More On Freelands's Double-Speak

Recently, I wrote a post about CETA, the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement; part of it examined the double-speak of Chrystia Freeland when she talked about both the protection of investor rights and the benefits of the deal that will redound to Canada. To me, the two are mutually incompatible, especially since the former allows for the virtual abrogation of our sovereignty rights over any issue that could adversely affect corporate profits.

Reading this morning's Star, I was glad to see that others are rightfully suspicious of our International Trade Minister's claims. Here is what reader Mary Crosato of Burlington had to say:

Re: Canada-EU trade deal could take effect in 2017, March 1

International Trade Minister Chrystia Freeland says, “This is a gold-plated deal. It’s going to bring tremendous benefits to Canada.”

Please show us in black and white what benefits Canadians will receive from this agreement. What manufactured goods are we going to be exporting to create more jobs here, in our country? Are we just going to keep importing substandard products and clothing, some of which are made by underaged children in Third World countries?

We must start taxing companies that choose to manufacture goods offshore and continue making billions of dollars to increase their bottom line. We have to create a level playing field for companies that want to manufacture in Canada.

I hope Ms Freeland will not be bullied into accepting any agreement that is not fair or beneficial to Canadians.

I'm not so sure it is bullying that we have to worry about so much as the seduction of Ms. Freeland by the siren call of neoliberalism.

Looking In The Mirror

A recent Toronto Star piece about climate change chose to explore, not the well-known physical peril it poses, but rather the mental one. Citing a 2012 report from the U.S. National Wildlife Federation, it offered the following grim predictions:

... cases of mental and social disorders will rise steeply as the signs of climate change become clearer and more frequent, and as more people are directly affected by heat waves, drought and other extreme events that put pressure on clean water resources, food prices and public infrastructure.

“These will include depressive and anxiety disorders, post-traumatic stress disorders, substance abuse, suicides and widespread outbreaks of violence,” predicted the report. It singled out children, the poor, the elderly and those with existing mental health problems as those likely to be hardest hit.

It is an article well-worth reading in its entirety.

In today's Star, readers respond to it with their usual perspicacity. While I reproduce only a few below, all are worth reading:

Thanks to David Ouchterlony for expressing what many of us must feel about the lack of concern over climate change. I find my sense of hopelessness and despair is directly related to my increase in knowledge of our situation.

I refuse, however, to buffer my mental well being by “disengaging” my concern over the future of our planet. I do not know what type of a catastrophe it will take to bring climate “delayers” and “deniers” into acceptance of the dire situation all living creatures now face, but I know I must continue to try. For me, inaction will only increase my anxiety.

We must all confront this issue now before it is too late, and perhaps in numbers we can create the political will to mitigate this disaster.

Sue Braiden, Erin

I am sure I am not alone in having suffered from environmental anxiety since I was a teenager in the 1960s, when the Cuyahoga River caught fire, among other unbelievable events. In my 50 years of adulthood I have watched humans double and triple our world population, dump toxins and plastics into the air and water, pave everything around major cities, deplete animals and plants, and generally behave badly as citizens of the world.

We don’t seem to be able to stop ruining everything, despite both evidence and predictions. We seem to think Mars is the more beautiful planet, which Earth should emulate.

Martha Gould, North Bay

Climate change is destroying our coastal cities, causing unprecedented chaotic floods and now we are learning how this is wreaking havoc on our mental health. This mounting evidence should be a wake-up call.

However, the wealth of evidence that environmental change is caused by global “greed versus need” does not seem to have resulted in drastic changes that each of us are called upon to make – urgently.

Are we pushing our governments, and especially ourselves, to take tough measures to counter climate change and save planet Earth?

Rudy Fernandes, Mississauga

No government can fix global warming and stay popular, but we Canadians can reduce our CO2 emissions by burning less gas, eating less meat, and turning off the heat and lights when we’re out. If we each do our part, there’s no need for despair. Everything will cost a bit more, but not as much as doing nothing.

Canada should lead, not wait for Americans to change their thinking.

Simon Leigh, Toronto

As the letter-writers make abundantly clear, we all have a responsibility here, both in the creation of the catastrophe, and in the measures that must be taken to mitigate it. The ball is indeed in our collective court.

Apparently, Size Does Matter

Given its increasing preoccupation with boyish concerns, the Republican 'presidential' debates are turning out to be anything but magisterial. With a persona carried over from his reality show, Donald Trump is apparently managing to convince a lot of people that it would be great fun to have a president who would be their own 24-hour-a-day, 365-days-a-year reality program. And in what I imagine reality shows demand (I'm sorry, but I am not an aficionado of the genre), at least a soupçon of vulgarity is de rigueur:



Clearly, he represents a bargain for the American public: demagoguery, mockery, and an opportunity to "make America great again."

Not to be outdone on the size front, a stout proponent of states' rights, Tennessee, has adopted this as its 'official state rifle':

The Barrett .50 caliber rifle is a powerful gun. Widely used in the military, its rounds can "penetrate light armor, down helicopters, destroy commercial aircraft, and blast through rail cars".

At least now we know that both nationally and statewide, size does indeed matter.

Don't Confuse Me With Facts

That does seem to be the attitude of Mr. Trump's ardent supporters, doesn't it?

A Bold Experiment Or A Necessary Support?

The concept of a guaranteed annual income just won't go away. It is regarded by some as an effective way of addressing the increasingly wide disparities afflicting our society, and reviled by others as an affront to individualism and a disincentive to work. I fall into the former camp, and empirical evidence appears to be on my side.

Here is a brief backgrounder:



A certain momentum seems to be building. Senator Art Eggleton, for example, is calling upon the federal government to initiate a pilot program:

“Quite frankly, the social welfare system that we have throughout this country, mainly run by provinces, it’s just not working,” said Eggleton. “We have one in seven people living in poverty in this country. That’s a shameful thing in a country as rich as Canada.”

Instead of pouring billions into a system that doesn’t help lift people out of poverty, he said, “I think it’s time to try a new approach. And I think a basic income could be that approach.”

There is interest in other jurisdictions as well. Quebec is onboard with the idea, and Ontario has announced plans for a pilot project, the details of which are yet to come.

A recent opinion piece written by Laura Anderson and Dr. Danielle Martin argues that considering the many possible positive outcomes, such a pilot program needs to be designed carefully. A past flirtation with the idea can be instructive.

Labour market outcomes were a major consideration in the 1970's Dauphin, Manitoba experiment with a guaranteed annual income. No one wants a plan that discourages people from working. Anderson and Martin point out that the Dauphin experiment did not discourage participation, with but two exceptions:

The first was women with infants at home, who effectively used the BIG [basic income guarantee] to purchase maternity leave. We should expect a different response from women in modern-day Canada, where maternity leave benefits are much more extensive. But where child care and other supports for working parents are insufficient, we may see responses to a BIG that will show us those cracks in the system.

The other group whose employment levels decreased under Mincome was teenage boys. A closer look reveals that with a basic income guarantee, male high school students were more likely to make the decision to stay in school until graduation. Given the Ontario government’s aim of increasing graduation rates and the need for a highly educated population, it will be important to understand how people’s labour market decisions interact with other important choices.

Perhaps the biggest changes that would come with the elimination of poverty are to be found in healthcare outcomes:

Poverty is the biggest determinant of health. As such, we should expect to see significant improvements in health among recipients of a basic income. For example, the Mincome data showed that under a BIG, hospital visits dropped by 8.5 per cent. This included fewer emergency room visits from car crashes and domestic abuse, and fewer mental health visits. In Ontario today, these indicators along with others — such as low birth weight, avoidable hospitalizations, and health system expenditures — are already measured, and a close look at the impact of a BIG on those metrics must be included in a basic income pilot.

The connection between poverty and poor health worldwide is a well-established one. Impediments such as low education levels, poor diets, smoking and sporadic contact with healthcare providers are all factors contributing to this relationship, a fact brought home recently by The Hamilton Spectator's Steve Buist:

An analysis of provincial data shows cancer in patients from poorer parts of Hamilton is more advanced by the time the disease is detected. The findings raise questions about access to health care, patient education, screening programs and the gap between rich and poor.

The statistics are telling:

The Spectator's data analysis shows that the lower part of the former City of Hamilton had 20 per cent more diagnoses than would be expected based on population.

Meanwhile, the five suburbs of Stoney Creek, Ancaster, Dundas, Flamborough and Glanbrook had about 12 per cent fewer Stage IV cancers than would be expected based on population.

The reason for this disparity is not hard to fathom. Says lung cancer specialist Dr. Peter Ellis:

"We know in general that people who come from lower socioeconomic backgrounds have delayed access to health care," said Ellis. "These people tend to delay seeing a doctor, they don't necessarily understand some of the symptoms they see, they may be less inclined to undertake screening behaviour.

"If you don't necessarily have access to a family doctor, if your way of dealing with problems is to present to the emergency department or some sort of urgent care — which certainly happens more in those lower socioeconomic areas — then you're not going to get the continuity of care.

While a guaranteed annual income would hardly be an instant panacea, over time, as evidenced by the Dauphin data, improvements in a variety of outcomes would, it appears, be inevitable. All that is missing so far is a consistent political will.

Can our 'leaders' rise to the occasion?

His Master's Voice

Readers of a certain vintage will remember the old RCA Victor logo, "His Master's Voice," shown above. It depicts a loyal dog dutifully listening to what he believes is that actual voice, although it is emanating from a facsimile, i.e., a record. I couldn't help but think of that ad as I saw this picture:



I believe that Mr. Christie has fooled himself into thinking he is hearing the real Donald Trump, now his master, but like the RCA logo, he is being misled. And he is paying a heavy price.

The New York Times has had a field day reporting on the reactions Christie's servility is provoking:

Six New Jersey newspapers issued a joint editorial calling for Mr. Christie’s resignation on Tuesday, an extraordinary show of disgust on the same day that the publisher of a major newspaper in New Hampshire took the unusual (and seemingly unnecessary) step of rescinding its previous pledge of support for him as a presidential candidate.

“Boy, were we wrong,” read the scalding essay in The New Hampshire Union Leader, which lamented that “rather than stand up to the bully, Christie bent his knee” to Mr. Trump.

Ridicule is pervasive, with the NYT dismissing him as just an overgrown 'fanboy.' But that seems mild compared to some of the pictures making the Internet rounds:

Digitally altered images rendered Mr. Christie as a docile doorman at Trump Tower and compared him, uncharitably, to a panting dog standing beside its master.

From my perspective, however, this non-altered image says it all:

Christie's self-debasement is without doubt motivated by an overweening desire to be selected as Trump's running mate; however, my belief is that Trump is merely providing a platform for the New Jersey governor to 'show his stuff' and attract more mainstream Republicans to his side. After that is accomplished, Mr. Christie will likely find himself meeting the same fate as so many others did on the show that made the short-fingered vulgarian such a household name, The Apprentice:



Probably a fitting fate for a man who has reminded all of us that politics is the world's second-oldest profession.

A Note Of Thanks To The Europeans

When I think about him at all, and it is admittedly only rarely, I imagine that Stephen Harper is spending some angry days and nights, probably silently seething. Not only is much of his 'legacy' being systematically dismantled by the new Trudeau government, but it seems that some of his much-cherished beliefs and passions are under attack from an unlikely source, the European Union.

Stephen Harper, I suspect, never met a trade deal he didn't like; the extollment of the corporate agenda through trade deals was and is something very close to his heart, certainly much closer than any concerns about loss of national sovereignty through investment dispute settlement mechanisms. His enthusiastic embrace of CETA, the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, provides perhaps one of the best windows into his dark soul, inasmuch as it would further erode signatory countries' abilities to pass, for example, environmental legislation that would result in a loss of corporate profits.

Like his predecessor, Justin Trudeau seems to have a Pavlovian fondness for trade deals, evidenced by his enthusiastic support for CETA, even when he was in opposition. He cannot be looked to for national salvation. However, a ray of hope has emerged from European countries to be affected by CETA. Always seemingly more aware of, engaged in and vocal about democratic threats, critics on the Continent have forced a revision of the investment dispute settlement system:

CETA establishes a permanent Tribunal of fifteen Members which will be competent to hear claims for violation of the investment protection standards established in the agreement. The Members of the Tribunal competent to hear investment disputes will be appointed by the EU and Canada and will be highly qualified and beyond reproach in terms of ethics. Divisions of the Tribunal consisting of three Members will hear each particular case. The CETA text now follows the EU's new approach as set out in the recently concluded EU-Vietnam FTA and the EU’s TTIP proposal.

The above represents a departure from what had been originally intended. Writes Thomas Walkom that in Europe,

politicians and interest groups were horrified by the idea of a trade regime that would allow foreign companies to override domestic environmental, animal welfare or labour laws.

Under intense political pressure at home, the European side forced Canada to renegotiate a controversial part of the agreement that would allow private firms to challenge and ultimately strike down laws that might interfere with profit-making.

Under the renegotiated terms, companies would still have this right. But the adjudicators who heard such cases would not be chosen, as originally envisioned, by the disputants. Instead they would come from a 15-member permanent trade tribunal appointed by governments.

There would also be a right of appeal. As well, the renegotiated text gives more leeway to governments to regulate in the public interest.

While a definite improvement, it may be far less than the gold-plated trade deal claimed by International Trade Minister Chrystia Freeland, who proudly announced

that some amendments have been made to a controversial investment protection clause which had become a sticking point in negotiations between the two countries.

"I'm absolutely confident that Canadian investors and Canadian businesses will have their rights fully protected in this agreement," Freeland said.

What she fails to mention, of course, is that those same protections will be accorded to all the signatories, meaning that the often-litigious corporate world will still enjoy many field days either eroding our sovereign legislation or being paid billions in compensation.

Freeland's press conference, if you have four minutes to watch, seems, through my layman's eyes, to be an exercise in double-speak:



One, I believe, can honestly ask whether her claims of sovereignty protection and investor-rights protection aren't a tad contradictory.

It appears that Maude Barlow sees through this charade:

Not only do the proposed changes fail to address concerns about the investor-state provisions, they actually make them worse. The reforms enshrine extra rights for foreign investors that everyone else -- including domestic investors -- don't have. They allow foreign corporations to circumvent a country's own courts, giving them special status to challenge laws that apply equally to everyone through a court system exclusively for their use.

Even to call the new arbitrators "judges" is a misnomer, as these tribunals will not be taking into account environmental protection, human rights or other non-corporate considerations that a regular judge usually has to balance.

No doubt, our new government is counting on continued apathy and ignorance about this deal. A truly informed electorate, in my view, would never sanction it.