Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Linda Givetash reports on the increasing cost and decreasing availability of housing in Canada. And Patrick Greenfield and Sarah March note that an appalling increase in the number of homeless people in the UK is being reflected in the number of deaths on the street.

- Tithi Bhattacharya points out that the resurgence of labour activism in the U.S. is developing largely in the education sector which is increasingly treated as unappreciated "care work". And Sandi Tolksvig discusses the grossly undervalued work which women contribute disproportionately to others' well-being. 

- Ainslie Cruickshank and David Ball write that there's no way a remotely competent pipeline operator could be surprised by the public reaction to the TransMountain expansion, while Tim Harper notes that Justin Trudeau has trapped himself by deciding to cheerlead for a project which has never addressed either environmental concerns or aboriginal rights. And Jeff Carruthers argues that the logical resolution involves upgrading more bitumen in Alberta, rather than imposing its transportation in a dirtier and more dangerous form.

- Finally, Patrick DeRochie discusses the need for federal climate policy to meaningfully work toward our emission reduction targets, and not defer to provincial schemes (particularly ones which fall short of the mark).

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Suresh Naidu, Eric Posner and Glen Weyl highlight how the economy as a whole suffers when employers exercise too much control over wages and working conditions:

In a competitive labor market, employers must vie for workers; they try to lure workers from other firms by offering them more generous compensation. As employers bid for workers, wages and benefits rise. An employer gains by hiring a worker whenever the worker’s wage is less than the revenue the worker will generate for the employer; for this reason, the process of competition among employers for workers ought to result in workers receiving a substantial portion of the output they contribute to.

And as the economy grows over time — which has historically been the case in the United States — this dynamic should naturally lead to a steady increase in compensation for workers.

It turns out, however, that labor markets are often uncompetitive: Employers have the power to hold down wages by a host of methods and for numerous reasons. And new academic studies suggest the markets have been growing ever more uncompetitive over time.

...

It is sometimes mistakenly thought that wage suppression, even as it hurts workers, at least benefits consumers, who pay lower prices for goods and services (since the cost of production is lower for companies). In fact, that’s not the case: Employer market power, sometimes called “monopsony,” harms economic growth and raises prices. (Monopsony is the concept of monopoly, or dominance of a market for a given good, applied to the “buy side” — namely, the inputs that firms purchase, including labor and materials.)

Monopsony harms growth and raises prices because it works much like monopoly: by reducing production. To increase its profits, the monopolist raises prices and thus lowers production (because fewer consumers are willing to pay these inflated prices). 

Similarly, to raise its profits, a monopsonist lowers wages below the value of the workers to the employer. Because not all workers are willing to work at these depressed wages, monopsony leads some workers to quit. 

Firms bear the loss in workers (and resulting lowered sales) in exchange for the higher profits made off the workers who do not quit. The resulting group of workers looking for jobs are what Marx called the “reserve army of the unemployed.”

Employer labor market power thus reduces employment, raises prices, and depresses the economy. 

Those sound a lot like the harms that conservative economists have long attributed to excessive taxation. And that’s no coincidence. Wage suppression is just like a tax: a tax on the labor of workers.

- Chris Dillow examines the persistent pay gap between men and women, along with a few of the factors which perpetuate it. And Kate Farhall argues that family violence leave needs to be paid for many people to be able to escape abuse.

- Jeff Sprass writes that the growing movement of teachers' strikes may be the start of stronger "alt-labor" organizing in response to a political environment designed to suppress collective action. And Syed Hussan offers some activists' suggestions as to how organized labour should participate in Ontario's provincial election.

- Finally, Tim Harper points out that millennial voters will be playing a far larger role than ever before in that election (and others to come). And Neil MacDonald comments on the effectiveness of school shooting survivors in organizing to respond to right-wing suppression. 

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Thomas Walkom discusses Canada's likely NAFTA decision between an even worse deal than exists now, and no deal at all - though it's worth recognizing that the latter choice shouldn't be seen as a problem. And Alex Panetta points out the Libs' total lack of transparency as to the effects of the options currently on the table.

- Trevor Hancock argues that the Canada Pension Plan should join other large public funds in making a move away from dependence on fossil fuel development.

- Meanwhile, Carl Meyer reports on a new study suggesting that Canada's primary tar sands operators may be sitting on $2 trillion in liability from carbon pollution alone. And Marco Chown Oved exposes half a billion dollars in tax avoidance by a single copper mining firm by claiming billions of dollars in profits through a Luxembourg subsidiary with one part-time employee.

- Tom Parkin discusses the need for improved protections against sexual harassment in federal workplaces. And Sabrina Nanji reports on the growing calls for effective anti-harassment rules in legislatures in particular, while Tim Harper points out the need for cultural change beyond legislation alone.

- Finally, Daniel Brown and Michael Lacy write that the Trudeau Libs are falling far short of what voters expected when it comes to justice reform. And Alex Boutilier points out that rather than fixing the abusive elements of Bill C-51, the Libs have actually expanded the unaccountable disruption of Canadians' activities without any meaningful oversight.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- The Economic Policy Institute charts how inequality and precarity are growing in the U.S. - and how that can be directly traced to the erosion of organized labour. And the World Inequality Report examines the trend toward increasing inequality on a global scale.

- Meanwhile, Kemal Dervis wonders whether another debt crisis is on the way - particularly as short-term gains are skimmed off the top or gifted to the wealthy rather than being used to build a stable economy.

- Dirk Meissner reports on new research showing the damage even small amounts of diluted bitumen can do to migrating salmon.

- Sean Fleming makes the case for proportional representation on the provincial level to avoid the wild swings in seat counts and governing authority which otherwise tend to be the norm. And David Moscrop comments on the important of public participation in building and maintaining democratic government, while wondering whether 2018 will bring more evidence that we're falling short.

- Finally, Michael Harris sees 2017 as having been defined by government by dilettantes - including both Donald Trump and Justin Trudeau. Jordan Press notes that Trudeau's dismissive response to serious ethical questions about his trading off his celebrity and power to win favours from plutocrats speaks volumes about his view of a leader's role. And Tim Harper discusses how Trudeau has chosen to silence Canada on the world stage in order to keep Trump happy.

[Edit: fixed wording.]

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Dennis Howlett highlights how the Libs are only making our tax system even less fair by overreacting to trumped-up criticism of a plan to close minor loopholes:

As​ ​the​ ​dust​ ​settles​ ​on​ ​the​ Trudeau government’s private​ ​ corporation​ tax​ ​reforms,​ ​Canada​ ​seem​s ​to​ ​be​ falling ​ further​ ​behind​ ​in the quest for​ ​tax fairness.

While​ ​the​ ​government’s​ ​decision​ ​to​ ​proceed​ ​with ​ ​income​-sprinkling​ ​reforms​ ​is​ ​positive,​ ​we are​ ​disappointed ​ ​​​the​ ​capital​ ​gains​ ​reforms​ ​were​ ​dropped​ ​and​ ​find the​ ​ ‘tweaks’​ ​to​ ​the​ ​proposals​ ​for passive​ ​income to be​ ​overly​ ​ generous.​

​If​ ​the​ ​changes​ ​to​ ​the​ ​private​ ​corporation​ ​tax​ ​rules​ ​are​ ​assessed​ ​on their​ ​own,​ ​they​ ​move​ ​Canada​ ​a​ ​slight ​ ​step​ ​forward.​ ​However,​ ​the​ ​appeasement​ ​of​ ​the​ ​vocal business​ ​lobby​ ​with​ ​a​ ​further​ ​cut​ ​in​ ​the​ ​small​ ​ business​ ​tax​ ​rate​ ​to​ ​9 per cent​ ​means​ ​the​ ​government ​ ​likely​ will ​lose​ ​more​ ​revenue​ ​than​ ​it​ ​gains, which​ ​ will​ ​contribute​ ​further​ ​to​ ​growing​ ​inequality.
...

This​ ​is​ ​not​ ​the​ ​first​ ​time​ ​the​ ​government​ ​has​ ​ backed​ ​off​ ​on​ ​tax​ ​fairness​ ​reforms.​ ​The​ ​closing​ ​of the​ ​stock​ ​options​ ​loophole​ ​suffered​ ​the​ ​same​ ​fate​ ​as​ ​the​ ​ private​ ​corporation​ ​tax​ ​reforms.​ ​These are​ ​black​ ​eyes​ ​ for​ ​Canada’s​ ​tax​ ​system.​ ​Even​ ​the​ ​IMF​ ​has​ ​raised​ the concern ​that​ ​capital​ ​income (including​ ​profits,​ ​interest,​ ​ and​ ​capital​ ​gains)​ ​is​ ​distributed​ ​more​ ​unequally​ ​than ​ ​labor​ ​income.

Capital​ ​income​ ​has​ ​been​ ​rising​ ​as​ ​a​ ​share​ ​of​ ​total ​ ​income​ ​over​ ​recent​ ​decades,​ ​with​ ​a​ ​lower​ ​tax rate​ ​than​ ​labour​ ​income.​ ​The​ ​IMF​ ​states​ ​that​ ​adequate​ ​ taxation​ ​of​ ​capital​ ​income​ ​is​ ​needed​ ​to protect​ ​the​ ​overall​ ​progressivity​ ​of​ ​the​ ​income​ ​tax​ ​system​ ​and ​ ​that​ ​more​ ​equal​ ​treatment​ ​of income​ ​from​ ​capital​, ​as​ ​well​ ​as​ ​different​ ​forms​ ​of​ ​capital​ ​income, ​is​ ​critical if we want to​ ​avoid​ offering ​incentives​ ​for tax​ ​avoidance.​ ​ This​ ​means​ ​getting​ ​rid​ ​of​ ​the​ ​unfair​ ​tax​ ​treatment​ ​ of​ ​capital​ ​gains​ ​and​ ​stock options.

The​ ​next​ ​time​ ​the​ ​government​ ​moves​ ​forward​ ​on​ ​an​ ​ agenda​ ​for​ ​tax​ ​fairness,​ ​it​ ​needs​ ​to​ ​make it​ ​part of​ ​a​ ​larger​ ​package​ ​of​ ​reforms​ ​that​ ​looks​ ​at​ ​all​ ​the​ ​unfair​ ​tax​ ​expenditures.

- Likewise, Tony Keller discusses the terrible policy behind the Libs' attempt to change the subject from closing loopholes. And with Bill Morneau in the middle of the mess, Althia Raj reports that the Libs' defence that the Ethics Commissioner hasn't specifically said he's doing anything wrong when it comes to how policy affects his own wealth depends on her not actually bothering to check.

- Meanwhile, Jennifer Robson notes that plenty of federal policies which are supposed to help lower-income people aren't reaching their intended recipients.

- Linda McQuaig writes that the Sears pension fiasco should be a catalyst for change. And Tim Harper notes that nearly everybody aside from the Libs seems to be onside with protecting pensions.

- Finally, Sheila Block and PressProgress each examine some of Canada's persistent forms of inequality based on race.

Leadership 2017 Links

The latest from the federal NDP's leadership campaign.

- CBC reports on Nathan Cullen's endorsement of Jagmeet Singh - which may make for one of the few shows of support capable of influencing members at this stage of the campaign.

- Althia Raj highlights Charlie Angus' rebel yell, while Alex Ballingall writes about the Star editorial board's meeting with him (which includes somewhat more direct talk about potentially approving pipelines than we've heard through much of the campaign). Rob Rousseau is the latest to write about Niki Ashton as a Canadian counterpart to Bernie Sanders. And Guy Caron's reply to Martine Ouellet's attack on Singh offers a prime example as to how the NDP can and should respond to any attempt to use religious bigotry to silence minority voices.

- Eric Grenier offers a look at some of the policies on offer from the leadership candidates. And John Geddes interviews Avi Lewis about the policy discussion within the leadership campaign - and Lewis' hope to expand what's seen as possible. 

- Finally, Tom Parkin offers his reasoning for placing Caron and Singh at the top of his ballot. Alice Funke makes a case for Singh as a step toward greater diversity and energy within the NDP, while Tim Harper discusses Singh's ability to get noticed beyond party lines as a key advantage. And Chantal Hebert analyzes the campaign while viewing Singh as the likely victor.

Leadership 2017 Links

The latest from the federal NDP's leadership campaign.

- NDP McGill has prepared handy summaries of the background and policy proposals of each of the leadership candidates.

- Tim Harper writes that Charlie Angus is relying on the NDP's grassroots as the foundation for his campaign - particularly compared to the new members signed up by Jagmeet Singh.

- Althia Raj takes an extended look at Guy Caron's political background and goals within the race. And John Ibbitson and Joel-Denis Bellavance each discuss Caron's place in the campaign - including the endorsement of Brian Topp, whose role as a strategist and strong leadership contender would figure to give Caron a significant boost if he's substantially involved in the campaign.

- Ryan Maloney reports on today's Canadian Nurses Association town hall featuring all four leadership candidates.

- Finally, Chris Watson offers his take on the importance of standing up against Quebec's Bill 62 and other anti-human rights legislation.

Leadership 2017 Links

The latest from the federal NDP's leadership campaign.

- Peter Zimonjic, Katie Derosa and the Canadian Press each offered coverage of the Victoria debate.

- Charlie Angus unveiled Christine Moore's endorsement, providing him with some potentially crucial Quebec francophone support. Ryan Maloney examined Niki Ashton's racial justice plan. Fair Vote Canada compared the candidates' positions on electoral reform. And Kristy Kirkup offered a look at how the mainstream media is seeing the respective platforms - though there's lots more on the table than she addresses in her report.

- Campbell Clark sees Jagmeet Singh's focus being on expansion rather than the NDP's existing base. And Tim Harper theorizes that people questioning Singh sound similar to those who doubted Justin Trudeau in the course of his leadership campaign - though that comparison may not be a positive for Singh given how Trudeau has disappointed progressive Canadians on policy.

- Finally, Charlie Smith offered his take as to who the Libs and Cons prefer (and fear) out of the NDP's options. And CBC's Pollcast examined the state of the race.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Duncan Cameron discusses how deficit hysteria has overshadowed the far more important issues raised by the Trudeau Libs' inaugural budget:

Ottawa deficit spending is not big enough to stimulate an economy lagging since the oil price collapse. The Canadian economy has suffered a major external shock, with Alberta taking a big hit.

The rise of precarious work indicates serious disguised unemployment.

A slack economy with many people wanting full-time work calls out for additional spending. Governments need to boost their own contribution to general well-being.
...
The Trudeau Liberals have postponed infrastructure spending and reneged on promised social spending. The NDP have identified 10 ways in which the 2016 Liberal budget falls short in meeting election promises, including not delivering on promised home care.

Importantly, the Trudeau budget does not say how the Liberal government plans to address the elimination by Stephen Harper of annual six per cent increases in health-care transfers to the provinces.

Indeed, the 2016 budget raises problems for both municipalities and provinces. Federal-provincial financial arrangements need to be updated after years of neglect by Ottawa of co-operation with other levels of government.

- Andy Blatchford points out another broken promise in the budget, as funding to encourage the hiring of young workers is nowhere to be found. Tim Harper writes about the Libs' turnaround on providing personal information to the IRS. And Thomas Walkom notes that the Libs are secretly encouraging employers to import temporary foreign workers despite the growing number of Canadians in need of work.

- Sujata Day discusses the Libs' glaring rejection of meaningful public consultation on the Trans-Pacific Partnership. And even Michael Den Tandt pauses briefly from cheerleading for corporate control to point out their failure to make any case for the TPP.

- Josh Eidelson highlights the move toward increased minimum wages as a key example of the labour movement reasserting its strength in the U.S.

- Finally, Andre Picard argues that our current lack of social supports for seniors is unacceptable. And Ryan Meili examines the party platforms on offer in Saskatchewan's election from the standpoint of healthy politics.

New column day

Here, on the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal's decision (PDF) finding that the failure to provide equal child services for First Nations is a human rights breach which requires federal action at law - rather than merely a moral failure which has too often been ignored.

For further reading...
- CBC reports on the decision, while Neil Macdonald places it in some context. 
- Tim Harper goes into more detail as to the history of discrimination given wider exposure by the decision. And I'll point again to Murray Mandryk's take on the lack of social resources facing La Loche and other communities.
- But in case we needed immediate evidence that a finding of discrimination will still leave plenty of people to be convinced that there's any problem to be solved, Jen Gerson belittles the decision and apparently the concept of human rights tribunals in general. And Scott Gilmore argues that the only solution is to push the residents of remote communities out of their homes, rather than making any effort to build healthy lives where they already live.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- John Clarke discusses the challenges facing social movements trying to resist austerity and push for action on poverty in the face of mushy-middle governments who lack any commitment to those principles. Simon Wren-Lewis reminds us of the harm already done by anti-government ideology. And Crawford Kilian makes the case that governments should be wary of trying to cut out the "fat" which may be necessary for a healthy public sector. 

- Tim Harper examines the significance of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal's finding that the underfunding of First Nations child welfare services makes for actionable discrimination. And Murray Mandryk notes that last week's shootings in La Loche made for just one predictable tragic outcome from a history of neglect. 

- Jeremy Nuttall talks to Hassan Yussuff about the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and finds that the government pushing yet another corporate privilege agreement has no answers as to what it's supposed to do for workers. And Thomas Walkom writes that the Libs seem to be following in the Cons' footsteps, while Derrick O'Keefe wonders when we're supposed to see the full and open debate on the TPP that the Libs promised during the election campaign before deciding they'd sign on without further analysis.

- Patrick Fafard and Steven Hoffman offer their suggestions for a new federal health accord centred on the social determinants of health.

- Finally, Ole Hendrickson comments on Canada's plutocracy and the morality of extreme wealth.

New column day

Here, with my take on the factors NDP members should take into account in evaluating Tom Mulcair's leadership.

For further reading...
- I've written numerous previous posts on the future of Mulcair and the NDP which expand on the points made in the column.
- Michael den Tandt offers his view of Mulcair. Chantal Hebert and Tim Harper serve as examples of the knee-jerk "dump the leader!" reaction which I see as calling for pushback. And while Justin Ling is somewhat alarmist about the NDP's past actions, his analysis deserves a serious look for the future. 
- Finally, I'll reiterate my view that the NDP's long-term focus needs to be grassroots-driven and inclusive rather than relying on yet more central control - meaning that limiting a review to the party's executive (or putting MPs alone in charge of assessing Mulcair's future) doesn't look to be a useful response.

New column day

Here, expanding on these posts as to what might come next as Canada's political parties map out their strategies on electoral reform.

For further reading...
- Chantal Hebert wonders whether Justin Trudeau will face internal pressure to renege on his promise of electoral reform. But considering that the Libs' voter coalition consists of significantly more voters willing to consider other parties, I'd think Trudeau has every incentive to ensure he responds to the demand for electoral reform both inside and outside his party's base. (That said, those looking for reason for concern about the Libs' follow-through will find it in John Geddes' interview with Dominic Leblanc.)
- Tim Harper notes the different positions the federal parties have taken on electoral reform thus far. And Andrew Coyne examines how each figures to approach the issue as it develops.
- Finally, Aaron Wherry pointed to Stephen Harper's past take on proportional representation and coalition-building here. 

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Armine Yalnizyan highlights how Volkswagen's emissions cheating scandal is just one more compelling piece of evidence against trusting the corporate sector to regulate itself:

The trend is towards asking industries to monitor themselves (at their own suggestion), which they quite happily will do, and tell you what they think you want to know.

Now there is a role for self-regulation. Most adults practice self-regulation to some degree. But when we pass laws against certain types of behaviour, we don't think people should police themselves. We hire police to ensure that the laws are obeyed.

Corporations' sole purpose is to make money. That motive doesn't make them more trustworthy than individuals.

If the VW story isn't a huge wake-up call about the failure of corporate self-regulation, I don't know what is. We need good rules, well enforced. Without good enforcement, good rules are just a charade of fairness.

- And needless to say, the fact that a political party is approved as unwilling to act in the public interest is hardly a vote of confidence - which, as Linda McQuaig notes, is exactly the pitch Conrad Black is making for Justin Trudeau and the Libs.

- Meanwhile, Andrew MacLeod finds Con and Lib candidates alike supporting Republican-style drug testing for EI recipients - as the desire to unleash the corporate sector's worst impulses is characteristically paired with the desire to intrude on individual privacy. 

- CBC reports on the Cons' reassurance that people can avoid the effects of two-tier citizenship just as long as they renounce their heritage. (But it's worth noting even that position may not be based in fact, since one need only eligible for other citizenship to have Canadian citizenship revoked, not actually maintain it.)

- Finally, CTV reports that Stephen Harper's PMO inserted itself into decision-making about Syrian refugees for the clear purpose of excluding Muslims. And Tim Harper is the latest to point out that the Cons' xenophobia should be called out as more than just a distraction.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Jordan Brennan details (and expands on) how corporate tax cuts have served solely to further enrich the people and businesses who already had the most:

(F)ar from improving economic outcomes, there is evidence to suggest that corporate income tax reductions depressed Canadian GDP growth. I present a detailed explanation of why that's the case in a forthcoming study to be published by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. Given the election debate around raising the CIT rate, I thought it worthwhile to summarize my findings.

In my study I contrast three Canadian corporate income tax rates -- the effective federal CIT rate, the combined Canadian statutory CIT rate, and the weighted average effective rate on the top 60 Canadian-based firms -- with five growth variables: investment in fixed assets, employment, GDP per capita, labour compensation and productivity. Based on the findings, I conclude that there is no empirical or statistically significant relationship between CIT regime and growth. Business investment is a key determinant of GDP growth, employment and labour compensation, but over the long-term it is unresponsive to changes in the statutory or effective CIT rate.
...
Canadian CIT rate reductions not only failed to lead to faster growth, there is evidence to suggest that CIT rate reductions contributed to slower growth. By reducing CIT rates, Canadian governments contributed to the increased income position of large firms. Instead of investing their enlarged earnings into growth-expanding industrial projects, Canada's corporate sector -- especially its largest firms -- have increasingly stockpiled cash on their balance sheet. This "dead money," as former Bank of Canada governor Mark Carney called it, is one ingredient in the heightened stagnation of recent times.

As the leading firms claim a larger share of national income through enhanced size and market power, their capacity to stockpile cash increases. By hoarding cash these firms stabilize dividend payments, thus reducing risk, and this leaves them with more liquidity for acquisition activities and to hedge against market downturn. One consequence of the stockpiling of cash, then, is that a smaller share of national income is deployed to expand employment and industrial capacity.

- Andrew Perez wonders whether Canadians will wind up voting strategically, while noting that it would be for the best if we can move past it (which, fortunately, is an option). And it's worth noting that the seemingly large pool of Canadians inclined mostly to vote for change in the identity of the Prime Minister should improve the chances of bringing at least that much about due to likelihood that late deciders will reach relatively similar conclusions as to the best option based on their observations of the same campaign.

- But then, as Jamey Heath points out, we should be demanding more than the same policies with different branding - making the NDP the better choice as a matter of principle as well as strategy.

- Jorge Barrera reports on the revelation (pointed out by Robert Jago) that the Cons saw the federal government's apology for residential schools as an "attempt to kill the story" rather than a means of rather than an actual expression of contrition. And Faisal Kutty calls out the Cons' Muslim-bashing.

- Finally, Michael Harris writes that the Cons have finally and permanently lost any benefit of the doubt from the Canadian public. And Antonio Zerbisias concludes that the refugee crisis has exposed the compassion gap between the Cons and Canadians, while Tim Harper is the latest to weigh in on Stephen Harper's crumbling campaign.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Chris Mooney takes a look at the positive side of social influences on behaviour, as new research shows a correlation between spending time with neighbours and an interest in the environmental issues which affect us all. But Adam Stoneman documents how another form of social interaction - that of wealth flaunting - promotes conspicuous consumption which benefits nobody.

- Tim Harper slams the Cons for looking to attack aboriginal Canadians rather than work with them - a particularly serious problem in the wake of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's report. Don Martin writes that Stephen Harper's staged apology has proven to be entirely empty. And Stephen Maher reminds us that the past genocide by Canada's settlers against First Nations went far beyond culture alone.

- Justin Ling's notorious interview in which the Cons' Immigration Minister Chris Alexander equated wearing a niqab with terrorism is here. And Paul Wells follows up with a scathing counter to Alexander's wilful ignorance about his party's legacy of racism.

- Finally, Karl Nerenberg offers his own roundup of what we can expect now that the Cons' terror bill has been forced through Parliament. And CBC reports on one case of an individual being detained indefinitely without charges even before C-51 offers legislative cover for the disappearing of anybody who proves inconvenient.

[Update: fixed link.]

New column day

Here, on how we should expect our leaders to respond to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's report (PDF) on residential schools - and what we've seen from the Cons instead.

For further reading...
- PressProgress offers the video of Bernard Valcourt sticking out like a sore thumb in his refusal to consider missing and murdered indigenous women to merit any action. And Lucia Lorenzi points out that the Cons are blocking action to deal with violence against women in any form.
- CBC reports on the federal parties' respective responses to the Commission's report, while the Hansard text of Stephen Harper's evasion (click on the "Oral Questions" link) is particularly striking in showing that the Cons think that the report actually constitutes change (rather than merely a first step toward achieving it).
- Finally, Karl Nerenberg writes that Harper has made it abundantly clear that reconciliation won't be happening on his watch. CBC provides a summary of the Commission's findings. And Betty Ann Lavallee, Wab Kinew, Tim Harper and the Ottawa Citizen offer a few of the noteworthy responses to the Commission's report.

New column day

Here, on how the rise of Rachel Notley's NDP serves largely to bring Alberta's political system into step with those of its regional neighbours.

For further reading...
- Murray Mandryk had previously pointed out why we should be cautious about reading too much into the Alberta results. But the most important distinction looks to be that Saskatchewan is currently functioning as a pure two-party system - so the support level which won Rachel Notley a resounding majority would leave the NDP on Saskatchewan's opposition benches.
- Dan Arnold and Andrew Coyne both confirm that a progressive victory in Alberta shouldn't be too much of a surprise.
- Finally, Jeremy Nuttall examines how the NDP's win may affect the federal political scene, while Tim Harper and Chantal Hebert also weigh in.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Both Edward Keenan and the Star's editorial board take note of Thomas Mulcair's plan for urban renewal, with particular emphasis on its appeal across party lines:

Speaking directly to Toronto city council and Mayor John Tory, who won election largely on the basis of his promised SmartTrack “surface subway,” Mulcair said he would be a partner on transit: “Together we will get the people of Toronto moving.”

No wonder Tory declared himself “gratified and pleased” with Mulcair’s approach. Other elements of the NDP’s urban agenda include:

• Appointing a minister responsible for urban affairs — someone to advocate for cities in federal cabinet when key decisions are made.
• Delivering long-term, stable funding for affordable housing.
• Identifying, within the first 100 days of taking office, “worthy extensions” of social housing investments that are set to expire and highlighting new spending necessary to ease a crisis in affordable housing.
• Introducing $15-a-day child care nationwide, and funding 164,000 daycare spaces in the Greater Toronto Area alone. This should be of significant help to the 20,000 families in this city currently on waiting lists for affordable care.
• Accelerating immigration process-times so families can be reunited faster — an important consideration in Toronto, which serves as a magnet for newcomers to Canada.

These are all valuable initiatives. Mulcair is demonstrating a clear understanding of Toronto’s needs and has made addressing them a welcome priority.

- Meanwhile, Carmichael Outreach is offering a series of proposals to address Regina's shortage of affordable housing. But as Wanda Schmockel reports, developers are determined to avoid having a dime spent on those efforts when it could instead be funnelled toward new profit centres. 

- Michael Geist follows up on how C-51 stands to harm Canadians' privacy. And Democracy Watch calls attention to the complete lack of internal and public accountability within CSIS as another reason to be concerned about handing over unchecked powers.

- L. Ian MacDonald discusses the need to move beyond the Cons' primeval politics in talking about security and culture, while Michael Den Tandt notes that the Cons' goal is to have us soaking in fear. Tim Harper observes that the bigoted bozos who were once so desperately suppressed by the Cons' central command now represent the party's most prominent public faces. Michael Spratt writes that the Cons are wrong on both the law and the facts in their anti-niqab fearmongering. And John Cartwright highlights the role of organized labour in pushing back against prejudice and inequality.

- Finally, Richard Trumka points out that attacks on unions serve the sole purpose of suppressing wages and working conditions. Bryce Covert discusses how work is far from a guarantee that a family can escape from poverty. And Robert Reich observes that we shouldn't count on employment relationships or other work conditions returning to how they previously operated:

We need a new economic model.

The economic model that dominated most of the twentieth century was mass production by the many, for mass consumption by the many.

Workers were consumers; consumers were workers. As paychecks rose, people had more money to buy all the things they and others produced — like Kodak cameras. That resulted in more jobs and even higher pay.

That virtuous cycle is now falling apart. A future of almost unlimited production by a handful, for consumption by whoever can afford it, is a recipe for economic and social collapse.

Our underlying problem won’t be the number of jobs. It will be – it already is — the allocation of income and wealth.

On prospects for change

The latest round of discussion about the possibility of a coalition to offer something better than the Harper Cons has taken an noteworthy turn. At this point, everybody but the Libs seems to have settled on the position that there's no real obstacle to a coalition government - and the Libs' spin machine has responded with little more than a plan to fabricate mistrust between themselves and the NDP.

But no matter how far that effort goes, the foreseeable outcomes of the next election feature a low probability of anybody holding a majority, and a strong prospect that the NDP and the Libs working together can deliver the change each of their voters would like to see.

So how far does Justin Trudeau think he'll get telling Canada that cooperation is too much hard work to be worth pursuing, and that we should instead settle for another term of hopeless Harper government?

[Edit: fixed wording.]