Time To Reject Magical Thinking

Canadians, along with the West in general, have been fed a neoliberal diet of propaganda and policy for so long that far too many have succumbed to magical thinking, the belief that we can have it all with only minimal pain, the later in the form of low taxation rates. A steady barrage of government waste stories, coupled with the extolment of the individualist giants who walk among us, all, as the mythology goes, self-made men and women, has created the unfortunate but quite intentional effect of equating taxation with government theft of its citizenry.

All of which, of course, is arrant nonsense.

As my friend Dom says about capitalist titans who 'made it on their own,' "Oh, and did they build their owns roads? Were they educated by universities they built? Did they personally educate their skilled employees?

And as one of our finest Canadian thinkers, Alex Himelfarb, has repeatedly asserted, the concept of taxation is not a profanity but an absolutely integral part of a fair, just and balanced democracy. If you haven't read or heard him, be sure to check out my blog links to some of his work.

There is no substitute for critical thinking about such matters, but the cost of riding the low-tax bandwagon can be very high, as this Star letter writer reminds us:

What do Montreal sewage, the Gardiner expressway, the Lac-Mégantic derailment and Walkerton water have in common?

They are the legacy of cynical politicians elected by gullible voters. For decades, the likes of Mike Harris, Rob Ford and Stephen Harper have peddled the Thatcher-Reagan lie that government budgets can be pared without limit until we all live tax-free in Eden North and the wealth trickles down for the good of all.

The troublesome truth is, no matter what book-keeping tricks we use, public debts inevitably come due in the form of failed infrastructure, lowered quality of life, disease and death.

Perhaps the most heartening implication of the Harper Party’s ouster is that most voters now accept that there is a price for being Canadian – one that is well worth paying for the privilege of living in what is still one of the best countries on earth.

Paul Collier, Toronto

If You Had Any Doubts About The RCMP...

Look no further for confirmation of the federal force's politicization than a piece written by that 'environmental extremist' David Suzuki in the Chronicle Herald.

In the article, Suzuki makes reference to the secret RCMP report, obtained by Greenpeace, that

both minimizes the threat of global warming and conjures a spectre of threats posed by people who rightly call for sanity in dealing with problems caused by burning fossil fuels.

The report echoes the kind of fraught language of Bill C-51, which many allege will intrude upon legitimate dissent, given its own worrisome authorization of CSIS

to prevent any person or group from “undermining the security of Canada,” including “interference with critical infrastructure” and the “economic or financial stability of Canada.”

Note the language of the RCMP report (I have italicized key words):

The RCMP report specifically names Greenpeace, Tides Canada and the Sierra Club as part of “a growing, highly organized and well-financed anti-Canada petroleum movement that consists of peaceful activists, militants and violent extremists who are opposed to society’s reliance on fossil fuels.” The report downplays climate change, calling it a “perceived environmental threat” and saying members of the “international anti-Canadian petroleum movement claim that climate change is now the most serious global environmental threat and that climate change is a direct consequence of elevated anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions which, reportedly, are directly linked to the continued use of fossil fuels.” It also makes numerous references to anti-petroleum and indigenous “extremists”.

One can legitimately ask whether the obvious editorializing in the report is appropriate. As well, one can wonder whether it is mere coincidence that its language of doubt echoes the obdurate climate-change skepticism of the Harper government.

Language in the RCMP report and Bill C-51 leaves open the possibility that the act and increased police and CSIS powers could be used against First Nations and environmentalists engaging in non-violent protests against pipelines or other environmentally destructive projects.

As University of Ottawa law professor Craig Forcese points out, with its reference to “foreign-influenced activities within or relating to Canada that are detrimental to the interests of Canada,” the anti-terrorism law could be used in the case of a “foreign environmental foundation funding a Canadian environmental group’s secret efforts to plan a protest (done without proper permits) in opposition to the Keystone Pipeline Project.” Considering that government ministers have already characterized anti-pipeline protesters as “foreign-funded radicals”, that’s not a stretch. The RCMP could consider my strong support for greenhouse gas emissions reductions and renewable energy as “anti-petroleum”.

None of this is really either shocking or new to those of us who have followed the machinations of the Harper regime over the years. Harper's intolerance of dissenting views, his contempt for democratic principles, and his 'narrowcasting' of policy are all of a piece with the provisions of Bill C-51 and are amply reflected in the doctrinal orientation of our national police force.

We only have one more chance to put Canada on a more balanced keel, and that chance comes in October.

Justin's Secrecy

There will always be those unable to see beyond the obvious when it comes to Justin Trudeau. His sunny smile, his platitudinous assurances that we can have our pipelines and climate change remediation simultaneously, and his opaque insistence upon the necessity of an Infrastructure Bank seem to carry the day for some, apparently happy to suspend whatever critical-thinking capacities they may possess.

Unfortunately, this blanket belief in Trudeau's sincerity means that his neoliberal agenda is being under-scrutinized by the public. One of its most egregious manifestations is the secrecy around which the government has hired consultants to study the deliverance of our airports to private interests.

H/t trapdinawrpool for his twitter alert about the following:

A secretive project to generate billions of dollars from the sale of major Canadian airports is pushing ahead with the hiring of consultant firm PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC).

The firm is to "act as a commercial adviser assisting with additional analytical work with respect to advancing a new governance framework for one or more Canadian airports."

The shield of secrecy was peeled back only due to a freedom-of-information request from the CBC, coupled with some stellar sleuthing. The very fact that this project was withheld from public eyes is the first red flag.

But wait! There's more!

The new contract follows a report delivered last fall by Credit Suisse Canada on how Ottawa might gain billion-dollar windfalls through the sale of its interests in Canada's Big Eight airports and 18 smaller airports. The eight are in Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, Calgary, Edmonton, Ottawa, Winnipeg and Halifax.

Credit Suisse was hired by CDEV, [Canada Development Investment Corp.] acting on behalf of Finance Canada, in a contract announced in a terse two-sentence release on Sept. 12.

The Crown corporation and Finance have since refused to release the Credit Suisse report, the contract terms or even the cost to taxpayers, despite requests by an opposition MP and by journalists.

And, again typical of the neoliberal orientation, private entities were given veto power over the release of information:

... the contracts with Credit Suisse and PwC contain clauses that give the firms vetoes over the public release of any information, including the cost of the work.

Why should any of us be bothered by any of this? There are many reasons, but Craig Richmond, the president and CEO of the Vancouver Airport Authority, recently addressed one of them when he said,

... prices for airlines and passengers would only increase as for-profit entities seek to make back their investments.

[He understands] the attraction of a one-time big profit for Ottawa, but "that's like selling the furniture in your house to cover your credit card debts."

Mr. Trudeau's government euphemistically refers to this whole process as "asset recycling." Those less enamoured of the Prime Minister and his band of sunny men and women, I suspect, would call it something else entirely.

The Canadian Wealth Gap - Far Worse Than Most Think

We hear a great deal about the giants who walk among us - the Canadian masters and mistresses of the universe, all those 'self-made' men and women who accomplished their feats thanks to daring, sheer hard work, and exclusive reliance on their own resources. They didn't ask for any 'handouts.'

You know who they are, the same ones who suffer a convenient amnesia about how their rise to the top was greatly facilitated by education at taxpayer-funded public institutions, government grants and loans, and access to public infrastructure and skilled workers without which they would have likely achieved little.

I'm sure those same people will dismiss the following as leftist propaganda.

The rest of us should receive it as disquieting truth.

Critical Thinking - Yes. Fear Mongering - No.

Last week I wrote a post critical of Rex Murphy's CBC opinion about how the Syrian refugee situation should be handled by Justin Trudeau. At first blush, his view that more time should be taken in admitting 25,000 to Canada seemed reasonable. However, digging beneath the surface of those comments, one could see that Rex was really trying to inject fear and suspicion of them into the equation. I ended the post by saying that the timelines for bringing the refugees to Canada are a fit topic for debate, but Rex's subtly subversive cant is not.

Always an advocate of critical thinking, I offer as a contrast some comments by the Star's Martin Regg Cohn, who, while questioning those very same timelines that Rex seemed to, does so in a forthright and responsible way, without resorting to the demagoguery that Murphy did. Whereas Murphy plays the fear card in urging a slowdown, Cohn argues that the evacuation of 25,000 refugees is quite doable, but having them all come here by the end of this year will put huge strains on the infrastructure needed to accomodate them:

Thanks to the prime minister’s gambit, the Ontario government is scrambling to find every square metre of provincially owned property that it can place at the disposal of refugees arriving in the December cold. That means a couple of recently decommissioned hospitals in the GTA, schools with space to spare and other safe havens that Infrastructure Ontario can ferret out from its portfolio of barren buildings across Ontario, according to a senior provincial source.

Cohn attributes political motivations to the rush:

Meeting the December deadline is about electoral credibility, not practicality.

Bluntly speaking, it’s an easy deliverable for a newly elected government trying to show its mastery of events during its first 100 days in power. The question isn’t whether it’s workable, but wise.

The above perspective certain offers a positive contribution to the debate, but Cohn also sharply distinguishes himself from xenophobes and fear mongers like Murphy with the following:

Much has been said about the need to delay resettlement in light of heightened security fears after the Paris terrorist attacks. The impulse is understandable but unfounded. To be clear, Canada is drawing upon a pool of the Middle East’s most vulnerable refugees — mostly women and children — who have been languishing in UN-vetted camps for years, not secretly infiltrating Europe’s porous borders.

The bigger uncertainty isn’t security but capacity — the exigencies of timing, the shortages of accommodation and the harshness of the Canadian climate in late December.

Responsible journalism versus cleverly-disguised prejudice. Sometimes they are not the easiest to distinguish.

A Tale of Intimidation At TransCanada Corporation

Despite the best efforts of the Harper government to make its own addiction to the fossil fuel agenda the Canadian people's as well, increasing numbers are voicing their concern and opposition to the expansion of the Alberta tarsands through new pipelines. And evidence is mounting that those concern are wholly justified and not simply the hysterical reaction of 'lefties, eco-terrorists and the enemies of growth' that the Harper cabal would have us believe.

The 1,047 pipeline incidents in Canada between 2000 and 2011, although only a small part of the tale, provide ample reason for that wariness and suspicion.

Now there is even more reason to worry. As reported in the Toronto Star, there has been an ongoing and concerted effort by TransCanada Corporation, the country's preeminent pipeline company, to silence employees raising safety concerns about the company’s existing and brand new North American pipeline infrastructure:

They include warnings on the original Keystone pipeline, plagued by at least 35 incidents in the U.S. and Canada since it launched commercial operations in June 2010, and they also raise questions about the company’s testing and welding procedures on its infrastructure in Ontario as well as other lines that have reported at least four separate ruptures and four separate leaks to the federal regulator, the National Energy Board, in recent months.

Records released by the Senate energy and environment committee show cases where engineers were told in internal emails to stop searching for potential pipeline defects.

Reminiscent of the O-ring alerts ignored prior to the doomed Challenger shuttle mission, the records tell a sordid but hardly surprising tale of corporate intimidation, suppression and termination. Only one target, engineer Evan Vokes, responded to Star requests for comment:

“Please stop the investigation you seem to be doing on your own,” wrote David Taylor, a TransCanada manager of materials and engineering, in a June 27, 2011, email to Vokes. “This discussion has been going on for over a month, you need to accept where we are and become aligned with where we are going as a company.”

Vokes, a man of obvious integrity, refused to heed the increasingly threatening tone of the emails, and he was ultimately fired in 2012 without cause after he informed the company he would complain to authorities. Before his termination, however, he did what any man of deep conscience would do. He persisted:

... a few months before he lost his job, Vokes sent out a written warning to managers about the dangers of allowing the installation of a pressure vessel — a pipeline component generally used in compressor stations — on a natural gas line serving the oilsands industry near Fort McMurray.

A few weeks earlier, his manager, David Taylor, warned Vokes that there could be consequences if he continued to critique safety oversight weaknesses of TransCanada operations.

Taylor had issued other warnings previously:

“Also there is no need to comment about other projects and infer that they did something wrong,” said Taylor in an email to Vokes on Aug. 10, 2009. “As we chatted on Friday those things can and generally do come back to haunt you down the road!”

You can read the full story of TranCanada's corporate malfeasance and how it thwarted the efforts of some of its other employees to promote greater safety by clicking on the Toronto Star link provided at the start of this post.

He Has A Nice Smile

That's the highest praise I can think to extend to young Justin Trudeau, who many see as the best hope of unseating Mr. Harper in 2015. For those who enthusiastically back the young Liberal leader, I can only wonder, to what end? Do they want someone more polite and amiable than Harper? Because that is one of the few differences I see in the man who would be Canada's next Prime Minister.

Trudeau's questions in the House of Commons fail to impress, bloated affairs with lengthy preambles that, when finished, leave one wanting. This in sharp contrast to the precise, laser-like questioning Mr. Harper has had to endure under Thomas Mulcair's Nigel Wright scandal questions, to which the Prime Minister has had to rely on repetitive non-answers that raise even more questions about his involvement in the Mike Duffy payoff.

Probably one of the greatest disappointments for those who look to Trudeau for salvation is his unreserved enthusiasm for the Keystone XL pipeline, evidenced in his address Thursday in Washington to a group largely opposed to it, the Centre for American Progress. Said Trudeau:

“I’m actually supportive of the Keystone pipeline because it’s an extremely important energy infrastructure piece for both of our countries.”

With maddeningly typical vagueness, he added,

“The challenge is to demonstrate that it can be done in the sense that we’re protecting our environment and making sure that we’re making the right gains toward sustainable energy sources in the long run”.

Like his platitudinous statements about the need to help the middle class, the above statement sounds good, but is decidedly lacking in any kind of detail that would give a serious thinker something to ponder.

Is Trudeau the Ted Baxter of politics? Who knows? But so far there is little to offer those seeking an alternative to Harper in the pronouncements of the lad who would be Prime Minister.

The following letter in today's Star from a Calgary reader addresses a key problem posed by Trudeau's leadership:

Justin Trudeau pitches Keystone to U.S. anti-oilsands crowd, Oct. 24

Justin Trudeau’s support for Keystone XL may elicit a handful of votes in Alberta, but at the cost of alienating many thousands of voters in the rest of Canada. Many Canadians, including some Albertans, recognize that Keystone XL is an economic disaster — never mind its environmental shortcomings and total failure to provide national energy security.

It’s a shame Trudeau doesn’t have the political smarts to understand that. He seems likable enough otherwise.

Federal and provincial Conservatives will attempt to reprise their usual electoral landslides in Alberta by selling the export of raw bitumen by foreign national oil companies and by foreign-owned multinationals at any cost to our economy and energy security. The NDP has already staked the moral high ground on Keystone XL, the west-east oil pipeline, national energy security, Canadian jobs and the environment.

So far, Trudeau has the Liberals positioned in a no man’s land in between, without a comprehensive plan or policy on the oilsands or a Canadian energy strategy. That makes it easy for Canadians, who will have only two serious parties and leaders to consider in the next federal election.

Mike Priaro, Calgary

Something Torrid This Way Comes

Unless you have been living under a rock (or more likely, the cool of your basement), you will know about the weather catastrophe occurring in the West, and, to a slightly lesser degree, in the East. People are dying at an unprecedented rate from the heat, and it is only going to get worse. As well, infrastructure that was built to cooler Canadian standards is buckling.

None of this bodes well for our future. To get a real sense of how dire things are, I would suggest you watch the following video from the beginning. If pressed for time, start at the five-minute mark and watch the two reports that ensue. 

At this late stage of things, the only real hope we have is in fortifying our infrastructure from the horrors to come, as the second of the two reports makes clear.

Put The Money Where It Will Do the Most Good

That's the advice of Dylan Marando, who, like many others, has come to the conclusion that tax breaks for the wealthy and corporations just means greater wealth accrual and dividend payouts, not job growth. The fact that corporations are currently sitting on over $500 billion is something no one should be proud of.

Mounting evidence demonstrates that measures like an increased minimum wage can be an effective means of boosting aggregate commercial activity, even when we take into account the potential negative effects on business investment.

A study from the National Bureau of Economic Research demonstrates the stimulative benefit of concentrating tax breaks on lower-income groups versus those in top income categories. The Reserve Bank of Australia and the Congressional Budget Office offer similarly encouraging analyses of low-income households’ marginal propensity to consume as the result of income shocks like tax cuts, rebates, or lump-sum transfers.

Despite the popular stereotype of the poor spending their money on alcohol and cigarettes, a study conducted last years suggests something quite different. Examining the Canadian Child Tax Benefit and the National Child Benefit, a group of Canadian economists found

that receipt of these programs coincides with increased expenditure on things like food, child care and education for low-income families, as well as large declines in alcohol and tobacco use in the all families sampled.

While hardly discounting big-spending items like infrastructure improvements to boost the economy, Marando suggests that perhaps the biggest stimulatory 'bang for the buck' may indeed lie in quieter, progressive improvements where they are needed most: the poor among us.

It may not be the message the business agenda wants us to hear, but perhaps it is time that we all thought outside the increasingly narrow and confining corporate box.

More Evidence That The Emperor Has No Clothes

The Mound notified me that he is having problems accessing his blog, and so directed me to the following story. Given the stellar job he has been doing on the climate file and other issues relating to the earth's viability, I know my post will be a mere shadow of the quality and depth he brings to bear, but here goes anyway.

The Guardian reports a truth about Justin Trudeau that his supporters are loathe to acknowledge: despite his election pledge, he is leading us farther away from any chance of meeting Canada's promised greenhouse gas emission reduction targets.

... Justin Trudeau’s newly re-elected government will decide whether to throw more fuel on the fires of climate change by giving the go-ahead to construction of the largest open-pit oil sands mine in Canadian history.

Approving Teck Resources’ Frontier mine would effectively signal Canada’s abandonment of its international climate goals. The mega mine would operate until 2067, adding a whopping 6 megatonnes of climate pollution every year. That’s on top of the increasing amount of carbon that Canada’s petroleum producers are already pumping out every year.

Approving Teck Resources’ Frontier mine would effectively signal Canada’s abandonment of its international climate goals. The mega mine would operate until 2067, adding a whopping 6 megatonnes of climate pollution every year. That’s on top of the increasing amount of carbon that Canada’s petroleum producers are already pumping out every year.

And despite Trudeau's repeated and lofty rhetoric about consulting Indigenous people, this project has grave implications for them:

The Teck mega mine would be on Dene and Cree territory, close to Indigenous communities. The area is home to one of the last free-roaming herds of wood bison, it’s along the migration route for the only wild population of endangered whooping cranes, and is just 30km from the boundary of Wood Buffalo national park – a Unesco world heritage site because of its cultural importance and biodiversity.

Most Canadians are aware of the filthy nature of tar sand development, but even if this project does not go ahead, much further damage is being planned:

Even without Teck Frontier, there are 131 megatonnes per year in approved tar sands projects just waiting for companies to begin construction. No wonder the industry is on track to take up 53% of Canada’s emissions budget within the next 10 years.

And the signs that Trudeau is giving little more than lip service to emission-reduction is becoming very evident:

Less than two months ago, two-thirds of Canadians voted for parties vowing to do more to fight climate change. Trudeau promised during the campaign to introduce legally binding targets for Canada to reach net zero emissions by 2050. But all the current national climate policies, including a carbon tax and coal phase-out, would be overwhelmed by this carbon juggernaut and Canada would radically fail to meet its climate commitments.

There are alternatives:

By rejecting the Teck mega mine, the Canadian government could signal that it is committed to stopping this runaway train. That it does represent the two-thirds of Canadians who voted for increased action against climate breakdown. It could launch a serious program to help the oil and gas workers of Alberta, the people who are out of work and need a future to believe in, by redirecting the many billions of dollars for pipelines and fossil fuel infrastructure into diversifying and decarbonizing Alberta’s economy.

In rejecting the Teck mega mine, Canada would be joining France, Costa Rica, New Zealand, Norway and recently California – all jurisdictions that have recently constrained expansion of oil and gas due to the urgent need to build cleaner safer energy systems and fight climate change.

Based on the Trudeau government's past performance, I would say the odds of the Teck project being approved are great. But I would very much welcome being proven wrong.

More On The Precariat

In yesterday's post, I wrote about Angel Reyes, the 61-year-old member of the precariat terminated from his five-year 'temp' job at a recycling company one week after speaking to The Star about his inability to secure a full-time designation for the work he was doing, which meant that he was paid minimum wage while those classified as permanent at the plant made much more.

Unfortunately, Reyes is but one of many unable to escape the cycle of poverty and uncertain work, a situation aided and abetted by provincial regulations that seem to pay obeisance to the business imperative, an imperative that enhances corporate profits while exploiting workers.

Consider these facts:

Ontario’s low-wage work force has skyrocketed by 94 percent over the past two decades, compared with just 30 percent growth in total employment, according to a new report.

It shows that 40 percent of low-wage employees are saddled with unpredictable shifts, and the overwhelming majority do not get paid when they need time off.

The report, compiled by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives,

shows that the share of Ontario workers labouring for the minimum wage is now five times higher than in 1997. It rose from less than 3 per cent of all employees to about 12 per cent in 2014.

The share of low-paid work has also ballooned: almost a third of all employees in the province are now making within $4 of the minimum wage, compared with less than 20 per cent of the workforce in 1997.

And while more than half of all minimum-wage workers are still young people, most of those making less than $15 an hour are 25 or older.

Add to that these sobering statistics:

50.5: Percentage of Ontario employees working less than 40 hours a week

29.4: Percentage of Ontario workers who are low-wage

6.7: Percentage of employees unionized in private-sector businesses with fewer than 20 people

23.7: Percentage of employees unionized in workplaces with 500 or more people

The human face is all-important in truly coming to grips with these statistics. Responding to the above are two Star readers:

Re: Ontario's ‘eye-popping' shift to low-wage work, June 15

This is the second article I’ve read recently about low-wage workers in Ontario becoming the norm. I’m one of those folks. I went from full-time decent pay to part time (15 hours a week) at barely more than minimum wage. Why? Downsizing, loss of work, poorly managed companies. Yet the upper executives and company owners suffering is little to non-existent.

And I have been doing all I can to change that in the last six years by taking college courses. Now, at 50, I feel stuck, marginalized and depressed that there is no way out.

I see my government care less for those who support the infrastructure and more for those in the 1 per cent. How do we fix this? I don’t know, but something needs to change and none of the parties seems to care or have a plan or even address this issue in meaningful ways.

Janet Swainston, Cambridge

Anyone even remotely surprised by the tone of this article clearly hasn’t been paying attention these last 20-odd years. Corporate taxes were slashed, ostensibly to increase profits and free up monies for research and more jobs. That didn’t happen. Jobs have been outsourced and wages have dwindled.

Companies now hire contract employees who are responsible for paying their own taxes, EI, etc. Their continued employment is subject to the whims of their employer.

This is all backed by complicit governments whose sole economic plan seems to be that if they cut corporate taxes it will trickle down to the citizenry.

Escalating corporate bonuses have put to rest the bromide that “when times get tight we must all tighten our belts.” Translation: “You tighten your belts while we loosen ours.”

John Dickie, Toronto

Corporate Philanthropy: The Art Of Misdirection

 

I have just read a fascinating book by Anand Giridharadas entitled Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World. His thesis: that big-name, wealthy and corporate philanthropists, aided and abetted by world 'thought leaders,' do much good in the world, but the solutions they promote are also benefitting them while at the same time protecting the status quo, i.e. the systems that are in fact responsible for inequality, poverty, lack of opportunity, etc. Hence, increased taxation and regulation are off the table.

Examples abound of what this means in practical terms: charter schools instead of ensuring proper funding for all schools through decent levels of taxation;  developing companies and apps like Uber or Lyft that promote precarity and are strongly anti-union, all while touting 'greater consumer choice' and worker 'flexibility' but taking no responsibility for their employees, whom they term 'independent contractors' and hence not subject to minimum wage laws, labour legislation, etc.

These movers and shakers have a simple mantra: do good by doing well. In other words, my success is the world's success, a win-win situation. 

Except that it isn't. In pursuing this very narrow filter for philanthropy, it is doing two things:  misdirecting people away from the underlying causes of the problem, as previously stated, and  undermining democracy by promoting the idea that business, not government, is the answer to the world's problems - a neoliberal's dream!

That government should get out of the way of business is, of course, nothing new, and is frequently found in the policies of the Trudeau government, from the leveraging of Infrastructure Bank funds to pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into foreign pharmaceuticals (think Sanofi and BioNtech) to set up shop in Canada.

But I digress.

One of the best illustrations of the corporate world's 'charitable' practices can be found in this excerpt from a book entitled Take the Money and Run, an indictment of the unholy relationship that exists between food banks and Walmart Canada:

For decades critics have identified Walmart Canada’s employment practices — characterized by inadequate wages with few benefits — as contributing to household food insecurity (HFI). Walmart Canada also opposes unionization drives which would result in higher wages and benefits through the collective bargaining process. In a remarkable example of image management, Walmart Canada now brands itself as an important ally in reducing HFI by entering a partnership with the major food bank association in Canada, Food Banks Canada (FBC).

Mastering the magician's art of misdirection, corporations like Walmart burnish their images and derive practical benefits such as the avoidance of costly disposal fees while the underlying causes of food insecurity go unaddressed:

Walmart Canada’s contribution to food banks, when placed against its history of anti-union activities and its effects upon their own workers and other workers’ well-being, is trivial. Its anti-union activities have a far greater impact upon HFI, and not for the good. Additionally, Walmart Canada and other similar corporations — through partnerships with CSOs such as FBC — go from villains to saviours, making dealing with the causes of HFI such as low wages and inadequate social assistance benefits more difficult. Such partnerships make it unlikely that HFI organizations such as Food Banks Canada will call for reducing HFI by raising minimum wages, promoting unionization and increasing corporate taxes on profitable corporations such as Walmart Canada to help restore the Canadian social safety net. In fact, the chair of the FBC’s board of directors of FBC is a vice-president of Walmart Canada.

The authors suggest that Food Banks Canada should make a better use of their resources:

Instead of embracing Walmart Canada as a partner, FBC and its affiliated food banks should highlight how unjust and unfair employment creates HFI and call for major reform of the employment market as a means of reducing HFI in Canada. They should also resist the role that corporate lobbying plays in maintaining low wages and poverty-inducing social assistance levels. Embracing corporations and polishing their images is not a solution to HFI in Canada.

Most of us, both as individuals and corporate entities, like to feel good about our philanthropic practices. But I leave the final word to Hamlet about the dangers of ignoring or minimizing the underlying causes of, in this case, the socio-economic diseases we seek to cure:

Lay not that flattering unction to your soul

….

It will but but skin and film the ulcerous place

Whiles rank corruption, mining all within,

Infects unseen.

that flattering unction to your soul
That not your trespass but my madness speaks.
It will but skin and film the ulcerous place,
Whiles rank corruption, mining all within,
Infects unseen.

And For Those Who Think Bill C-51 Is A Good Thing

Think again.

The RCMP has labelled the “anti-petroleum” movement as a growing and violent threat to Canada’s security, raising fears among environmentalists that they face increased surveillance, and possibly worse, under the Harper government’s new terrorism legislation.

In highly charged language that reflects the government’s hostility toward environmental activists, an RCMP intelligence assessment warns that foreign-funded groups are bent on blocking oil sands expansion and pipeline construction, and that the extremists in the movement are willing to resort to violence.

The report, dated January 24, 2014, was obtained by Greenpeace and uses the kind of language one would expect from a police force that has become deeply politicized.

[M]ilitants and violent extremists who are opposed to society’s reliance on fossil fuels, and violent environmental extremists are but two of the phrases that should give all of us pause.

The RCMP issued their usual disclaimers, averring that they do not surveil peaceful groups. Said RCMP spokesman Sergeant Greg Cox:

“There is no focus on environmental groups, but rather on the broader criminal threats to Canada’s critical infrastructure. The RCMP does not monitor any environmental protest group. Its mandate is to investigate individuals involved in criminality.”

Yet, perhaps tellingly,

... Sgt. Cox would not comment on the tone of the January, 2014, assessment that suggests opposition to resource development runs counter to Canada’s national interest and links groups such as Greenpeace, Tides Canada and the Sierra Club to growing militancy in the “anti-petroleum movement.”

For a force whose mandate is public safety, the report veers into areas that can only be described as economic and political:

The report extolls the value of the oil and gas sector to the Canadian economy, and adds that many environmentalists “claim” that climate change is the most serious global environmental threat, and “claim” it is a direct consequence of human activity and is “reportedly” linked to the use of fossil fuels. It echoes concerns first raised by Finance Minister Joe Oliver that environmental groups are foreign-funded and are working against the interests of Canada by opposing development.

Just coincidence that the language echos that of Joe Oliver?

“This document identifies anyone who is concerned about climate change as a potential, if not actual – the lines are very blurry – ‘anti-petroleum extremist’ looking to advance their ‘anti-petroleum ideology,’” said Keith Stewart, a climate campaigner for Greenpeace.

Greenpeace, and the rest of us, should be very, very concerned.


Are these the faces of the new terrorists?

On Public Asset Sales

Selling off public assets that yield steady and lucrative revenue streams is rarely a good idea. In Ontario, Kathleen Wynne did just that with 60% of Hydro One so she could claim a balanced budget. It is a betrayal I will never forgive her for.

As I have written previously, Justin Trudeau would like to do the same thing, for similar reasons, with our major airports. It is a very bad idea, as are most of the schemes promoted by neoliberals.

Happily, the possibility of relief from such madness is shimmering on the horizon:

A Parliamentary committee is recommending against the Liberal government’s plan to sell off Canada’s airports to raise billions in capital to be used towards other public infrastructure projects.

“Limit rising passenger and operational costs by preventing the privatization of Canadian airports,” the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance, said in its report of the Pre-budget consultations in advance of the 2018 federal budget.

The committee's report, Driving Inclusive Growth: Spurring Productivity and Competitiveness in Canada

summarized the strong opposition to airport privatization by various stakeholders, including the Air Transport Association of Canada (ATAC), which believes that the sale is near-sighted and will result in significantly higher costs for airlines and passengers.

“Recent experience in such projects, for example in Australia, has resulted in costs per passenger to increase by 50% in the decade following airport privatization,” ATAC told the committee in a briefing. “To add insult to injury, the government would impose a huge new burden on our industry and its passengers while not reinvesting one penny of the billions generated back into aviation.”

Empirical evidence like this should carry much weight, but the Trudeau government is refusing to release the privatization study by Credit Suisse Group AG that it commissioned. Therefore, whether such disquieting facts were even considered is unknown. This unwholesome secrecy is opposed by the National Airlines Council of Canada, which is calling for open and public discussion around the entire issue.

I seem to recall Justin Trudeau, upon taking office, promised an open and transparent government. What a difference two years in office have made to that promise, eh?

In The Eye Of The Beholder

It is my practice each evening at 6:30 to switch back and forth between NBC Nightly News and Global National, in part because I like to see the differing emphases placed on common news stories. Generally, I find Global National superior for its depth and analysis of key items.

For example, NBC has largely devoted itself to the human drama that was played out during the Las Vegas massacre and its aftermath, telling survivors' stories and sundry tales of individual acts of heroism that occurred. Global National, while not neglecting such aspects, has also examined some of the factors contributing to mass murder, one of them being the thorny issue of gun control, something NBC has shied away from. As a rule, Canadian media will tread where Americans fear to go or are forbidden by corporate fiat.

However, last evening I was quite disappointed at Global's coverage of the Energy East pipeline cancellation. I am including two clips from that coverage, the first a straight-forward reporting of the cancellation coupled with the predictable political games of the Conservatives blaming it all on Trudeau, the second an analysis with a decided editorial bias.



The next clip, which explores the question of the future of energy projects, has a decidedly pro-pipeline bias, as David Akin looks at the impediments to such projects. Phrases such as "interest group activism" and "regulatory dysfunction" leave little doubt that stronger measures to monitor and control greenhouse gas emissions are obstacles to multi-billion-dollar investments and good-paying jobs. While those of us who care about the environment and climate change are heartened by 'impediments' to further fossil-fuel development, others consider it a major blow to all that is good and holy - continuous, unrestrained growth.



In the second video, you will also have noticed David Akin's attempt to conflate pipeline development with some of the great infrastructure projects of the past like the James Bay hydro-electric project and the Trans-Canada highway. He also invokes Sir John A. MacDonald and laments the lack of a "national vision" today, my interpretation being that we are are somehow the poorer for a lack of imagination when it comes to pipelines.

Global National may be content to live in the past and extol the old economic models in which environment factors are simply an inconvenient obstruction to unrestrained growth. The rest of us who take the time to educate ourselves about the climate-change perils we face today can only look on with bemusement that such an antiquated model still holds captive much of the national media.

UPDATE: For those who tenaciously cling to the belief that fossil fuels will always reign supreme, this article provides a sobering dose of reality:

The electric vehicle revolution has been supercharged by plummeting lithium-ion prices, which are half of what they were in 2014. Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) forecasts EVs will be as cheap as gasoline cars by 2025 and keep dropping in price until EVs overtake them in yearly sales, by which time EVs will be displacing 8 million barrels of oil a day — more than Saudi Arabia exports today.

UPDATED: Signifying Nothing

It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

Macbeth, Act 5, Scene 5

In the above quotation, the beleaguered Macbeth, facing his final battle, is talking about the meaningless of life. He could just as easily been talking about election campaigns.

As I noted the other day in a brief post, speaking truth during an election campaign can be a perilous pursuit indeed. Just ask Linda McQuaig, who opined on Power and Politics that much of Alberta's bitumen may well have to be left in the ground if we are to keep global temperatures from rising more than two degrees Celsius , a view supported by serious research.

The anaphylaxix that sets in when truth and politics meet is the subject that Seth Klein, the B.C. director of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, writes about in today's Star:

... the McQuaig episode is illustrative of a larger problem: namely, that our politics do not allow for serious — and truly honest — discussion of the most pressing issues of our time.

McQuaig was accused, by the prime minister and many others, of heartlessly ignoring the economic needs and employment anxieties of Albertans.

Honest leadership would mean speaking frankly about climate realities. It means acknowledging that a new global climate treaty is coming, that it will require that Canada leave much of its oil, natural gas and coal reserves in the ground, and that in anticipation of this eventuality Canada must invest extensively in renewables and green infrastructure that will allow us to leap into this transition.

There are a lot of jobs in this necessary future, and these should be championed, instead of simply pointing to the jobs that will (and must) disappear.

But the reality of climate change is but one of the subjects considered verboten on the campaign trail:

Canada needs a comprehensive policy response to address inequality — one that restores progressivity to our tax system, and that boosts the social wage and earnings of low- and middle-income families. Instead, we get to witness the unfortunate display of the NDP critiquing the Liberals’ well-advised proposal to create a new upper-income tax bracket; the Liberals critiquing the NDP’s welcome plans for national child care and a federal minimum wage; and the Conservatives dismissing of all the above.

Seth Klein goes on to suggest that the spectacles of denial and caution among our political leaders may ultimately prove counterproductive to their goals:

New data from Innovative Research Group, reported in the Hill Times this week, suggests parties looking for the progressive vote will gain electorally the stronger their positions are on the environment, civil liberties and health care — since these are areas where people feel very strongly one way or another.

But don't tell that to either Justin Trudeau or Thomas Mulcair. With their eyes on the prize of electoral victory, there is little appetite for a truly inspiring vision.



UPDATE: Meanwhile, the United Church of Canada is showing real leadership, having voted to sell off fossil fuel assets worth $5.9 million and instead pump funds into renewable energy co-operatives in a landmark decision on Aug. 11.

The Foundering Ship Of State: A Followup

Following up on last evening's post, I am adding the comments of Gyor, who listed several more failures of the Trudeau government thus far:

You forgot Trudeau's attempt to increasingly centralize power in Parliament.

Many parliamentary posts still go unfilled 2 years in, the filling of which Chantal Herbert called the governmental equivant of tying ones shoe laces.

His questionable trip with the Aga Khan.

Minister Joly's Netflix boondoogle pissing off Quebec and the RoCs TV and Movie industry.

His MMWI is a mess, and should have included FN men, who are murdered and missing more often then FN women and who cases go unsolved more often.

Morneau's Villa in France in the name of a Corporation.

Trudeau's idea of boosting Foreign Aid was to take it from a general pool for all in need to give to only women, leaving men in need to die.

Lying about the combat role in Iraq, remember the Sniper shot that set a record.

Boosting military spending massively to appease Trump, while mismanaging the C-18 procurement.

NAFTA negiotations, period. Disaster.

The infrastructure bank he never promised, that will transfer wealth to the rich.

Oh and recently ambushing the Premiers recently with the idea for a special weed tax that they were not prepared for especially when the stated goal was to underprice criminal organizations.

Meanwhile, both the optics and the 'ethics' of Finance Minister Bill Morneau's situation continue to reverberate. Martin Patriquin offers this withering assessment:

Morneau, a multimillionaire banker married to a multimillionaire heiress, owns a villa in southern France. He also owns millions of shares in Morneau Shepell, the pension services behemoth founded by his father. Let us peruse how our finance minister has handled these particular assets.

Morneau’s French villa is owned by a holding company in which Morneau and his wife Nancy McCain are partners. Morneau neglected to mention the existence of this corporation to Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson until after the CBC’s Elizabeth Thompson started asking questions about it. Such corporations are particularly useful in France, where the inheritance tax is an expensive burden for the country’s wealthy landowners. Using a corporation to avoid said taxes is entirely legal — much like the loopholes Morneau wishes to close for a certain class of Canadian tax-avoiders.

Next, there is the matter of those shares. Morneau’s shares, which earn upwards of $2 million in yearly dividends, are owned by a corporation controlled by Morneau and his family. This set of circumstances, unearthed by CTV News, allows Morneau to deke the federal conflict-of-interest ethics laws. Because they are owned by a corporation, not a human being named Bill Morneau, the finance minister didn’t have to get rid of them when he took office. Again, it’s perfectly legal. It’s also a loophole to hold onto extremely valuable assets he otherwise would need to sell.

Finally, Global National gives us some insight into Morneau's conflicts of interest/hypocrisy:



In today's Star, Chantal Hebert blames much of the Liberals' misfortune on rookie ministers like Morneau. I would say that the problem with the Trudeau government runs much, much deeper. Platitudinous rhetoric, arrogance and ethical blindness do not make for government people can trust and respect.

Tory Policy-Making: The Dangers Of Simplistic Thinking

Fallacies of reasoning are easy traps to fall into. Whether it is absolutist thinking, straw man arguments or any number of other errors of thought, we are all prone to them, and I am sure that I am no exception. Our best defense against such faulty thinking is to try to cultivate our critical faculties as much as we can; one of the best ways of doing so is to read widely and deeply. There is no alternative, unless wants to make a virtue of simplistic and lazy cognition.

The latter, of course, is what the Harper regime has excelled at since it was first elected. Most issues have been reduced to an either/or option; perhaps the most infamous was the facile and inflammatory statement Vic Toews made over those who opposed his failed Internet surveillance bill, namely that people “can either stand with us or with the child pornographers.”

The Tory propensity for reducing issues to their simplest forms has done a grave disservice to the people of Canada, who have essentially been told time and again that they need not think deeply and engage vigorously with issues of public policy, but rather let an autocratic majority government decide instead what is best for them. People increasingly seem more and more passive when told, for example, that now is not the time to improve the CPP, OAS must be delayed to age 67, or home mail delivery must end, all due to cost constraints.

And yet, with critical thinking, there is always room for alternative approaches to public policy. One such instance can be found in Canada Post. Although a crown corporation with an ostensible degree of independence from government influence, the recent decision to end home mail delivery and raise stamps to $1 each has all the earmarks of a government bent on the erosion and ultimate dismantling of public programs and institutions. No compromises were seriously entertained, for example moving to three-day a week delivery to cut costs. It is a classically absolutist policy decision that will ultimately see the end of Canada Post.

In his column in Saturday's Star, Thomas Walkom introduces a notion that could, in fact, make Canada Post very profitable and facilitate the retention of delivery services: a postal savings bank, an idea that has been advocated by the Canadian Union of Postal Workers.

Arguing that Canada Post has the technology and infrastructure to make such a venture both possible and highly profitable, Walkom points to New Zealand, France, Italy and Britain as successful examples of the concept:

New Zealand’s postal banking system, which was re-invigorated just eight years ago, now accounts for 70 per cent of the profit earned by that country’s post office. The comparable figure for Italy is 67 per cent.

France’s postal savings bank accounts for 36 per cent of its postal service’s pre-tax earnings. Britain is privatizing mail delivery. But it is not privatizing its system of post offices and postal savings banks. They’re too lucrative.

Indeed, as Walkom points out, former Canada Post CEO Moya Greene, who was hired away by Britain's Royal Mail, was an advocate of postal banking:

Speaking to a Senate committee three months before taking up her Royal Mail job, Greene said Canada Post was seriously considering the idea of offering full financial services.

“We . . . need to diversify the revenue stream and be in wholly different businesses than we are today,” she told the committee. “I note, for example, that many postal administrations have made a success of banking.”

Another compelling and potentially gratifying reason to offer such service resides in the conservative nature of our chartered banks which, many feel, should be shaken up a bit by competition. It is their conservative nature that is partly responsible for the fact that upwards of 15 per cent of Canadians are estimated to have no bank accounts at all, making them easy prey to the payday loan operations whose rates in Ontario can exceed 540 per cent.

So again, some reflection, analysis and good policy-making could solve two problems: the end of home delivery and the usurious interest rates that the poor without bank accounts must contend with.

But the Harper cabal is one that cares neither for nuance nor cerebration. After all, the solutions to problems are simple, reflected in just these mantras: privatization good, public ownership bad, and long live the 'free' market.

Motor City Madness: A Mound of Sound Guest Post

The City of Detroit is the poster child for municipal meltdown. It’s generally known that Detroit is bankrupt after decades of steady decline and the flight of most of its wealthy (white) citizens. There is no shortage of graphic photographs of abandoned and derelict buildings, the remnants of once viable neighbourhoods.

Not everyone could afford to flee Detroit. Poverty was their invitation to stay put. However staying put in a city in collapse ain’t cheap. With businesses gone and wealthy residents gone someone still has to pay for basic infrastructure and that someone would be the poor who can’t afford to leave.

Enter Maude Barlow the head of the Council of Canadians and world renowned expert on water issues. Ms. Barlow wears many hats. In her capacity as founder of the Blue Planet Project and chair of Food and Water Watch, she has written a wrenching report to the UN Special Rapporteur on the Human Right to Water on the plight of Detroit’s left behind residents.

Barlow complains that Detroit’s austerity proconsul, appointed by the state governor, is breaching the human rights of Detroit residents by denying them access to clean, safe water. At the moment, water utility crews are being kept busy, very busy, cutting off water service to 3,000 homes each week. The city needs $5-billion in water service repairs and upgrades. Meanwhile the utility continues to lose water from broken pipes in abandoned homes and buildings. Someone has to pay for that lost water. Someone must pay.

Barlow isn’t pulling any punches. She’s directly accusing the government of using the water crisis to drive poor black people out of the city, to cleanse it in order to facilitate gentrification.

The case of water cut-offs in the City of Detroit speaks to the deep racial divides and intractable economic and social inequality in access to services within the United States. The burden of paying for city services has fallen onto the residents who have stayed in the economically depressed city, most of whom are African-American. These residents have seen water rates rise by 119 per cent within the last decade. With official, understated unemployment rates at a record high and the official, understated poverty rate at about 40 per cent, Detroit water bills are unaffordable to a significant portion of the population.

The City of Detroit declared bankruptcy in the summer of 2013. A high-priced bankruptcy lawyer was named its Emergency Manager with a mandate to get the city back on its feet financially by imposing a savage austerity regime. within the United States. Noting is off the chopping block, including water utilities, which are being considered for regionalization, sale, lease, and/or a public-private partnership and are currently subject to mediation by a federal district judge. The Detroit People’s Water Board fears that authorities see people’s unpaid water bills as a “bad debt” and want to sweeten the pot for a private investor by imposing even more of the costs of the system on those least able to bear them. The service cut-offs for anyone more than two months behind in payments appear to be the city’s last-ditch attempt to make up for lost revenues. A contract with a private operator seeking profits will only lead to greater hikes in service fees and even less affordable, more unjust barriers to equitable access to vital water. That this massive human rights atrocity is occurring near the largest group of freshwater lakes on the planet, with very little media attention, is a foreboding sign of the times.

The Michigan Welfare Rights Organization (MWRO) argues that these water cut-offs to poor Detroit households need to be understood within a broader context of Detroit’s appeal in the real estate market. With its proximity to the Great Lakes and the Canadian border, the city is considered prime real estate, and is available at fire sale prices. People’s overdue water bills are being transferred to their property taxes and people are losing their homes as a result. Given the utility’s lack of interest in cutting costs or generating revenues by collecting on the arrears of business users, fixing leaking pipes, and cutting off services to abandoned homes, the organization sees the crackdown as a ploy to drive poor people of color out of the city to facilitate gentrification – what the Michigan Welfare Rights Organization refers to as a “land-grab.”

Barlow writes of residents who cannot bathe their children and who have no water for cooking, no water for sanitation. She writes of parents fearing the loss of their children due to child welfare authorities acting on state policy there by working utilities in all homes housing children.

It is a nightmare. Imagine living in a society where the poor cannot secure access to clean water. This isn’t some impoverished failed state. It’s the United States. If it can happen there, is any place really secure?

The Creep Of Corporatism

Responding to my post on the secret study conducted by the Trudeau government on privatizing our major airports to raise much-needed cash, BM offered the following, which I am featuring as a guest post today:

Well, this is the usual way corporatism works. Change a capital investment into an eternal loan with rent due sharpish at the beginning of each month, paid for by the citizens. When paper money is abolished in the next five to ten years (already started as an experiment in India by withdrawing low-denomination notes to see what happens - disaster - but who cares, they're brown people and not in the West; full story on the countercurrents.org Indian site last fall, studiously unread by white men in the West of all political persuasions), we'll be well on the way to mere electronic representations of our paid-for labour. Every transaction under full surveillance by our masters, no under the table cheapy house-painting, no cash at the farmer's gate for decent veggies and real eggs, taxes paid in full, citizens in thrall, and so on. It'll be sold as the Bright New World, like a super-duper schmarty-phone. All will cheer at how advanced we are.

No wonder Bitcoin thrives.

But as Amazon flogs groceries online, takes over Wholefoods, ruins supermarkets, what happens to old people? I see it all the time when I run from my rural lair into Halifax, old ladies carrying full shopping bags miles. Halifax is a food desert city, bus routes are organized at right angles to where people live to get to a supermarket, that is, they are 100% utterly useless. These old folks don't have PCs or even mobile phones. They're screwed in our brave new world, slain on the fields of corporatism. I drive them if they'll accept a lift, those old gals still dressing up to look presentable, living on OAP and a supplement if they're lucky, trying to keep up appearances. Makes me weep in frustration. The destruction of civil society on the bed of profits and eff-you attitude.

Don't know if JT has the brains to understand the consequences of flogging off public property, or doing the Canadian internal equivalent of an ISDS governed free trade pact called the Infrastructure Bank, I really don't.

But Morneau does, look at that Economic Council of his, set up in February last year with all the corporate and university academic wannabe rich types "advising" him. Telling him, more like. A $1 a year each, such noble types donating their valuable time, reduced to eating sandwiches from the caff at their Ottawa meetings in order to do their bounden duty for Canada, chaired by a man from a big accounting firm. It was then that I knew we were truly effed, seduced by hair and a smile.

Nothing has occurred in the last 18 months to make me change my mind at the neoLiberal's canny backing of JT, the intellectual waif with an aw shucks um and an ah at public speaking events that makes people buckle at their knees in abject adoration. Behind his back, the people that matter are planning ways to pilfer our back pockets.

Succeeding!

And we love it!