Monday Afternoon Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- John Dearing, Gregory Cooper and Simon Willcock discuss the doom loop which is seeing worse-than-predicted effects of the climate breakdown resulting in vicious cycles of ecosystem collapse. J. Besl writes about new research showing that coastal flooding may be faster and more severe than anticipated due to inaccurate measurements of coastlines. And Jan Olsen reports on the warning from the European Center for Disease Prevention and Control that mosquito-borne diseases will become more prevalent as the planet warms. 

- Meanwhile, Inayat Singh reports on the Canada Energy Regulator's conclusion that fossil fuel expansion is incompatible with any effort to meet existing climate commitments. 

- Luke LeBrun and Mitchell Thompson expose how the Con-connected Civitas invited well-known bigots to attack trans people at a secret conference session. And Moira Donegan discusses how women in the U.S. are suffering as a result of social conservatives getting their way in stripping away reproductive rights. 

- Finally, Cory Doctorow's York University commencement speech emphasized the need to reject the establishment admonition that there is no alternative, and instead work on building something better than what serves its entrenched interests. 

Saturday Afternoon Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Statistics Canada offers some new (if dated) data on the spread of COVID-19 in Canada - with over 40% of those with antibodies from a past infection having no idea they'd ever had COVID. And Carla Johnson examines the inescapable answer to the question as to whether we've allowed COVID-19 to win over humanity.

- Brendan Haley discusses how the U.S.' sudden infusion of investment in a green economy exposes Canada's lack of any meaningful industrial policy. And Brett Dolter points out that we should be far more concerned with getting to balance (or better) in the global carbon budget than in government balance sheets.

- Gordon Laxer notes that any meaningful study of foreign interference in Canadian politics needs to include a strong focus on the control exerted by the fossil fuel sector. And Kristoffer Tigue examines how oil tycoons and their puppet politicians continue to water down any attempt at agreement on the necessary steps to avert climate breakdown.

- Gregory Beatty highlights the case for universal reproductive medicine (which B.C. has since introduced).

- Finally, the Star's editorial board calls out the cruelty motivating Doug Ford's elimination of health care for the people who have the least.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Damian Paletta and Josh Dawsey report that cash for access is the only way for anybody to raise issues with the U.S. Republicans' tax bills. And Ronald Brownstein views the tax debacle as conclusive evidence of the closing of Republican minds.

- Meanwhile, Mark Kingwell offers a needed rebuttal to the reactionary right's efforts to falsely criticize universities for exactly the type of closed-minded attitudes underlying its own movement:

Right-wing postmodernism flourishes by bulldozing dissent. The current occupant of the White House, and those leading rhetorical crusades in his shadow, are just late-model versions of real intellectual rot. It begins with thinking you can say whatever you want, because you have power and a Twitter or YouTube account. It ends with a comprehensive sense of entitlement that you can get away with anything.

"I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters," the current President said. Yes, he said that. He said that. It's a fact that he said it.

Universities are always easy targets. You can target this so-called useless course or that apparently trendy professor. You can mock new pronouns and novel ways of thinking. But here's what we mostly do: We insist that when people utter falsehoods and nonsense, or behave intolerably, they will be challenged, on the facts, with reasons and arguments.

It's indoctrination, sure – into critical thinking. Sorry if that upsets what you already believe. (Note: not in fact sorry.)

- Damian Carrington reports on the health effects of air pollution on fetal health. And Karl Nerenberg writes about the global connection between inequality and reproductive health.

- Ben Parfitt makes the case for an inquiry into B.C.'s fracking industry. And Paul Willcocks discusses why the Libs' Site C disaster needs to be shut down, not continued by John Horgan's government.

- Donna Borden comments on the need for low-income Canadians to have fair access to financial services. And Tamar Harris reports on a lawsuit against Rogers for breaking its promise not to subject participants in a low-income Internet service program to credit checks which could harm their credit scores.

- Finally, Thomas Walkom writes about the costs of Ontario's power privatization, as monopoly private providers have been able to exploit the regulatory system to claim illegitimate costs.

Leadership 2018 Links

The latest from the Saskatchewan NDP's leadership campaign.

- Greg Nikkel reported on the Weyburn debate, but didn't note much by way of contrast in so doing.

- And local media also covered Ryan Meili's visits to Prince Albert and North Battleford, and Trent Wotherspoon's to Weyburn and the Battlefords.

- Alex MacPherson and D.C. Fraser's latest notebook discusses the impact of the Saskatchewan Party's retrograde candidates on abortion - though it's worth noting that contrary to their reporting, Meili and Wotherspoon both committed to improved access to reproductive services in response. 

- Finally, the Leader-Post and Star-Phoenix teamed up to write about the importance of widespread participation in Saskatchewan's leadership campaigns. And Jason Hammond rightly noted that we'd be better served with greater public engagement at all times.

Silenced

The news that the Wall government is planning to eliminate dozens of provincial boards and commissions doesn't really mean much on its own. But taking a closer look at exactly what's being axed, there's serious reason for concern that the Sask Party is entirely eager to cut off important lines of communication with unfriendly stakeholders - and all without any actual savings resulting from the move to insulate Sask Party ministers from genuine input.

To start with, the majority of the boards and commissions to be cut do appear to be ones which are dormant or which have completed their work. In most of those cases, the decision to carry out officially what's already happened in practice serves as a mildly useful administrative move, though not one which can plausibly be claimed to save money or otherwise result in government efficiencies. (Though it's worth noting that the Sask Party itself may have something to do with driving some committees into hibernation: take for example the Minister's Provincial Park Advisory Committee, which held its last meeting just after the Wall government took power, and is now being slashed for having "not been active since November 2007".)

Another broad group of the committees being cut includes those which are explicitly being replaced by something else of the Sask Party's creation. Notable on this list are the current advisory committees on drug and alcohol abuse and HIV/AIDS, as well as labour and education forums.

Now, this might be seen as somewhat less objectionable than a declaration that input actually isn't required on those issues. But the replacement of one committee with another does raise a couple of important issues.

First, it's downright dishonest for the Sask Party to claim savings from eliminating the existing committee without taking into account the cost of creating a new one - particularly when there's bound to be more work involved in developing something from scratch than maintaining an existing structure. And more importantly, it's worth wondering whether the new committees will actually represent as broad a group of participants as the existing committees, or whether the Sask Party will pick and choose only those voices which they want to hear in areas where there's obvious potential for socon or corporatist biases to lead to disastrous results.

Which is of course an even greater problem where existing consultation mechanisms are being replaced with absolutely nothing. And there are many key areas where the Wall government is sending a clear signal that it doesn't think meaningful stakeholder consultations are worth its time.

Oddly enough, the largest group of these falls under the agriculture portfolio, where no less than 8 advisory committees are being eliminated on the basis that the Ministry of Agriculture "already consults directly" with affected parties. But there's a significant difference between the type of consultation available through an ongoing committee which both facilitates discussion among stakeholders and provides a regular checkpoint between that stakeholder group and the government, and that based simply on a Ministry dealing with parties on a one-on-one basis. And the Sask Party's eagerness to systematically eliminate the latter type doesn't speak well to its interest in working collaboratively with the groups involved.

Among other particularly egregious examples:
- The Advisory Committee on Family Planning is to be disbanded, with its role taken over by non-government organizations. Who else sees a possible issue with allowing right-wing politicians to hand-pick their ideological buddies to set the province's direction on reproductive health?
- FSIN's Circle of Partners Advisory Committee - highlighted just this spring as an example of the Sask Party's commitment to engaging with First Nations - has apparently been "determined to be unnecessary by Enterprise (Saskatchewan)". We'll see how kindly the FSIN takes to being told by big business that its input is neither necessary nor welcome.
- The Early Learning and Child Care Advisory Board is being eliminated in favour of "ad hoc" consultations. Which would seem to send a strong signal that child care is headed absolutely nowhere as long as Wall is in power.
- Finally, the Provincial Youth Advisory Committee is being cut on the basis that "(youth) representatives on boards across government make this Committee unnecessary". Aside from the issue of allowing for collaborative efforts rather than mere token representation, that seems to leave the door wide open for a single Sask Party supporter to be taken to speak for youth across the province on any given issue.

We'll find out soon just how determined the Sask Party is to follow through on the cuts. But from what I can tell, the Wall government's move seems to be aimed entirely at trying to selectively freeze out voices it doesn't like rather than actually finding efficiencies - and it'll be important for everybody affected to speak out now before being silenced by the Sask Party.

The appropriate response

For all that's been said about Brad Trost's attempt to eliminate federal funding to Planned Parenthood's international operations, the definitive word so far goes to Stephen Whitworth:

Reasonable, tolerant people do not launch petitions against Planned Parenthood because it provides legal abortions. I'm officially calling it and I'm sticking to it: Saskatoon MP Brad Trost is unfit for public office and frankly he's a threat to human rights, freedoms and civil society.

Hypothetically speaking

Dr. Dawg points out that the list of Con MPs piping up about Henry Morgentaler's appointment to the Order of Canada includes Ken Epp. But it's worth noting just what Epp had to say:

However, Tory MP Ken Epp (Edmonton-Sherwood Park) said the pro-choice supporters have "gone too far."

"As far as I'm concerned it is indeed controversial," said Epp, who has a private member's bill before the House of Commons that would allow criminal charges to be laid in the death or injury of an unborn child when the child's mother is the victim of a crime.

Epp also questioned the objectivity of Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin as head of the Order of Canada advisory council. "Is she now totally out of impartiality because of the fact she has weighed into this? I am concerned about all of those things," he said.

Now, from my perspective Epp's argument raises a couple of fairly significant questions - which essentially need to be directed at Harper in light of his well-known message control.

First, is Epp really claiming that the mere fact that an Order of Canada appointee is associated with an issue renders the Chief Justice of Canada too biased to deal with that issue? If that interpretation is correct, then the full list of appointees would seemingly result in McLachlin C.J.C. being unable to rule on anything more significant than a parking ticket.

Of course, it doesn't stand to reason that Morgentaler's appointment affects judicial impartiality any more than Buzz Hargrove's appointment disqualifies McLachlin from hearing labour law cases. But even if one grants Epp the charitable interpretation that he knows he's wrong, it's still noteworthy that the Cons' message is once again centred on inflammatory and patently ridiculous arguments against the fairness and impartiality of independent bodies.

Second, and more significantly, there's the question of just when Epp anticipates a case which raises abortion issues coming before the Supreme Court of Canada.

I'll note in that respect that Dr. Dawg focuses in on how Epp's new message casts ever more doubt on his honesty in claiming that his C-484 has nothing to do with abortion. But let's take the analysis a step further and grant Epp his own claim for now.

After all, since there's currently no outstanding legal conflict involving abortion, the only way it figures to find its way in front of the Supreme Court of Canada is if new legislation is passed in the meantime. If Epp is right in claiming that C-484 doesn't actually involve abortion, then what do he and the Cons know about other plans for legislation that would bring the issue back before the courts?