A Study in Contrasts

Liberals: Positive hopeful ads portraying a vision for Canada's future
Vs.
Conservatives: Negative deceptive ads ranting about a coalition that has been ruled out (as they ally with those same parties themselves) and accusations of Liberals wanting to raise taxes as they raise them themselves.
NDP: Prefers to keep the later in government in return for what their own supporters and MPs call "paltry" and "crumbs". They certainly have a lot of explaining to do.

UPDATE: Speaking of ads and contrasts, Steve calls attention to another:

The Conservative government is spending more than five times as many taxpayer dollars on promoting its economic plan as it is on raising public awareness about the flu pandemic.

The TV spots are just the latest $4-million salvo in a $34-million media blitz trumpeting the Conservative's recession-fighting budget.

Meanwhile, with public health officials fretting over an onrushing fall flu season, the spread of the H1N1 virus and widespread public apathy about the need for vaccination, no television ads are in the works to combat swine flu.

Health Canada's home web page, however, does include a prominent link to the Conservative economic action plan website (www.actionplan.gc.ca).

Recommend this Post

The Case for Change

As Parliament returned today, so does this blog. And as the Harper government returned to Question Period for another round of evasive non-answers, ask yourself do we really need more of this? What does Stephen Harper have to show for his almost four years in office? Deficits, Debt, Division, Deception and Disarray.

Stephen Harper was so obsessed with banishing "surprise Liberal surpluses" and yet now he wants us to cut him slack for ever rising surprise new Conservative deficits.

Stephen Harper boasted about how much debt he was going to pay down, only to pile up more than had been paid in the last decade.

Stephen Harper said when he was first elected that his he would "govern for all Canadians" only to be the worst wedge politician Canada's ever seen as he writes off 60% of the population completely.

Stephen Harper said he would bring open, honest and accountable government, only to give us the opposite.
He promised us no recession and no deficit and we got the worst of both.
He tried to take credit for the lowest unemployment rate in 33 years, only to blame everyone else but him when he faces the highest.
He railed against Liberal patronage and cronyism and felt compelled to top it.
He promised sincere cooperation on EI this past summer and turned the whole thing into a charade.
He accused the opposition of wanting to raise payroll taxes on EI (which we were told would be a "job killer"), only to do so himself.
That kind of deception is tough to top.

And he's left our country in complete disarray with no vision or long-term domestic or foreign policy goals. Can someone point to anything Stephen Harper has planned for even next year? As every other major industrialized country makes targeted investments and restructures to compete in the global economy, Stephen Harper just puts his head in the sand. Does anyone still listen to Canada with Stephen Harper in power? When Stephen Harper says Canada is "back" under his leadership he must mean back of the pack.

It's really quite the legacy to leave behind and that's just the short list!
Well we needn't let him add to it any longer.

Canadians deserve better.

We face the toughest times in a generation with a Parliament Stephen Harper refuses to make work (Overdue EI Reforms still don't make the grade).

If you give Stephen Harper your hand, rest assured he will do everything he can to tie it behind your back (Jack Layton take note...).

Every day more Harper is in office our potential as a country is further squandered as he obsesses over crushing his opponents instead of governing the nation.

There is little positive to be gained by keeping this government in office any longer. We can do better.

We need a government willing to actually govern and make Parliament work rather than one focused entirely on electioneering and trying to come up with the best "plausible" lies about their opposition.

We need a government willing to lead on the world stage, rather than one that's happy to be a bit player.

We need a government with a team of strong capable ministers, rather than a one-man show who forces the rest into hiding.

We need a government that listens to research and science instead of one driven only be ideology.

We need a government willing to stand up for women's and minority rights and the disabled, instead of one that sees them as "left-wing fringe groups".

We need a government that protects Canadians abroad instead of abandons them.

We need a government that believes in our institutions, from public broadcasting, to the courts, to Elections Canada, rather than a government trying to tear them down.

We need a government that knows we must invest more in post-secondary education, instead of one who mocks those with a university education.

We need a government willing to show real environmental leadership at the largest ever Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen this December, instead of one that would go with the goal of being the biggest holdout.

We need a government that knows that good child care policy is good economic policy, instead of one that is seemingly proud not to have created a single child care space.

We need a government willing to level with Canadians and give straight answers instead of one that stonewalls and deceives at every turn.

We need a government that's fiscally responsible and has a social conscience to replace one that's neither.

We need a government that's focused on building the Canada of the future to take over from one that can't see beyond the next election.

We need a Prime Minister that unites Canadians rather than divides them.

Only Michael Ignatieff and the Liberal Party can provide this kind of government to Canadians. A Prime Minister and government that provides real vision and leadership we can all be proud of.

A majority of Canadians may say they don't want an election now, but that's because they are not yet convinced an election would change much or that there's no single defining issue. But an election can give us the real debate about our future we didn't get in the last and that we really need as economies restructure across the globe.

Liberals will present a truly alternative compelling vision for this country and Canadians will see we can be so much more than we are.

Stephen Harper was given another chance by Canadians almost a year ago and in every way, he's blown it. The stakes are too high to grant him another reprieve. These tough times demand better.

When Canadians are faced with a choice of positive change and more of the same, the choice will be clear.

Canada needs a new direction and it can't come soon enough.

------------------------------------------------
For more on why we need an election, see here

Recommend this Post

Compromise, Patience and Timing Will Get Canadians the Government We Deserve in the End

In the larger picture of things today was a victory for both the Liberal Party and for Canadians. Stephen Harper has badly mismanaged the economy and failed to adequately look after unemployed workers. Once again when his back is against wall, he is forced to bend and at least move in the direction of doing the right thing - he's admitted the EI program needs to fixed to help the self-employed and deal with regional disaparities. By fall there is now a reasonable expectation serious changes will be made. It's not perfect, but an election would not have brought EI changes all that much sooner either and was really not the desired result from our party or Canadians perspectives. The media always says they want to see Parliament work, well in the context of a minority Parliament isn't this how it's supposed to work?

Now was just not the right time for Liberals to go to the polls. We go into an election to win, not because we'd look bad if we didn't. Our cards were played just right, Michael Ignatieff and the Liberals made the Conservatives cave in (Harper knew an election would have ended his career even if he barely eeked out the most seats) and we will get better policy and accounting of the nation's finances as a result. Just as important we will a chance to bring them down in the fall, something I was originally quite skeptical they would give us.

But just think of what the dynamic would have been if we had gotten a summer election. The Conservatives have 143 MPs and dozens more nominated who have been campaigning heavily since the last election in their ridings. I don't know how many candidates we have nominated right now, but my sense is with the exception of our 77 MPs, many candidates were only nominated in the past month or two. In the case of my riding our candidate (former, and soon to be again, MP) Lloyd St. Amand was nominated last night. If there was a summer election that would give these recently nominated candidates very little time to formally campaign in their riding against incumbents. You can't ignore the advantages incumbency affords the Conservatives, having the summer to recruit high profile candidates, and for our already nominated candidates, to become more well known and get some positive press in their ridings, can make a world of difference. In Brant, Lloyd would have won with an election this week I'm sure, but other candidates will certainly benefit from the extra time.

You can say we should have had more of our candidates in place sooner to be ready for summer, but you can't do that while at the same time saying you want a more grassroots based nomination process, and rushing nominations can sometimes lead to a potentially better candidate being excluded. Having a more drawn out nomination process also leads to more Liberal members being recruited in ridings across the country and more money being fundraised at the riding and party level.

I'm hearing some EXTREMELY positive things about our fundraising and membership numbers, more nomination meetings and the summer BBQ circuit are only going to help. Waiting longer to go will probably also lead to more ridings being familiar with Liberalist, our vote-tracking software which will prove key to winning close races.

I think in hindsight we might have been better served to have gone into the last election in May or June 2008, but that still would have been after over 2 years of election preparation - had we gone much sooner than last June we might well have seen a worse result than we actually got. Timing and election readiness are essential to have right. Stephen Harper knows that well, had he waited even a few weeks longer to call an election, I'm certain he would have lost (he received even more luck in timing by the fact that the TSX had two massive rallies the last two days of the campaign, very positive job numbers came out the Friday before voting day and the Dion hatchet job CTV piece came out the day before that). Just a couple weeks after voting day a Nanos Poll had it at 32% (-6%) Conservatives to 30% (+4%) Liberal support. We have to get our timing just right.

The record may show we waited a bit too long to go last time, but if we had gone now, while I do believe we would have won, the risk of the Conservatives still winning more seats than us would have been much higher . We will win more seats in the end by waiting and ensuring our election machine crushes the Conservatives when the time comes.

The only major downside is that while our ideal time may be this fall, it will tough to get the Bloc and NDP onboard with that. But it's hard for either of them to justify voting down the government now and making some side deal with them later just to save themselves from massive seat losses. At the least I don't see either of them supporting the next Conservative budget.

In the end, Conservatives are past the point of no return in Quebec, getting there in
Ontario, and hardly winning over any new supporters with their latest spin and theatrics to try to cover up their terrible record of mismanagement. Even if the economy is recovered by early next year I doubt Canadians will really give Conservatives all that much credit for it and that might actually take the economy off the table as a major issue and move to the wider question of which party represents your values and who can you trust (to improve our international reputation, to improve education and health care, to slay the deficit, etc..) which we will easily outpoll the Conservatives on (and right now we outpoll them on the economy as it is). This government also seems to have new scandals by the day which won't help them much either.

It doesn't change that Harper and the Conservatives have no vision and no plan to move this country forward. Their only progress comes when they are forced into acting. When the election comes our plan will put theirs to shame.

So while I'd like this government gone tomorrow, I'm confident they will be whenever we finally do go to the polls. So with compromise, patience and the right timing we will ensure Canadians get the government they need and deserve.

Recommend this Post

Stephen Harper Doesn't Get It, Never Will

If Stephen Harper really wanted to be as "Mr. Hope" or a Canadian Obama imitation, perhaps he should have actually looked at Obama's most famous speeches. He might then have realized that Obama's best speeches resonated because they were unifying, not divisive, and were considered post-partisan, rather than partisan speeches.

If Stephen Harper really wants to reach out to supporters of other parties, perhaps he could just actually act like a Prime Minister for once and stand above the fray, rather than give yet another completely partisan speech, especially when his partisan arguments are so incredibly flimsy (as David Akin so easily points out - h/t to Jeff).

Mr. Harper, Canadians didn't give you a blank cheque in the last election, they gave you a minority. In case you don't yet understand our system that means Canadians wanted you to work with other parties to get things done.

Canadians want Parliamentarians to work together, but instead confrontation is what Harper has on his mind. He's the only one talking about causing an election over his unwillingness to have even a shred of accountability for $3 billion in new spending.

Mr. Harper likes to talk about other parties "not heeding the lessons of the last election," well look in the mirror Mr. Harper or break out a calculator because a clear majority of Canadians voted against you and the last thing they want is to give you unfettered spending power with no strings attached. And you talk about Canada coming out of this recession stronger than before but your budget did nothing to achieve that goal.

The irony is that if Stephen Harper actually acted like a Prime Minister and reached out his hand to the members of the opposition and ran his government in a more collaborative fashion, he'd actually be more popular with Canadians (I fail to see how his flimsy partisan attacks win over Liberal voters to his side), but he just can't help himself. The fact that he personally wrote today's speech really says it all.

It's just so clear now beyond a shadow of a doubt that Stephen Harper doesn't get it.

He didn't get that a recession was coming, so instead encouraged everyone to buy stocks just before they monumentally crashed.

He didn't realize he had a minority, so instead his first order of business after the election was to try to destroy the opposition while doing nothing about the economy and then delaying a budget by two months he now says must be passed immediately.

And now he doesn't realize that Canadians want more than anything to see politicians put partisan squabbles aside to address the economic crisis, so instead his "defining speech" about the recession is more about scoring partisan points than actually helping Canadians.

Stephen Harper is a Conservative partisan first and a Prime Minister second and in this economic climate that combination is toxic (especially when compared with the President across the border) and it's only a matter of time before it ends his career one way or another.

Recommend this Post

Ontario PC's: Taking Pleasure in the Misfortune of Others

This story really says it all:
“PCs see opportunity in hard times”

the rapidly deteriorating economy....is widely viewed as an opportunity

"People smell blood," said a veteran Conservative backroom operative

"From 2008 to 2009, it's like somebody flicked a switch," said party president Ken Zeise. "It's like, `pinch myself.' This is an amazing year."

So let's get this straight, the Ontario PCs are HOPING that this recession stretches out for another 30 MONTHS so that they'll have an easier time convincing Ontarians to accept a party they resoundingly rejected in the last two elections? The economy takes a dive, unemployment sky-rockets and that makes for an "amazing year"? Well doesn't this tell us everything we need to know about how much John Tory's party really cares about all those suffering in the economic crisis? Oh yes they care, I guess they're just hoping the poor and newly layed-off workers suffer awhile longer so their partisan ambitions can be more easily satisfied.

The Mike Harris fan club want to replace the McGuinty government? Fine. I've yet to hear any compelling reason why they deserve to be anywhere close to government, but is it too much to ask that their try another route to argue their case than one that relies on the prolonged suffering of others?

I guess I should expect no less from the guys that seemed to take pride in beating up on the poor when they were last in power.

And should we be so unfortunate as to still be in a recession in October 2011, in case the PCs haven't realized, the LAST guys Ontarians will want in power in a prolonged recession are the same people that horribly managed the public purse (and blatantly lied about it) and decimated our social safety net.

But sure carry on hoping for Ontarians to suffer for longer and engaging in more Mike Harris adoration as you did this past weekend - you're just showing Ontarians how incredibly out of touch you are.

Recommend this Post

Harper and Co. Reveal to Ontario PCs Exactly How They'd Like to Govern: Mike Harris Style

Aside from Jason Kenney's troubling revelation this weekend (which many others have blogged about) that his colleagues (and perhaps himself as well) see his job as primarily wining and dining members of ethnic communities instead of actually helping them and providing sound immigration policy (which completely proves that Conservative "outreach" is a complete façade) , something else in his remarks caught my eye:
"But he reserved most of his praise for Tory's far-right predecessor, former Ontario premier Mike Harris, and his controversial "Common Sense Revolution" agenda".

We all know cabinet ministers don't say anything without it running it by the PMO so anything said by a cabinet minister can be reasonably assumed to reflect Stephen Harper's views.

So Harper and his ministers think that a recession where poverty and unemployment will rise dramatically is a good time to praise the Harris government that did everything it could to dismantle the social safety net?

And they think the Harris government provided sound economic management when they left behind a $6 billion deficit (and lied about it!) even after selling off every provincial asset they could get away? I guess Harper's easily on pass to top that.

Wow! Just one more reason why these guys could NEVER be trusted with a majority. Mike Harris did enough damage to Ontario, and as much Conservatives would like a national "common sense revolution" I have enough faith in Canadians that they will never give them the majority to do that with.

P.S. For those wondering more what went on at the Ontario PC Conventipon in Niagara Falls it seems Darryl Wolk is the only blogger who provided coverage (if you know of others add them in the comments).

Recommend this Post

Grading the Budget: Some Positive Short-Term Measures, but an Utter Failure to Invest in Our Future / Where Liberals Go From Here

This week has not allowed me any time to blog meaningfully up until now, but with the budget now passed first reading last night I thought it would be a good time to finally add my two cents and where we go from here. I had fully expected the budget to pass and it seems polls have validated the decision as something that enjoys widespread public support, particularly with the quarterly reports amendment. That said, given that we know there are many flaws in this budget, I would have much rather seen 50 Liberal MPs vote against it (and the rest stay home) and still let it pass than see any Liberal MPs stand up to support it (I just don't like the idea of Liberals voting for a Conservative budget, I took the same position under Dion, and I'm not sure Liberals have ever happened voted for a Conservative budget before). I also would rather have seen the caucus vote as one because I'm concerned about the precedent being set of allowing one province of MPs to vote different from another on a budget vote. But I can accept I may hold a minority view on those two fronts and I suspect the public really doesn't care (and may have very soon forgotten) about those latter two distinctions anyway. Above all it seems the public just wanted to see the stimulus money flow and Parliament to get back down to work.

So on to the budget itself...

1) Protecting the Most Vulnerable Canadians: Grade: C +

I had said I was hoping for significant investments in social housing, aboriginal communities and poverty reduction along with enhancements to EI.

On the first three in truth there was more there than I would have expected a few weeks ago from these guys, and while I would have liked to have seen more significant investments on these fronts (and I know the savings could have been found by eliminating funding for other less-pressing projects and subsidies of which there were many in this budget), it's a long overdue step in the right direction and Liberal must keep pushing them further.

However, where the budget really does fail on protecting the vulnerable is with EI. Harper himself says this could be the worst downturn since the depression and he doesn't think that warrants extra help for the unemployed? He doesn't think they deserve to get their first cheque sooner when layoffs are increasing dramatically? It was positive to see him extend the length people could be on EI, but it was not enough.

I also have huge reservations over their revival of the pay equity attack from the fall fiscal update which seems like a slap in the face from a party that claims to be more conciliatory now, but since that I believe would be dealt with in separate legislation I won't get overly hung up about it, but when such legislation comes Liberals must vote against it.

2) Protecting Canadians’ jobs, today and in every region of the country: Grade: B-

I had said I was hoping for dedicated aid to the manufacturing sector and other hard hit industries to protect jobs in those areas, that there must be significant investments in job re-training, investments in infrastructure, the culture industry and new actions taken to address the credit crisis. I think the Conservatives did a reasonable/passable job on these fronts.

However, I'm not impressed with the scatter gun way it seems the infrastructure money will be distributed or that it will be need be matched by municipalities that may not be able to afford it.

3) Creating the jobs of tomorrow, and enhanced our competitiveness and productivity without leaving debt and deficit behind for future generations.
Grade: F

I said the budget should take major steps to begin greening our economy (though major investments in alternative energy and green infrastructure), provide greater aid for home retrofits, increase investments in early learning and child care (to invest in our children's future) and post-secondary education, and have a clearly mapped out plan to get us back to surplus that does not involve asset sales or ideological social program cuts.

With the exception of some money for home retrofits (that I believe only starts if you have $1000 to spend) the budget failed on all of these fronts. The investments in green infrastructure and the environment in general were paltry especially in comparison to what other countries are doing or even what past Liberal budgets have done. There was NO attempt to green the economy as our neighbours to the South it seems will be doing anyway in our absence.

There were no meaningfully investments in post-secondary education aside from helping build infrastructure on campus. Universities need much more than that to compete with the funding they get in the U.S. and to adapt to the reality of a growing percentage of the population seeking college and bachelor's degrees.

There were essentially no investments in early learning child care despite that fact that countries with national child care networks are greatly outperforming us economically right now and we were rated DEAD LAST in the western world in our investments on this issue.

The budget also inexplicably cuts funding for research councils and provided ZERO funding for the Genome Project (which Canada may now to have pull out of as an international partner) and other key medical research programs. That is a complete travesty and has to be addressed at the Finance committee. How do you justify taking away significant funding from key projects in the biggest spending budget ever?

And the plan to return to surplus was extremely brief, based on surely faulty estimates and did involve questionable asset sales. I have no faith in said plan to return to balanced budgets whatsoever. I do believe deficits were inevitable given the global economic downturn but the Cons terrible management of the public finances with reckless spending and their GST cuts (that few people have really noticed and haven't helped economic productivity) have made the deficit far worse than it ever had to be and it's appalling that they really seem to have no idea of how to get us out of it.

I'd love to hear a sound argument from anyone as to how this budget really helps "create the jobs of the future" or doesn't saddle future generations with debt. The budget is an monumental disappointment on that front.

Overall Grade: C-

This budget lacked any clear focus and was just so all over the map that they lose points for that because Canadians deserve so much better in these tough times. There's also many subsidies in there for people to do things they would already be doing and others will be out reach to those at the lower income spectrum. To boot there are modest middle income tax cuts financed by deficit spending (which never makes sense for funding tax cuts) that won't stimulate the economy and will make it more difficult to get back to surplus (much better as economic stimulus while also helping the poor would have been to increase the GST rebate). At the same time, the Conservatives went a lot farther on some progressive issues that I had thought they would so the budget wasn't a complete disaster. But given that I agreed with Michael Ignatieff's statement before the budget that the most important criteria to consider was "will it create the jobs of tomorrow?" I can't help but give that the biggest weight in the big picture of how good this budget is for Canada. It's for that reason I cringe where I hear this being called a "Liberal budget" as the Liberals would never have produced something so shoddy. While I'm sure the Conservatives really could care less what a lowly Liberal blogger thinks or how she grades their budget (or how Calgary Grit or economists grade it for that matter), we can't forget where this budget fails badly and have to keep reminding Canadians why they deserve better.

So given that the budget badly underperforms in key areas, but Canadians badly seem to want to see a budget passed ASAP that provides economic stimulus I hope we propose sensible, reasoned, amendments in committee after second reading (which is what I suggested as well before the budget was tabled). Committee votes aren't votes of confidence and there is no threat of bringing the government down there. The opposition has a majority and should set aside differences to get meaningful results and if the Conservative obstruct reasonable proposals and delay their own budget they will be the ones looking worse for it. If the other opposition parties refuse to support progressive committee amendments that's just as unforgivable.

We obviously can't overhaul the budget but we can fix many holes. For instance, funding can surely be found for the Genome Project it would be travesty not to when so many other projects were funded. The budgets of the Tri-Councils (SSHRC, CIHR, NSERC) for research should also not be cut. We could also remove the two week waiting period for EI and remove the need for matching funding from municipalities for infrastructure funds to be doled out. We could attach greater strings to ensure infrastructure money goes to more green projects to make up the budget's major shortfall on the environment. As well, I honestly believe the home renovation rebates should only be for green home renovations that increase energy efficiency and not for things like paving your driveway. That would SAVE the government tons of money to free up elsewhere while also being better for the environment. Those are just a few possibilities (though I know the last won't happen because there would outcries from people who had already gone ahead with plans for non-eco related renovations, but it would be far better public policy).

But regardless of what pans out with this budget, a very sad political reality remains: time and again, it seems is that to be successful politically means placing priority on the "here and now" well above any considerations of the long-term. I believe that is a major reason why a carbon tax, amongst other sensible policies (e.g., large investments in Green infrastructure projects), have been difficult to sell. And I believe it's why this budget that does reasonably well on the here and now front is popular, despite its failure to look beyond the horizon. But until we get a Prime Minister that has his/her eyes on the next decade ahead, and not just the next election, our country will remain in deep trouble.

So where do we go from here? If we are honest with ourselves we have to admit that with the passage of this budget (regardless of any amendments in committee) we return to a 1993 financial situation (I believe the deficit numbers will turn out much worse than the budget currently predicts: Bob Rae provided some good reasons why here). It took Liberals at least 5 years to be able to start making any major social investments again once we took power and it required very painful decisions in order to bring us back to that situation of being able to make such investments. The passage of this budget (and of course the economic realities that have decimated federal coffers apart from the budget) means our platform in the next election will likely only be able to promise a fraction over the next 4 years of what we promised last fall. So within that reality we need a long-term vision badly (and not one based on vagaries with specific ideas for the future and that won't be drop after just one election), but we also need the short-term ideas that win elections. People mocked the 10 year $70 billion infrastructure plan because of sticker shock but in reality 10 year plans are what the country needs, but it's a big job to convince the public of that, though it's not one we should shy away from.

So I hope the Liberal Party can find the right balance between short-term political gains and long-term policy goals in the months ahead, because Canada desperately needs it to. This government doesn't get it, they won't get it, and with each year they remain in power the further the rest of the Western world will be leaving us in the dust.

Recommend this Post

What Kind of Budget Does Canada Need?

In a little under half an hour we will see if Stephen Harper has learned any lessons from the past several weeks and whether he finally realizes he has a minority government. I know the Liberals will face a difficult choice. I do not subscribe to the view of oppose the budget no matter, but nor do I think we should approach the budget as a blank slate, as we can’t forget all the deception and gamesmanship that preceded this. We have to ask not only is this a good budget but can Harper be trusted to govern responsibly and implement it appropriately in the months ahead. Harper has to send out very strong signals that he gets it. And the budget he puts forward has to be what’s necessary for the time ahead as the coalition document outlined last fall.

I think the Liberals have some pretty good broad tests of what’s acceptable, but within the broad tests, the budget should in my view have the following:

1) Protecting the most vulnerable Canadians:
- Investments in social housing. The $2 billion proposed is actually less than at least the provinces have asked for which is unfortunate, but this could be amended in committee.
- Investments in Aboriginal communities. A re-commitment to carrying out the Kelowna Accords (I don’t care if they use the name as long as the money and goals are the same).
- Investments in poverty reduction. Tax changes along the lines of Dion’s 30/50 poverty plan are more than appropriate in these tough economic times.
- Employment insurance must be enhanced and distributed more quickly.

2) Protecting Canadians’ jobs, today and in every region of the country
- There must be dedicated aid to the manufacturing sector and other hard hit industries
- There must be significant investments in job re-training
- There should be new actions taken to address the credit crisis
- There should be significant investments in the cultural industry which always returns more in revenue than government pays out and that Conservatives have badly neglected.

3) Creating the jobs of tomorrow, and enhanced our competitiveness and productivity without leaving debt and deficit behind for future generations.
- The budget must start the business of greening our economy and invest in alternative energy and green infrastructure, such as high speed rail and public transportation projects. I’m disappointed to hear that it sounds like there will only be $1 billon over two years dedicated towards green infrastructure. Isn’t that the same amount that has been in previous budgets? Hopefully the Liberals propose an amendment in committee on that front as well.
- The budget must help individuals retrofit their homes with greater aid that has been there before.
- The budget should have increased funding dedicated to post-secondary education.
- There should be increased funding given to the provinces for child care. Increased funding for early learning and child care allows more parents to enter the work force, but also enhances our competitivess for the future and helps build a brighter generation for the future. The Scandinavian countries with national child care programs are also doing better economically than us now, it’s time for us to start catching up and get serious on this issue and not stubborn ideology get in the way.
- The budget must avoid a structural deficit. That means no middle class tax cuts that don’t have a sunset. The Budget Office said that cutting $6 billion a year from foregone revenues (e.g., through tax measures) would create a structural deficit so that can’t be allowed.
- There must be plan to get us back to surplus that does NOT include asset sales or ideological cuts to social programs.

I don’t expect all these will be in here and I’m sure I’ve forgot some things (wanted to get this posted before the budget was actually released), but since I expect many of them to be in there and I don’t think Harper is so dumb as to put in the large middle class tax cuts Ignatieff said he would vote against, I expect the budget will pass. That doesn’t mean I think it should pass, but I recognize the difficult decision being made and that our MPs have been inundated with calls against a possible coalition and urging them to pass the budget, not to mention the last polls that say the same. On the whole I think the mood among Canadians is just to get a stimulus package passed as soon as possible so we must live within that context, but not forget that Harper alone was who prevented such a budget from arriving much sooner and that this is the most important budget in over a decade and can't be decided to vote up or down easily. We shall see very shortly how this will all play out.

If there are large middle class tax cuts that don’t sunset in a couple years (which would no doubt cause a structural deficit) then I think the Liberals will have no choice but to vote against though. Otherwise, I hope at the very least they propose amendments to include all those things above that Harper didn’t put in the budget. We have the majority in committee and if Harper is really going to be about “consensus” he should let the will of the majority prevail there and if he doesn't allow any such amendments then that would seem the like the same old Harper that hasn't learned the lessons he has to.

Recommend this Post

The Steady Hand for the Economy

For a bunch of reasons I haven’t been able to blog much this month, but I should be back in the swing of it again with Parliament returning this week. With our MPs coming back today one issue will at the top of everyone’s mind: the economy. And is there a single remaining Conservative who can say with a straight face that Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty's party have been good economic managers?

The entire last election was about them convincing us that they would be “steady hand” to guide the economy through rough waters. Instead, they’ve steadily guided us deeper and deeper into a ditch and it’s still not clear if they’ve taken us to the bottom of it yet.

Can anyone name a single sound economic decision this government made? A single one?

How about their introduction of 40 year mortgages and other reckless lending practices that first triggered the financial crisis south of the border? Was that sound economic management?

How about cutting the GST by two points when ZERO economists recommended it and taking approximately $12 billion a year more out of general revenues? Does anyone really believe that benefited the economy?

How about Stephen Harper’s encouragement to buy into the stock market before it fell another 20%? Does this make you think he should be managing the country’s money?

How about Stephen Harper’s saying in September that “if we were going to have a recession we probably would have already had one by now” before later saying we could face a depression. Does this make you think that this “economist” really understands the economy?

How about pronouncing there would be surpluses in the four years ahead and turning around just a few weeks later to say there would $100 billion in accumulated debt (with $13 billion of that coming BEFORE any stimulus) instead? Does this make you feel confident in their forecasts for the future?

I won’t be surprised if we hear in today’s throne speech about how these guys “saw the storm coming” and are providing “sound economic management”. But that’s nothing more than a massive lie and Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty know it. You can read here on this blog and many others quotes from news stories predicting “worse than a recession” during the election campaign while Stephen Harper was still out singing from his “don’t worry, be happy” songbook. We’ve grown to expect our Prime Ministers to play politics now and then, but we’ve never seen them be so willfully dishonest. And in my book we don’t reward people who pathologically deceive, while being abysmal at the job everyone expects them to do.

We face the toughest economic crisis in a generation. The next six months of government action will play a major role in determining when Canada will see an economic recovery. The Liberals will face a very tough choice this week and will be under overwhelming pressure to pass whatever Conservative budget is put forward, and while I’m willing to see that budget before pronouncing it should be defeated we still need to ask ourselves, if we truly put the interests of Canada and our economy first, do we have confidence in Stephen Harper to get us out of this economic crisis?

Recommend this Post

A New Voice of Hope

Today, 8 long years of mismanagement and disappointment came to an end and a new era has begun (see inauguration/speech video and other photos below). Barack Obama faces impossible expectations and no doubt he cannot meet them all and no doubt he will make some decisions that I disagree with and that he obviously won't still have an 80% appproval rating in 2012. But as I’ve been saying for a for a long time now the United States and the world desperately need a major overhaul from the approach of the last 8 years. But in these trying times the world also doesn’t just need change, but hope and optimism. And nobody embodies change and hope better than Barack Obama. As Nelson Mandela said today in a letter to the new President: “Your election to this high office has inspired people as few other events in recent times have done. Amidst all of the human progress made over the last century the world in which we live remains one of great divisions, conflict, inequality, poverty and injustice…You, Mister President, have brought a new voice of hope that these problems can be addressed and that we can in fact change the world and make of it a better place” I share the hope of Mr. Mandela and so many others today…

The hope that the United States will stand up for human rights and not against them.

The hope that the United States will engage the world and embrace multilateralism instead of unilateralism.

The hope that the United States will tackle the crisis of climate change instead of denying it.

The hope that the United States will provide health care for all its citizens instead of being the only western nation that doesn’t.

The hope that the United States will truly become an accountable government by and FOR the people instead of a government consumed by secrecy.

The hope that the United States will look after the impoverished and help left them out of poverty instead of seeing the poor as a burden to be looked down upon.

The hope that the United States will do its part to solve the economic crises instead of being an enabler of the policies that started it.

The hope that the United States President will work to heal the divides at home and across the globe rather than exacerbate them.

The hope that the United States will play a more positive role in the world than it ever has before.

I may not be an American but I can say I’m as optimistic about America’s new direction as I was the election night I won't forget in Chicago.

The Chase for Change is now over. Change has arrived and while actions will speak louder than words, I hold out hope that 4 years (and even 8 years) from now Barack Obama will still represent change we could all believe in.

Recommend this Post

Good Child Care Policies Are Good Economic Policies: Time for Stephen Harper to Wake Up

While everyone is most focused on how to get us immediately out of the current economic/financial crisis, it's important for government to be focused on medium and long term goals as well. This government has proved itself completely incapable of taking the long view on anything. The environment is one example of that, but another is child care. Good early learning and child care policies are good economic policies. When you invest in early learning and child care you allow more parents to enter the work force, as right now some are unable due to lack of affordable or available care for their young children. At the same time, quality early learning centres allow children to enter formal school better able to meet their full potential. But as Scott noted, a recent UN report comparing the approaches to child care of 25 developed countries, ranked us dead last, even behind the United States. It's time for our government to wake up and get serious on this issue. No one can dispute that changing our approach wouldn't be good for our economy in the medium and long term.

And it is affordable to take action now. Harper's "universal child care benefit" costs TWICE the amount of the original Liberal child care program. I was glad to see that the coalition agreement included a commitment to increased investments in child care before its term is up (as the first priority business will still remain addressing the current economic crisis). But Harper still has a chance to get on board. Given that investments made now matter for where our country stands economically a few years from now I still think the next budget should have increased revenue devoted to rebuilding a national child care program. Why not have the $100 a month cheques be means-tested (say a family with a dual income above $150,000 or $200,000 a year does not receive them anymore) and use the savings to go towards rebuilding a national child care program again? Does anyone dispute that wouldn't be more sensible policy? On what basis would such a policy be opposed? The monthly child care cheques would only be taken away from those who never needed them to provide child care in the first place and the savings can be used to actually create more quality and available child care spaces for those who desperately need them.

The opposition parties hold the cards here and Harper has lost their confidence through his own incompetence and gamesmanship, so there's no reason Harper should get away with doing what he was planning to do anyway. We should get him to commit to doing this and I know we would find support among the general public for doing so. 62% of people voted for parties that support a national child care program and polls have consistently shown that Canadians preferred the Liberal plan to the Conservative one. We have an opportunity to force Harper to do what's right, let's make use of that because we might not get another opportunity if the budget ends up passing (for if it does pass with few concessions and commitments on Harper's part, then within a matter of months he could easily be back to his old ways of reckless repeated confidence votes with the coalition threat then gone). If Harper's not willing to budge then he is clearly taking our support for granted. As of now Blogging Tories and Conservative pundits alike are all gleefully musing that the Liberals will support the budget no matter what's in it. We should send a clear message then we won't just accept a few token concessions. I see that message has started to be spread by Liberals but I think perhaps we should lay down some non-negotiables for what has to be in the budget in order to earn our support.

Our economy and international competitiveness, not to mention families across the country, will undoubtedly be better off with a real universal child care program that the dead last approach we have now. If Harper won't listen then he clearly hasn't heard the voices of the electorate, he clearly doesn't understand the economy. And someone who doesn't understand the economy clearly won't be the best person to get us out of this economic crisis. If Harper's not willing to change his approaches to governing on not just this issue, but on fiscal stimulus, helping those most hard hit by the economic crisis, abandoning his brazen abuse of confidence votes, showing us the the real state of the nation's finances, amongst many others, then he clearly hasn't realized he's in a minority and he deserves to be brought down and replaced.

Recommend this Post

Canada's International Reputation Takes Another Beating

And again on the environment. Was our stalling and the daily condemnations being rained down upon us at Bali not enough? Apparently we needed a replay in Poland. Not only is every Western nation taking action on the economy while we are not, they all seem to be much more serious about tackling climate change while we have our heads in the sand. The economy may be top of mind for most people these days but that doesn't mean what we decide NOW on the environment won't have dramatic consequences for the economy and our way of life in the future. Good economic policy is good environmental policy and this is yet another area the Harper government should change if it is to prove itself worthy of survival in January. And it seems Jim Prentice has serious trouble taking hints from international leaders that he's failing at his job. Jim when you are told that Canada has "historically" played a strong role in international affairs and human rights, that's not exactly a complement of what you're doing right now. Meanwhile, Chuck Strahl is being blasted by Native groups for his government's stance in Poland that fails to adequately to take into account the rights of Aboriginal groups. It seems we won't be going back to our historically strong roles unless we have a change of a government.

Galling Senate appointments, obstruction on a fundamental issue on the world stage, neglect of Native rights, stalling on economic stimulus, all of this since the poroguing of Parliament. The onus is on Stephen Harper to prove why he deserves to survive in January and so far his actions are really not a good sign.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prentice defends Tory position at climate talks

Despite facing heated criticism from international delegates trying to negotiate a pact to deal with global warming at the UN climate conference in Poland, Canada's environment minister insists Ottawa is being "constructive" at the talks.

Environmental groups have called Canada's position at the talks "shameful," saying the Canadian delegates are acting like spoilers at a time when other world leaders are trying to cope with a serious problem.

During a short telephone interview from the conference, Environment Minister Jim Prentice thrice said Canada wants to be "constructive."

"We very much want the world community to arrive at a final binding agreement in Copenhagen in 2009," he told CTV's Canada AM on Friday.

Prentice went on to note how UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon told him that Canada has played an important role "historically" in international affairs.

However, international leaders have said the current Canadian government appears to be thwarting negotiations, with one world leader going so far as to say Canada is "blocking progress."

"I think they're definitely disappointed," Megan McKeen, a 17-year-old youth delegate at the conference, told Canada AM on Friday about the international community's reaction to Canada's unpopular stand.

"Canada should be in a position where we are stepping up and showing leadership. That's what developed nations are expected to do in a situation like this."

European countries are calling for a 20 per cent reduction in greenhouse gases by 2020. While the Canadians have said they would go along with the target, they won't set target levels to 1990 figures, which many developed nations say are needed for an effective agreement to curb global warming.

Even here at home, Harper's Conservative government is facing a backlash from the native community. Canada was only one of four countries in the world not to include language recognizing the rights of native peoples in a conference plan to deal with deforestation.

Prentice said his government is concerned about the "drafting of the text" as it relates to aboriginal issues. He said Canada "fully expressed the ability of aboriginal peoples to be consulted in these issues."

McKeen said Prentice needs to do less talking and provide effective action.

"I can't say we're pleased with the talks," McKeen said, noting Prentice acknowledged the importance of the youth delegates at the conference.

"The best way for him to acknowledge us is to commit to the targets and help us," she said.

The conference in Poznan, Poland, is expected to wrap up Friday with an aid package for poor countries to adapt to the effects of climate change.

The international community is trying to come up with a binding comprehensive environmental deal by next year to replace the Kyoto Accord.

Recommend this Post

"When a government starts trying to cancel dissent or avoid dissent is when it's rapidly losing its moral authority to govern"

Wise words, spoken by none other than Stephen Harper on April 18, 2005. Can a single Conservative really say that if there was a Liberal PM today under similiar circumstances that you would be applauding the Governor General's decision to allow the porogation of the House of Commons? Thanks to the Harper-Jean precedent (which Harper is SOLELY responsible for and never should have forced the GG to choose between two troubling precedent setting choices) that day is much more likely to come under a future PM who doesn't wish to test the confidence of the House. At least I will remain consistent should that day come, but I trust the Conservatives will be about as consitent with their statements and past positions as Stephen Harper has been throughout this whole crisis. In the end for Conservatives it's all about putting Stephen Harper and the Conservative cabinet minister's jobs before everyone else's.

Stephen Harper still doesn't enjoy the confidence of the House of Commons. These petitions signed by every MP from the opposition parties delivered TODAY to the Governor General clearly demonstrate that. These MPs must hold together. If there was no coalition waiting in place then Harper would never have backed down on his fiscal update. If divisions start to form Harper will make NO or very minimal concessions on his budget. And in the end if his budget doesn't reflect the policies that 62% of Canadians voted for and represent a DRAMATIC departure from what was in his fiscal update then he should be brought down and replaced. I don't expect him to do that because it's not in his character and Harper has completely betrayed the trust of all opposition MPs. But Harper is gambling that this opposition will crumble or cower away.

For all the talk of "belt tightening" a large sum of taxpayer money was spent on this past session of Parliament to be the least productive in Canadian history and accomplish absolutely NOTHING. I imagine Conservatives are proud of how they "put the opposition in a corner" on this one though and are hoping that millions spent on ads over the next few weeks will help Canadians forget how much they are interested in preserving their own power than doing what Parliamentarians are supposed to do.

But we shouldn't give in to his strong arm tactics, the man has shown a complete lack of respect for the Parliament Canada elected and to let his get away with it all and come back stronger to laugh at the success of his gamesmanship later (which will happen if he passes a budget with very minimal concessions) is not in the best interests of this country and nor is it the best solution for this economic crisis that Canadians most want their Parliamentarians to deal with right now.

Canadians could have had a budget and response to the fiscal crisis before the end of this month. Harper instead wants them to wait two months when people need help NOW.

Canadians could have had a government that brought in common and economically sound policies 62% of Canadians voted for. It appears they won't get that before the New Year, but it is my hope they still will.

This is justice delayed, let it not be justice denied.

Recommend this Post

Canada NEEDS a NEW Prime Minister

Ok so I've said this before, but I say it again now for much different reasons. We have a clear way forward and much to justify it (for an exhaustive list see below).

Our economy faces its worst crisis in decades and this calls for putting personal partisan interest aside and working in a spirit of inter-party co-operation to give Canada the BEST policies to help our country through these trouble times. It’s clear now we won’t get that from this Prime Minister who’s fiscal update was all about pandering to HIS party’s base rather than helping Canadians who are most in need. Using an economic crisis to try to bankrupt your opposition parties was bad enough, but Harper at least had an opportunity to try and propose real solutions for the economy. He failed miserably.

- Weakening pay equity and public service worker’s rights isn’t a solution to the economic crisis.

- Claiming there will a razor thin surplus these next few years when EVERY economist says otherwise is not a solution to the economic crisis

- Promising massive cuts to social spending without specifying where those cuts are going to go isn’t a solution to the economic crisis.

- Having a firesale on government assets isn’t a solution to the economic crisis.

- Proposing NO stimulus for the economy, when EVERY OTHER world leader is, isn’t a solution to the economic crisis.

A much better solution to the economic crisis is a NEW government. This one recklessly managed mismanaged the economy for 2.5 years and when given another minority it has failed to change its ways. It has failed to act as all western governments have. It has failed to reach beyond its base as Canadians EXPECTED it to do.

It’s too late for death bed conversions, it will be obvious it’s just a façade. It’s time to bring this government down and give Canadians a better one.

I think the best, most practical and least divisive solution would be to have this government led by Stéphane Dion until the time a new leader is crowned and with the NDP receiving 7 or 8 cabinet posts in a trimmed down 26-28 member cabinet. To pressure Dion to resign would badly divide the Liberal Party when it needs to be united and, in particular, to install one of the other leadership candidates would be deeply resented by members of all other camps (and neutral Liberals like myself).

NO ONE can say Dion isn’t ready or fully qualified to lead as PM. He has over a decade in cabinet, he knows the issues this country is facing, and I think would work very well with members of other parties in this minority climate. If he is only to lead until May then no one can say he has ulterior motives other than what is in best interests of the country. We NEED that right now. McCallum and Goodale would be preferable to the current leadership candidates as PM, but as far as I understand they are each already committed to one of the candidates in this race (Goodale for Rae and McCallum for Ignatieff) so other Liberals would be more likely to question their motivations. Nor is it clear that either one of them isn’t one day interested in ultimately formally seeking the Liberal leadership.

For those that say Canada shouldn’t have a lameduck PM, the next 6 months may be the MOST crucial time in dealing with crisis and we need to have a PM who is willing to devote himself solely to bringing the BEST solutions foreward and that the public sees as having no ulterior motivations (e.g., positioning for the curren, or a future, leadership race or for the next general election). We won't get that from Harper, but we would from Dion. There are other countries that have tapped caretaker PM’s (usually with undeniably impecable qualifications) to deal with crises who later passed their job on to a successor and this would be no different and an orderly succession could be arranged in May to the next Liberal leader.

It is important to get all 3 leadership camps to agree to this though, but I would hope they would see it in their interest to be all now campaigning to be PM instead of opposition leader. If this deal falls apart due to the Liberal caucus unable to agree on who would be PM then whoever wins the leadership race would be certain to face a barrage of attack ads full of fear-mongering (e.g., “Bob Rae will ruin the economy”, “Michael Ignatieff is a Bush clone”, “LeBlanc isn’t up to the job”) that in reality could have been best countered by already being in government. If any of the leadership candidates could become PM upon winning the leadership then they would INSTANTLY be able to counter the smears (e.g., Bob Rae would bring in a competent budget, Ignatieff would show himself to be much more moderate, LeBlanc would show himself to be a sound economic manager as PM). This in turn would give that leadership candidate a much better chance of winning re-election as PM. So I hope cooler heads can prevail here and see how this works out best for ALL progressives, Liberals and NDP alike.

But what of all those who will howl that this is “undemocratic”? Well here are some facts:

- The Liberals and NDP together received 44.4% of the vote in the last election compared to 37.65% for the Conservatives. The coalition would be supported from outside by the BQ and Greens who received a further 16.76% of the vote.

- The Liberals and NDP may only have 114 seats between them, but opposition parties received more than 50% of the vote in more than half the ridings across Canada.

- The NDP and Liberals hold seats in EVERY region of the country.

- The first two Conservative budgets and the softwood lumber deal were ONLY supported by the Cons and the Bloc Quebecois so talk of this “aiding the separatists” is merely a sideshow. Conservatives had no problems being propped up solely by the BQ for the first two years of their government and NO ONE is talking about the BQ formally joining this coalition so this arrangement would be no different.

- In 2004, when Stephen Harper was opposition leader, he signed a letter with Gilles Duceppe and Jack Layton saying it would appropriate for a new government to be formed without an election should the governing party be voted down within a few months of the last election.

- Coalition governments that are decided after the election are the norm in countries with economies much larger than ours such as Germany, France, Japan and India. Coalition governments are also the norm in over a dozen other Western countries whose economies are doing comparatively well (e.g., the Scandinavian countries). Often these coalitions last several years so the argument that coalitions would necessarily be unstable or bad for the economy doesn’t fly.

Will there be a backlash if we get a Dion led coalition? Of course, but so would there be if there was a coalition led by someone else (in fact the Tory talking points already have adapted to that possibility of slamming a PM “voters never had a chance to vote on”). We can’t let a possible short-term backlash deter us here. Stephen Harper faced a large backlash over the appointments of David Emerson and Michael Fortier to his cabinet. It lasted a few weeks and (unfortunately) it blew over. Harper is facing a backlash now, but we can’t back down this time.

Any public backlash over a coalition will surely dissipate if we PROVIDE GOOD GOVERNMENT. The best way to counter way to counter all the fear mongering is provide the public with a dose of reality and the beauty is that, in government, we can do that. We will have a strong rational PM with a cabinet that puts the interests of Canadians ahead of their parties for once. The public will see that within a few months time and come to support what we’ve done. Let’s be prepared for some short-term opposition, but we can prove the skeptics wrong in the end.

So it’s my hope (and it may never come to pass I realize) we will see no backing down by the opposition and that ALL Liberals and ALL NDP members can get thoroughly behind our parties’ leadership here for the good of the country.

We will face an onslaught of opposition this week in the form of TV and radio eds, op-eds and anything else the Conservatives will throw at us.

Let’s be ready, we know what we are doing is right.

Recommend this Post

What Was That About “Panicking”?

Didn't have great access to e-mail the past two days but IF I did, this is what I have had up earlier:
Don’t you just love it when an elected leader completely reverses him/herself within a day or two of the election? So when Stéphane Dion proposes a prudent 5 point plan for the economy Harper calls it “panicking” and “just a bunch of useless meetings”. Then days before an election Flaherty decides to copy the part of Dion’s plan that called for accelerated infrastructure spending and now Harper has copied all of the rest! And yet NONE of the headlines convey this obvious fact.

I do hope someone in the media calls Harper on this blatant reversal and questions how he feels about carrying out a plan he called useless less than a week ago. This reminds me again of the 2004 U.S. election where Bush was unwilling to admit he had made any mistakes in his first term and then all of a sudden just days after he won he was holding a press conference admitting different mistakes he made. It really builds trust in our leaders doesn’t it?

But seriously does Harper have ANY original ideas? What’s next is he going to introduce the Green Shift in his next budget? I won’t complain if he does, but even though the election is over and the people have spoken that’s no reason why the media and opposition should roll over and play dead and Harper’s actions do reinforce what we Liberals were saying all along: Stéphane Dion is a much stronger leader and knows better how to manage the economy than does Stephen Harper. I do wonder though just how many more reversals we will see from Harper before the week is over.

Recommend this Post

Harper/Flaherty Follow Dion on the Economy

Flaherty and Harper become the last arriving at the party with Flaherty saying now that now all of a sudden he does want to speed infrastructure projects. This is after spending a week of saying that this pledge by Dion would be "panicking". Obviously Harper and Flaherty have no idea how to get out of this crisis when all they offerred initially was stock tips that would have led to massive losses for any Canadians that followed them as they insisted nothing needed to be done. Now with only days before an election we get a $25 billion quasi-bailout of the banks and Flaherty admitting that the Liberals five-point 30 day plan was the right approach all along.

When the world economy is in dire shape this is not the kind of judgement we need to steer out country our of these rough waters. Harper and Flaherty have been asleep at the switch and only seem to react when the polls tell them they have to. That is not leadership.

Harper why don't you just admit that Stephane Dion and the Liberals know how to manage the economy and get us out of this crisis better than you do? Because what we've seen this week proves it in spades.

Recommend this Post

Who Needs Scientists and Economists Anyway?

So I understand 230 leading Canadian economists and 120 of Canada's top climate scientists are calling for the federal government to adopt a Green Shift like Stéphane Dion has proposed. I wouldn’t listen to them though because they must all surely be “crazy” Liberal supporters. I’d much sooner put my trust in someone who confidently said a few weeks ago “My own belief is if we were going to have some kind of big crash or recession, we probably would have had it by now.”

And he’s right, everything is fine. So 5 major bank economists are saying they are expecting "worse than a recession" on the horizon, what do they know? As Rob Silver says they’re just “panicking” and “cheering for a recession”.

Really we would be insane to listen to the advice of “experts” at a time like this.

The TSX may be down over 35% since the summer but as Stephen Harper tells us, the lower the market goes the more that will open up wonderful buying opportunities. That sounds like “we’re better off with Harper” to me. How about you?

Recommend this Post

"Vote for the Party You Think Can Actually Run the Economy"

Thank you Stephen Harper for letting all Canadians know that they really should be voting Liberal in this election. Any objective consideration of which party has had the best record managing the economy and which party has the best plan to get our current economy rolling get would see the Liberals come out on top. Are there any economists who would argue otherwise? Many have endorsed the Green Shift as being good for the economy (in fact Stephen Harper commissioned a government report that said as much), even the very recent TD report issued to the McGuinty government recommended this approach. Yet not a single economist has said it will be bad for the economy like Harper claims.

The Liberal platform as a whole has also been endorsed by economists, environmentalists, agricultural groups, student groups, police forces and municipal leaders. Can any other party say the same?

The Liberals also have a plan to deal with the current economic crisis within the first 30 days of taking office:

1. Call upon the heads of Canada’s financial regulatory agencies – the Office of
the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI), Canadian Deposit Insurance
Corporation (CDIC), the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) and the Bank of Canada – to evaluate the status and appropriateness of Canada’s
financial regulatory framework within the context of the new global economic
circumstances.
2. Convene a meeting of leading independent private sector economists to report on the state of the economy and assess both domestic and international trends for the coming year.
3. Direct the Department of Finance to prepare an Economic and Fiscal Update to be presented no later than the end of the third week of a new Liberal government.
4. Convene a Meeting of Canada’s first ministers to address the new realities of Canada’s economic situation and to ensure the best possible coordination of efforts with the provincial and territorial governments.
5. Work in partnership with the provinces and territories to identify infrastructure projects and opportunities in the manufacturing sector that have the greatest potential to stimulate investment and create jobs. Support will then be provided through the accelerated flow of funds under our infrastructure program and the Liberal $1-billion Advanced Manufacturing Prosperity Fund.

Number 1 and 2 the Conservatives refuse to do because they don’t seem to listen to experts and economists, Number 3 the Conservatives would likely delay, Number 4 is long overdue and Harper said he would likely postpone for several more months, and Number 5 the Conservatives refuse to do. In reality both the Conservatives and NDP have no real plan to deal with the economic crisis (in fact the NDP says their first act would be to raise taxes on the kinds of companies most hard hit by the crisis leading to even more job losses) so obviously they can’t help us through it.

Economists have also validated the Liberal platform numbers, can any other party say that? With revelations that there are many uncosted portions of the current NDP platform it's clear they can't be trusted to manage the books. The Conservatives meanwhile have cobbled together a platform at the last minute in response to being slammed on this during the debates. That hardly signifies confident economic management.

I remember the day the Liberals released their platform Harper's response was "if this was a CEO of a company he (Dion) would be fired" Well if Harper really wants the economy to be the main issue in this campaign let's run with that metaphor for a second thinking of Harper as the CEO of Canada. If a CEO took over a company that was a leader in its field and its stock plummeted and high company profits turned to being near the red and the company became dead last in its field what would happen to that CEO if their only response was "don't worry be happy"? Well Harper inherited a government that had never been in better financial shape and that was first in the G7 in economic productivity and it's now gone to the brink of deficit, the former $3 billion fiscal cushion is gone, we are now last in the G7 in economic productivity, forecasts of a recession are mounting and Harper's response is that nothing needs to be done. If Conservative supporters don't think that's a reason for being fired when their own leader believes economic management to the key issue in this campaign, I certainly hope they don't end up being CEOs one day. After all Harper obviously agrees with the CEO metaphor for a PM.

So Stephen Harper I agree with you: Canadians should vote for the party you think can actually run the economy. If they follow your advice Stéphane Dion will be the next Prime Minister.

Recommend this Post

Dion Leads, Harper Lags

Over the past few months and in this campaign, Harper has had many chances to show himself to be a “strong leader”, but time and again he has failed. Instead, despite the media narrative, it has been has been Stéphane Dion who has stepped in to fill the void and act as a Canadian Prime Minister should….

- Dion was the first to release the costing of his environmental platform and spell out what it would cost Canadians and what it would achieve. Still waiting for Harper to do the same….

- Dion has put forward a plan endorsed by environmentalists and economists. Meanwhile, environmentalists are ashamed of Jack Layton and surely economists are appalled by Stephen Harper.

- Dion was the first to call for an inquiry into the Mulroney-Shreiber affair. Harper railed against the idea before caving (but of course shows real leadership by stalling the inquiry until after the election).

- Dion led in Montreal to establish a 182 country consensus on post-Kyoto framework. Stephen Harper and John Baird instead obstructed an over 100 country consensus at Bali and earned us condemnations across the globe.

- Dion called for Maxime Bernier’s resignation as Foreign Affairs minister for months. Harper relented only after a dozen more embarrassments.

- Dion was the first to call for a public independent inquiry into the listeriosis outbreak. Harper still insists on a private closed door one and staunchly defends his incompetent and horribly insensitive Agriculture minister despite calls from numerous scientists and food safety representatives for strong action.

- Dion was the first to raise the troubling practices of the Conservatives relating to the In and Out scandal. Harper has stonewalled at every turn trying to prevent Canadians from having all the answers.

- Dion was the first party leader to call for the repatriation and a fair trial for Omar Khadr (as every other western leader has done for its citizens), while Harper stands essentially alone in the world in his belief that Guantanomo Bay is a place where 'justice can run its course" (not even McCain and Obama believe this).

- Dion was the first to come out in favour of having Elizabeth May in the leader’s debates. Harper waited till he stood alone before caving.

- Dion was the first to call for a Commissioner for Gender Equality and his party has fielded the highest percentage of female candidates (36.7%) in this election. Harper is dead last in his commitment to women’s issues and giving an equal voice and equal representation in the House of Commons.

- Dion has proposed economic solutions to get our economy rolling again, while Harper offers no plan and says only "don't worry, be happy" when more and more experts are saying Canada has serious troubles ahead that need to be tackled.

- Dion has stood firm in casting out any candidate who have run counter to basic Liberal party principles. Neither Jack Layton nor Stephen Harper can say the same. Or do these candidates they are hanging on to actually reflect their party’s principles?

- Dion was the first major party leader to release his full platform and its costing in this election and economists, environmentalists and numerous stakeholders from across the spectrum (cities, infrastructure, education, crime, farming) have endorsed the numbers and the plans. Harper may not even have a platform, let alone a costed one. When Stockwell Day was asked for the costing of some of their proposals his response was “Doing the math on these things isn't easy.” That’s the steady hand for our economy? That’s Conservative leadership?

With Canada’s economy in trouble, our standing on the world stage never worse, and a climate crisis worsening we need a Prime Minister who leads, not lags.

A Prime Minister who would govern with convictions and purpose, not through focus groups and polls.

A Prime Minister who leads a team ready to do the heavy lifting of running a government along with him, not a one-man show.

A Prime Minister who promises serious solutions, not pie in the sky ideas that aren’t affordable and won’t work.

A Prime Minister who has a plan for the next 10 years, not just until October 14th.

Canadians deserve a lot better than the Prime Minister we have now and only Stéphane Dion is ready and able to take his place.

We just have got to be reminding Canadians who the real leader is in this race and who is the one that is obviously most prepared to get down to work on tackling this country’s challenges after all the votes are counted.

For all the talk of the media the fact remains that a large majority of Canadians do not want Stephen Harper as their next Prime Minister. I hope that majority can work to see we don’t still end up with him on October 14th, but Liberals need to keep working to ensure that more and more Canadians see over the last half of this campaign that Stéphane Dion would be a Prime Minister we could all be proud of.

Recommend this Post

Harper Unfazed by Market Crisis

The headline really says it all. TSX and DOW both down OVER 500 points, but he's not fazed? Just what does faze Stephen Harper? I guess just like he didn't seem to care about the millions of dollars in savings that were lost because people believed his income trust promise, it doesn't faze him when other regular Canadians see their savings go up in smoke as many of them may have experienced today. Someone who isn't fazed by this is NOT the steady hand we need for these troubled economic times. “U.S. experts were ominously calling the events its worst financial crisis since the 1929 crash which ushered in the Great Depression.” And Harper is not fazed? His economic credibility is in tatters. There are obviously serious warning signals on the horizon and Harper's approach is "don''t worry, trust me things will be fine." Well Mr. Harper your word is worth so little these days and you've shown terrible economic management so Canadians have zero reason to trust you to manage the economy any longer. Harper has no plan for the economy or to deal with the challenges ahead so he deceives (even when his own government reports contradict him), spins, and scare mongers about his opponents non-stop.

Enough. Canada needs a NEW Prime Minister, Harpernomics isn't working for regular Canadians.

The Liberals gave us the best economy we've ever had and Harper has utterly squandered what he was given, so we need to remind Canadians that WE are the ones best equipped to manage the economy. This ad out today is definitely a good start.



Good to see others like the message too: here, here, here, and here

Recommend this Post