the "prescribed form" and determine the "prescribed information" which will be subject to mandatory disclosure? That would be the Lieutenant Governor in Council, through the regulatory authority set out under section 221(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act. And there's little reason to think that Segal's amendment as to what must be included in the form will restrict the implementation of what may be prescribed without any Parliamentary oversight whatsoever.

In other words, if the Cons are satisfied merely attacking Canada's largest unions and labour organizations, they can grudgingly push through the amended C-377 as quickly as possible, and use their regulatory power to impose the same reporting requirements which were stripped out of the bill in the Senate.

We'll find out before too long whether Harper prefers to take the quick win in his latest battle against working Canadians, or try to force through all of the original C-377 all at once. But we shouldn't pretend for a second that this week's Senate votes will do much to help the cause of workers in the broader war.