Friday Afternoon Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Jennifer Sandlin discusses a new analysis showing how COVID-19 infections lead to numerous other types of infectious diseases, while Devika Rao writes about the medical recognition that they may also increase the risk of cancers. And Sam Wollaston offers Natacha Gray's account of the realities of life with long COVID. 

- Meanwhile, Andre Picard writes about a new report warning that we don't appear to have learned much about public health responses from COVID. And Luke Andrews reports on expert warnings that the CDC is flying blind in failing to work on testing as a dangerous bird flu spreads. 

- Danyaal Raza discusses a new World Health Organization report finding that corporate greed is the direct cause of millions of preventable deaths annually. Jessica Ray takes note of the ubiquity of "forever chemicals" in U.S. drinking water - as well as the lack of any apparent plan to address it other than telling people to filter their own water. And Beatrice Olivastri, Fe de Leon and Laura Bowman question why the Libs are dismantling a planned pesticide monitoring program. 

- David Macdonald and Jon Milton point out that contrary to the contrived outrage of the Cons and their corporate puppeteers, Canada's last increase in capital gains inclusion rates was followed by a doubling of investment. And Macdonald discusses the fundamental unfairness of giving capital returns any preferential treatment over wages. 

- Finally, Robert Reich writes that Joe Biden should welcome the hatred of plutocrats who think they're entitled to have government used as an instrument to further their already-unconscionable wealth and power. And the Saskatchewan Chamber of Commerce's child labour plans provide just one example of the type of anti-social position people will be happy to reject. 

On delayed releases

I'll have plenty to catch up on over the next few days. But I'll start by pointing out the background behind what's become one of the most-discussed stories of the past week on the Saskatchewan political scene.

It's well and good that we've eventually learned the results of the report from the Saskatchewan Chamber of Commerce and SaskFilm showing just how much return we get from investing in the film industry.

But a week ago, that report was still being hidden from public view by the parties who commissioned it. And it took a public challenge from NDP MLA Danielle Chartier to both determine who had the authority to release the report, and make sure that the facts were eventually made public - notwithstanding that the contents were apparently known to the government a month earlier:

Culture Minister Kevin Doherty said the study, which was commissioned by the Saskatchewan Chamber of Commerce and Sask-Film, was presented to him about a month ago during a meeting that also included representation from the Saskatchewan Motion Picture Industry Association.

"What the report shows is that there is an economic benefit to the province of Saskatchewan from the film industry," Doherty told reporters on Monday at the Legislative Building after question period, during which the issue was raised by NDP culture critic Danielle Chartier.

Chartier said she has heard the study shows the net cost to taxpayers from the old refundable film employment tax credit was less than the $1 million per year budgeted by the government for its new, non-refundable replacement.

And that sequence of events raises more than a few questions. For example, would we ever have heard about the actual costs of the Sask Party's decision if Chartier hadn't heard about - and raised - the issue? Why did the parties who commissioned the report choose not to let the public in on a matter of public concern? And how much more information about the negative effects of Saskatchewan Party policies is being similarly withheld from the public?

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Christopher Michael points out the real problem underlying the News of the World's scandalous demise:

The Sun is either clairvoyant at predicting the results of British elections, or instrumental in determining them. It has supported the winning side ever since Margaret Thatcher's victory in 1979. Politicians quickly internalized the idea that you needed Mr. Murdoch on side to win, and lived in fear that The Sun would unleash its worst. Tony Blair quietly flew to Australia in 1995 to court him. The morning after Mr. Cameron became Prime Minster, Mr. Murdoch was seen leaving 10 Downing St. by the back door; former NOTW editor Andy Coulson (arrested Friday) was already on board as Mr. Cameron’s head of PR. Mrs. Thatcher spent Christmases with Mr. Murdoch, yet failed to mention him in her autobiography. As Marina Hyde wrote in the Guardian, “Like Voldemort, he must not be named.”

After The Sun helped sweep Mr. Blair to power in 1997, the Labour PM loosened the UK’s restrictions on foreign media ownership. Indeed, Mr. Murdoch’s shuttering of NOTW was likely calculated to smooth the way for his purchase of a majority stake in the huge British satellite broadcaster BSkyB, which would centralize even more media power in his hands.

Thanks to the scandal, the BSkyB deal may no longer happen. If so, we should all be grateful. Mr. Murdoch’s suffocating influence in Britain has been grossly undemocratic, and deserves to be punctured. From this strange and lurid story of a great democracy brought temporarily low, Canadians can learn a powerful lesson: Keep media ownership as diffusely concentrated as possible, and never be afraid to speak anyone’s name.

- Meanwhile, the current public debate over the ownership and regulation of vital communication tools looks to be getting more interesting by the day, as the CP and Michael Geist summarize the day's CRTC Internet regulation proceedings.

- Murray Mandryk is the latest to point out that the track Saskatchewan is on seems to be leaving mere workers behind while having no particular direction for the future:

If we are "on track", then we also are spinning our wheels in a bit of a rut. And it comes at a time when higher oil prices suggest we should be less vulnerable to such economic problems. After all, Alberta is recovering as well. It's also important to note that some of the biggest losses in June were in construction (3,000 jobs), where Premier Brad Wall's government changed labour legislation last year under the notion we needed more flexibility to meet the boom.

If Saskatchewan is "on track" shouldn't we be seeing signs our economy is less vulnerable to the whims of the resource sector? Shouldn't we be seeing more signs of economic transformation? And with a looming debt default crisis in the U.S. threatening to send the world economy into another recession, how stable is our resource-based economy?

- Finally, Angus Reid provides the latest edition of "Stephen Harper has turned Canada into a more Conservative country!!!" by pointing out that public attitudes toward the Senate are moving toward both abolition over election, and holding a referendum rather than having Harper alone dictate the future of the Senate. [Update: Apparently the Globe and Mail's snark detector is broken.]

New column day

Here, on the Saskatchewan Chamber of Commerce's distraction tactics for this fall's provincial election.

For more reading...
- A couple of greatest hits from the Saskatchewan Chamber of Commerce in its complete neutrality and altruism, including its later-denied cheerleading for nuclear power, and its regular efforts to push the Regina Chamber's proposal to dedicate every single dime of interest savings to a business-friendly property tax cut.
- While I don't always agree with the Canada West Foundation, its review of the possibilities for Alberta's provincial resource fund would seem equally applicable to Saskatchewan.
- And finally, there's CUPE's Imagine What We Could Do blog, with plenty of ideas as to the possibilities open to Saskatchewan if it does look to the longer term.

Debunking in progress

So apparently somebody actually thought to test the incessantly-repeated right-wing mantra that any taxes whatsoever are incompatible with economic growth. And not surprisingly, the results utterly demolish the oft-repeated canard that tax slashing does anything at all to improve economic conditions:

What is more important than the level of the tax ratio is what actually happens to the taxes and contributions. It will make a difference whether the money is invested in education, training and research or whether it goes to military intervention abroad. And it will of course make a difference in terms of economic growth whether a state is organised in an efficient manner or whether public resources are just wasted.
...
This study is intended to contribute to a more objective discussion on the issue of the tax ratios. There is no empirical evidence that increasing the tax ratio would hinder economic growth, and claiming such a thing over and over again is not helpful at all. It would be more sensible to ask the following questions: How are the taxes and contributions used? Are they administrated in an efficient manner? Are they used on purposes that generate growth? These factors are much more relevant for growth than the tax ratio as such.

But of course, we shouldn't kid ourselves into thinking that mere facts will turn the tide.

Indeed, just today Bruce Johnstone - in the face of an equally obvious lack of evidence - is parroting the Saskatchewan Chamber of Commerce's corporate giveaway message without paying the slightest bit of attention to whether and how tax rates actually affect "competitiveness". And it'll take a concerted effort to point out that the demands for corporate and upper-class tax cuts are aimed solely at elite self-interest rather than any positive economic effect in order to focus attention on the priorities that actually deserve it.

Suddenly it all makes sense

No wonder the Sask Party was almost completely devoid of resolutions at its convention this year. Instead of wasting any time on a "party" which doesn't serve as much beyond a public relations department, the Sask Party's corporate base apparently saved its plans for the organization that'll ultimately make the province's decisions as long as the Wall government is in power.

And particularly given the Sask Party's track record of leaving no promise unbroken and no reality undenied in order to give big business what it wants, it's certainly worth wondering exactly how long it'll take for the Saskatchewan Chamber of Commerce's plans to become the law of the land if Wall stays in office past next year.

On cowardice

Leftdog has already pointed out the Sask Party's declaration that simply have to try to push the HST onto Saskatchewan. And not surprisingly, I'll have plenty more to say on the topic - particularly after the Wall government's ideological cousins in the B.C. Lib government imposed the tax shift onto citizens after running a campaign where they similarly claimed they didn't have any plans to do so.

But for now, let's note one other interesting aspect of Gantefoer's handling of the issue, as both before and after Gantefoer's backtracking he's basically said that he wants corporate Saskatchewan to push the issue so the government won't have to:

Gantefoer said in a Friday morning speech in Saskatoon that he’d welcome that debate.
...
“I think there should be a good and wholesome debate in Saskatchewan beginning now if the business community sees fit that that is appropriate. I expect and would welcome the debate going into the next election.”

The finance minister stopped at the Saskatoon Inn to sell his budget to the business community. He spoke about reducing spending, growing Saskatchewan exports to Asian economies and maintaining investments in post-secondary education.

Later on Friday, Gantefoer's office sent out a media release that said, "business groups and other may have this debate" but the government's opposition to HST remains unchanged.

In effect, Gantefoer's position looks to be a twisted version of FDR's "I agree with you. I want to do it. Now make me do it." response to activists within his own party. But there's one key difference, being that he isn't honest enough to say he agrees with the HST in principle since he doesn't want to wear the political cost of that position.

And it'll be a surprise if at least some of the business community doesn't take up the invitation and try to force the issue - presumably with plenty of cheerleading from the province's corporate media. See for example Bruce Johnstone's delightful new argument that we should assume based on zero evidence that Manitoba will suddenly reverse course, leaving Saskatchewan as the lone non-harmonized province.

But there's good news in the fact that the Sask Party wants to let big business do the actual work in selling the HST. After all, the Wall government tried the same strategy when it came to nuclear power, and was forced to back down once it realized that it's people rather than dollars who ultimately get their say at the polls. And hopefully Gantefoer's obvious fear of letting any positive comment about the HST stand will help to make sure we don't waste too much time on the subject.

On qualifiers

It isn't just the Sask Party government which is having to backtrack on its pro-nuclear jingoism, as even the Saskatchewan Chamber of Commerce is now trying to pretend that its constant stream of pro-reactor messages was always subject to concern about the cost involved:

The Chamber believes uranium development can be a major contributor to helping our province achieve its long-hoped-for potential. However, development in any business has to be economic, and that has always be the key qualifier of our support.

So let's take a look at the Chamber's helpful set of nuclear industry talking points masquerading as an FAQ (warning: PDF) to see how careful they've been to suggest that cost might be a problem:

Nuclear power is cost competitive with other forms of electricity generation. Nuclear energy is competitive with fossil fuel for electricity generation, despite relatively high capital costs and the need to internalize all waste disposal and decommissioning costs. If the social, health and environmental costs of fossil fuels are taken into account, nuclear is outstanding...(W)hen all of these issues are given careful consideration, nuclear energy still costs considerably less than renewable energy...Other drivers of this resurgent interest in nuclear energy include: the growing global demand for electricity; nuclear power’s cost competitiveness over the full life cycle...Nuclear power is cost competitive with other forms of electricity generation, except where there is direct access to low-cost fossil fuels.

Now, am I the only one seeing a lot of "nuclear = cheap!!!" to go with the Chamber's general "nuclear = magic rainbow sparkle ponies!!!" PR campaign, rather than any actual recognition that costs might offer some reason to qualify its cheerleading?

Update: In fairness, it's worth noting that the Chamber of Commerce's FAQ does mention the possibility of cost overruns - but not as a reason to avoid building the reactor which might give rise to them:

WOULD THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT NEED TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE COST OF BUILDING THE POWER PLANT?

Capital cost overruns and schedule delays are key risks in any new nuclear build project, and they would need to be carefully mitigated in the project development process. To date, the cumulative risks of a new nuclear build have been too large for the private sector to bear alone and governments have played some form of facilitation in the implementation of nuclear power projects in all jurisdictions.
...
WHAT TYPE OF COST OVERRUNS HAVE BEEN EXPERIENCED BY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT BUILDERS?

Historically, the requirement for significant upfront capital investment, the long development timelines, and the uncertainties of licensing and cost overruns have resulted in the need for cooperation between public and private sector players to ensure nuclear new build projects are successfully executed. The most important roles of government are to provide strong and effective regulation of the nuclear power industry to ensure public safety and to provide policy stability to allow efficient licensing, construction, and operation.

Saskatchewan could reduce licensing and first-of-a-kind risks by drawing on the recent experiences of other Canadian provinces that have developed nuclear generation capacity.

So contrary to McLellan's message now, the Chamber's position hasn't been "build nuclear only if we determine that it's cheap", but "build nuclear because we believe it's cheap - and if we're wrong, we can skip over regulatory steps and stick the public with any remaining bill".

On closed minds

Shorter corporate Saskatchewan on the province's overwhelming rejection of nuclear development through the UDP consultation process:

If the lowly general public has the nerve to disagree with what we've heard in our well-sealed echo chamber, that just proves that it isn't worth listening to.

On sideshows

Shorter Saskatchewan Chamber of Commerce, which is now apparently criticizing the Sask Party's consultation process for the fact that anti-nuclear voices aren't being shut out as they were from the UDP:

We're all about the "informed debate", as long as that means everybody mindlessly reciting our talking points.

Update: And it's particularly worth noting the different reasons for concern about the consultation process presented in the article. Clean Green Saskatchewan is rightly worried that the perspectives offered at the consultation meetings won't be heard - making for a stark contrast with the Chamber of Commerce, which apparently figures that if Bruce Power has nice things to say about its own proposal, then there's no reason why the mere citizens of Saskatchewan should have any say in the matter.