Paradigm Sifts, and Deduction Deconstruction

Monday, June 9, 2025

The problem with Canada's public-private partnerships

How public-private partnership solutions to the crises facing Canada will result in corporate capture and a loss of Sovereignty

Public-Sector Private-Sector Collusion

1. The Absence of a Viable Strategy

Since 2025, Canada’s national and provincial governments have struggled to formulate effective strategies to address the country’s most pressing crises: economic insecurity due to U.S. tariffs, housing affordability, climate change, and the erosion of public services. While policy documents and expert recommendations call for reducing dependence on the U.S. market, improving productivity, and diversifying trade, these are long-term, aspirational goals rather than actionable plans1 4 13. The immediate response has been reactive—tariffs are met with retaliatory tariffs, and economic shocks are managed with short-term support for affected industries and workers2 3 5. There is little evidence of a coherent, long-term vision capable of fundamentally restructuring Canada’s economy or insulating it from external shocks.

2. The Dominance of Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) and Corporate Power

In the absence of bold public initiatives, governments have increasingly turned to public-private partnerships as the default solution for infrastructure, housing, and even climate adaptation projects7 8 12. PPPs are presented as a way to leverage private capital, transfer risk, and accelerate project delivery. However, the reality is far more complex and concerning.

a. Corporate Interests at the Forefront
PPPs overwhelmingly favor large corporations—domestic and international—due to their ability to manage complex contracts, absorb risk, and navigate opaque procurement processes7 11 12. This has led to a situation where the solutions proposed and implemented are those that best serve the interests of these corporations: guaranteed returns, risk transfer (often illusory), and long-term control over public assets. Small businesses and community organizations are effectively locked out of these arrangements, reinforcing economic concentration and undermining local innovation11 1228.

b. The Illusion of Risk Transfer and Accountability
Proponents of PPPs argue that they transfer risk from the public to the private sector. However, numerous audits and independent studies have shown that this risk transfer is frequently overstated, and when projects fail or costs escalate, it is the public that ultimately bears the burden11 12. Examples abound: hospital projects in Ontario costing hundreds of millions more than public alternatives, toll roads with exorbitant interest rates, and failed PPPs in water, transit, and education sectors. The private sector’s primary motivation is profit, not public service, and when returns are threatened, companies often renegotiate contracts or walk away, leaving governments to pick up the tab11 12.

c. The Revolving Door and Conflict of Interest
The close ties between political leadership and major corporations further entrench corporate influence. High-profile examples include Mark Carney’s ongoing financial interests in Brookfield Asset Management, a company that stands to benefit from government policies on housing, infrastructure, and energy9. While formal safeguards exist, the revolving door between business and government ensures that corporate perspectives dominate policy discussions. This dynamic is not unique to Canada, but it is particularly pronounced in sectors like energy, where the oil and gas industry has successfully lobbied to shape climate policy and delay meaningful action on emissions629.

3. The Risks of Deference to Corporate Interests

a. Policy Distortion and Neglect of Root Causes
By prioritizing solutions that suit large corporations, governments neglect the root causes of Canada’s crises. In housing, for example, PPPs focus on modular home construction by major developers while ignoring systemic issues like land speculation, renovictions, and the lack of affordable rental stock. In climate policy, the emphasis is on technological fixes like carbon capture and storage (CCUS), which are favored by the oil and gas industry but do little to address the need for rapid emissions reductions629. The result is a policy environment where corporate challenges—risk management, profit maximization, regulatory certainty—are prioritized over public needs.

b. Erosion of Public Control and Accountability
PPPs are negotiated behind closed doors, with contracts kept confidential and limited opportunities for public input or scrutiny12. Once signed, these contracts often lock in private control over public assets for decades, making it difficult for communities to hold anyone accountable when things go wrong. The lack of transparency and accountability undermines public trust and entrenches a system where corporate interests are prioritized over the common good11 12.

c. Economic and Social Consequences
The reliance on PPPs and corporate solutions has significant economic and social costs. Private financing is more expensive than public borrowing, leading to higher project costs and user fees11 12. Essential services like water, transit, and healthcare become less accessible and more expensive, disproportionately affecting vulnerable communities. At the same time, the focus on large-scale, profit-driven projects crowds out smaller, more innovative solutions and reinforces economic inequality11 1228.

4. The Broader Context: Disaster Capitalism and the Capture of Public Policy

The current trajectory of Canadian policy—reactive, corporate-driven, and lacking in long-term vision—reflects the dynamics of disaster capitalism as described by Naomi Klein. Crises are exploited to push through policies that privatize public goods, deregulate industries, and entrench corporate power. The result is a system where public assets and decision-making are increasingly controlled by private interests, while the risks and costs are shifted onto taxpayers and future generations.

5. Conclusion: The Need for a New Approach

Canada’s current approach to its crises is not only inadequate but actively harmful. The reliance on PPPs and deference to corporate interests has led to higher costs, reduced accountability, and the neglect of the root causes of the country’s most pressing problems. To build a more resilient and equitable future, Canada needs to reclaim public control over its economy and policy agenda. This will require:

Rejecting the reflexive use of PPPs and privatization as solutions to every crisis.
Strengthening public institutions and investing in public alternatives for infrastructure, housing, and climate action.
Enhancing transparency and accountability in government contracting and policy-making.
Reducing the influence of corporate lobbyists and closing the revolving door between business and government.
Prioritizing the needs of communities and small businesses over the interests of large corporations.

Only by taking these steps can Canada hope to address its crises in a way that serves the common good, rather than the narrow interests of a powerful few11 1228.

In summary:
Canada’s policy response to its current crises is characterized by a lack of viable, long-term strategies and an overreliance on public-private partnerships that prioritize corporate interests over public needs. This approach has led to higher costs, reduced accountability, and the neglect of the root causes of the country’s most pressing problems. The result is a system where public policy is increasingly shaped by and for large corporations, undermining the common future of all Canadians. A fundamental shift is needed to reclaim public control and ensure that policy solutions serve the broader public interest.

_____________________________________________________________

Thursday, June 5, 2025

Gaza and Moral Integrity

This moral depravity and willingness to throw Palestinians under the bus is the result of prioritizing political and economic relations with powerful and influential countries and actors.

Ten Countries with the Most Moral Integrity

South Africa

Led the ICJ case accusing Israel of genocide.
Advocated for arms embargoes and sanctions.

Nicaragua

Joined South Africa’s ICJ case.
Accused Germany of complicity for arms sales to Israel.

Colombia

Severed diplomatic ties with Israel (May 2024).
Suspended coal exports and arms purchases from Israel.

Ireland

Recognized Palestine (May 2024).
Pushed for UN peacekeeping forces in Gaza.

Spain

Recognized Palestine and joined the ICJ case.
Called for EU-wide arms embargoes on Israel.

Norway

Recognized Palestine (May 2024).
Funded UNRWA and condemned settlement expansion.

Cuba

Joined South Africa’s ICJ case.
Provided medical scholarships to Palestinians.

Bolivia

Severed ties with Israel (November 2023).
Advocated for sanctions on Israeli officials.

Belgium

Declared intent to join the ICJ case.
Imposed sanctions on extremist settlers.

Belize

Suspended diplomatic relations with Israel.
Co-founded The Hague Group for legal accountability.

Ten Countries with the Least Moral Integrity

United States

Vetoed multiple UN Security Council ceasefire resolutions.
Supplies 69% of Israel’s arms (F-35 jets, guided bombs).

Germany

Second-largest arms supplier to Israel (30% of imports).
Resumed arms exports post-2023 despite ICJ rulings.

Italy

Major supplier of helicopters and naval artillery.
Ignored calls to halt arms sales under EU pressure.

United Kingdom

Abstained on key ceasefire votes; licensed £376M in arms (2015–2019).
Supported Israel’s “right to self-defense.”

United Arab Emirates

Normalized ties via Abraham Accords; purchased $1.8B in Israeli arms (2024).
Silent on Gaza humanitarian crisis.

Bahrain

Abraham Accords signatory; deepened military ties with Israel.
Blocked Arab League condemnation of Israeli actions.

Morocco

Normalized relations; received Israeli drones and surveillance tech.
Prioritized economic deals over Palestinian rights.

Canada

Approved $78.8M artillery propellant contract for Israel (2025).
Failed to enforce arms embargo despite rhetoric.

Japan

Refused to recognize Palestine; aligned with U.S. vetoes.
Prioritized economic ties over humanitarian calls.

Australia

Delayed recognizing Palestine; abstained on UN ceasefire votes.
Maintained military cooperation with Israel.

Key Criteria

High Integrity: Recognition of Palestine, legal action (ICJ/ICC), humanitarian aid, sanctions on Israel.
Low Integrity: Arms exports, vetoing ceasefires, normalizing ties without accountability, blocking UN resolutions.

__________________________________________________________________

For those who want a detailed understanding of how I arrived at this analysis, here is a link, complete with sources, to a rather lengthy discourse I had with Perplexity AI. It took place over several days, and addresses new information I became aware of while compiling this information:

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/is-there-recent-israeli-pollin-pZm3TxWmTAyV4.4E8LO9tg

Friday, April 25, 2025

Dashing the False Hopes of the Canadian Electorate:

Dashing the False Hopes of the Canadian Electorate:

[I thought I'd publish this now, two says before the election, just so I can say "I tried to warn you!" after the election.]

This election is expected to have unprecedented turnout. There are multiple crises that Canadians need the next government to resolve. Urgently. The two major parties –Poilievre’s Conservatives and Carney’s Liberals– claim to have solutions. They don’t.

The main crises are acknowledged by both parties: Trump’s threat to Canadian sovereignty; Trump’s tariffs and their implications for the Canadian economy; the housing crisis; the cost of living crisis; and inadequate defence spending. The NDP also share these concerns, but doesn’t expect to be in a position to implement solutions, if they have any. Instead they hope to win enough seats to mitigate the worst impacts on the most vulnerable Canadians. The Green Party has pretty much been written out of the script altogether, so we’ll focus on how the Liberals and Conservatives propose to address these crises, and the viability of their proposed solutions.

The viability of preventing annexation:

Let’s begin with Trump’s oft-repeated intention to make Canada the 51st state. It was probably this issue that caused the Conservatives, who had hitherto enjoyed a significant lead in the opinion polls, to lose popularity and Carney’s Liberals to become the forerunners. It was probably also this issue that caused the NDP, Green Party, and People’s Party to lose much of what little support they had. Canadians decided that we need a PM able to “stand up to Donald Trump”, and Carney was deemed to be that person. He may not have the political experience that Poiliever has, but he was more savvy about the power dynamics at play. He was the adult in the room and played this card to the max. Furthermore, he recognized that the main planks in Poilievre’s platform were to “axe the tax” and to prevent Trudeau and the Liberals from continuing the ten years of mismanaging the economy. Carney wasted no time by “axing the tax” himself, and distancing himself from the Trudeau government by repeatedly pointing out to Poilievre that “Trudeau isn't in the room [son]”. This left Poilievre with nothing to set him apart from the Liberals, and he’s been scrambling ever since. His divisive adversarial, confrontational approach, his populist Trumpian rhetoric, and his failure to cast Carney as a continuation of the unpopular Trudeau have not enabled him to recapture the ground he lost to Carney. While many Canadians may still prefer the economic and social priorities of Poilievre’s Conservatives, they consider Carney best able to “stand up to Donald Trump”.

However, while Carney may indeed be more savvy about international economic dynamics, he is not in a position to be able to change them; he’s not in a position to protect Canadians from Trump's using his superior economic clout to bully Canadians. If Trump so chooses, and he probably will, he will use his economic clout to cause major economic hardship for Canadian businesses, workers, and the general population. He is already doing that, but a prolonged trade war will bankrupt many businesses, especially small ones. Over time, more and more Canadians will be forced to choose between feeding their families and retaining Canadian sovereignty. Even as PM Carney does not have the means of preventing that outcome. Nor does any other candidate. I wish it weren’t so.

The viability of strategies to survive the Tariff War:
The obstacles to preventing annexation apply to the tariff war as well, which is, amongst other things, a tool to force annexation. Both the Conservatives and Liberals agree that the solution is to bolster Canada’s economic strength. They aren’t very explicit about how a stronger economy will strengthen Canada’s resilience, but both agree that stimulating the private sector is key. To that end, they plan to implement the same solution they have to each and every crisis: encourage corporate investment by lowering taxes, reducing regulations and red tape, along with other incentives such as subsidies. This solution is packaged in slightly different ways so that it appears to address each crisis. Once properly stimulated, it is assumed that prospective investors will suddenly overcome their reticence to invest due to the extreme market volatility and uncertainty. They will suddenly start building houses, pipelines, mines, and a west-east energy corridor, etc., employing more and more workers, thereby turning Canada into such a self-sufficient economic powerhouse that it will be impervious to US tariffs and threats of annexation. That is what our primary candidates would have us believe, and most of us will. These solutions will be considered viable because the alternative-no solutions at all–is unthinkable. And neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives are going to miss the opportunity to ingratiate themselves with their corporate sponsors by passing up this newest opportunity to once again apply the Shock Doctrine. People in crisis, they know, are usually willing to believe and accept things that they otherwise would not.

The viability of plans to solve the housing crisis:
Solutions to the housing crisis are an excellent example. In addition to the aforementioned stimuli, another proposal is to subsidize new home buyers. Carney’s Liberals proposed removing the GST on new homes valued at $1,000,000 or less. Not to be outdone, the Conservatives said they would remove the GST on homes valued at $1,250,000 or less. At first glance this seems to make sense, but upon closer examination, both are cynical attempts to trick and defraud Canadian taxpayers into subsidizing home sellers, not home buyers. Homes that sold for $1,000,000 plus $50,000 GST prior to the subsidies would sell for $1,000,000 plus $50,000 after the subsidies went into effect. The appraisal of $1,000,000 was based on what buyers would pay; If buyers had paid $1,000,000 plus $50,000 GST = $1,050,000 before the subsidies, they would pay the same amount after the subsidies. Sellers will simply take the opportunity to jack up the price by $50,000.

This is particularly beneficial to large corporate landlords like Brookfield, which Carney used to manage and still has shares in–a blatant conflict of interest. Brookfield played a large role in creating the housing crisis that Carney and Poilievre now say they’re going to fix by removing the GST. Furthermore, as a corporate landlord engaged in renovictions–evicting tenants so that they could renovate the premises and rent it out again at much higher rates. To add insult to injury, and taxpayer fraud to taxpayer fraud, Carney is allocating $25B in federal financing for prefab/modular homes. It is not likely coincidental, given that Brookfield, in 2021, while Mark Carney was chair, acquired Modulaire Group, a major manufacturer of modular and prefabricated buildings. Even in the role of Prime Minister, Carney can never do as much to solve the housing crisis as he has already done to create it.

Ostensibly, Carney and Poilievre may be political opponents, but they are perfectly in sync when it comes to benefiting corporations like Brookfield at taxpayers expense.

The viability of solutions to the cost of living crisis:
The cost of living crisis, which preexisted the crises listed above, is exacerbated by all of them, and will only be further exacerbated when the proposed solutions are implemented. For the reasons we’ve already discussed, the proposed solutions will benefit corporations, not those negatively impacted by these crises.

The viability of solutions to inadequate defence capabilities:
Given the nature of the threats facing Canada, the level of defence spending shouldn’t even be part of political discourse. The North is threatened, but you can't fight melting icecaps militarily. To be sure, there are very real threats facing us, including existential threats to our sovereignty and integrity, but no amount of defence spending is going to remove them. The primary threat to our sovereignty lies to the south of us, not to the north. It is not Russia. It is not China. It is the USA.

Likewise, the primary threat to our democracy is not Russian interference. It is not Chinese interference. It is corporate influence over policy and decision-making, both in our own and in the US governments. That is not to say that there has been no interference whatsoever by foreign states, but these have primarily been efforts to influence government representatives and/or the public through misinformation via social media. Those threats are dwarfed by the threat of outsized corporate influence.

The military threat posed by Russia is grossly exaggerated. After three years of warfare and thousands of casualties, Russia has yet to gain full control of even a small fraction of Ukraine. It is absurd to think it will successfully invade and occupy another European country in the near or medium term, much less a North American country.

China is indeed a threat, but not a military one. China’s use of its military has been entirely defensive, whereas the US has launched hundreds of military actions, most to expand and protect its hegemony over the world’s resources. These actions include the installation and propping up of dictators, the overthrow and assassination of political opponents, and resource-grabs, as was the case in Iraq in 2003 and Iran in 1953. The threat posed by China is that it is on track to replace the US as the world’s dominant economic power. Some middle powers, such as India, Indonesea, Brazil aren’t entirely reliant on the US, China or Russia, but most Western countries have their wagons hitched to the US economy; their economic welfare is largely contingent on the US retaining global economic supremacy. A threat to economic supremacy is construed as a threat to US sovereignty, hegemony, exceptionalism, and entitlement, and therefore inherently unjust. China’s economic success is construed as undeserved and therefore a form of belligerence. It must be demonized and resisted, militarily if necessary.

All this requires a massive increase in defence spending, to the delight of the military industrial arms complex. The already obscene amount of resources allocated to defence will become even more obscene, preventing the allocation of funds to combat global warming, world hunger, a climate change loss-and-damage fund, affordable housing, and a host of other things. This misallocation of scarce resources is even more deadly than most wars and the genocide in Gaza. Yet the Liberals, Conservatives, and even the New Democrats are in favour of a massive increase in arms spending.

The back-burner crises that are now being removed from the stove altogether:
Even more reprehensible are the ways in which other crises are being ignored. The refugee crisis has morphed from concern for the refugees to concern about how to prevent them from coming here. According to Poilievre the needs of indigenous people will be met if they welcome extractive and other industries into their territory. Climate change is not being ignored. Green technology will be promoted by inviting extractive industries to extract “critical” minerals from the peat lands in Ontario’s Ring of Fire. There is purportedly something green (I can’t quite remember what) about NORAD expansion in the north.

And so forth.

In conclusion:
Canadians would do well to reexamine the choices before them in this election, and act accordingly. I won’t presume to tell you how you should act. Just act. Urgent action is called for.