Category Archives: Federal

Federal, Media, Municipal, Provincial

Of Politics and Media

Leave a comment

While I share Mr. Evans disdain for what traditional, mainstream media has become and the unacceptable way it purports to report the news as well as his disdain for what politics and politicians have become, I believe he has failed to address the root cause of the problems and challenges we as a country, a society, as Canadians and as individual human beings are facing.\


Indeed, I would assert that not only did Mr. Evans fail to address the root cause but that this root runs throughout his letters (1, 2) from first paragraph to last. Without getting to the root issue all the tinkering you do with media or politics is pointless.


I would argue that the root, the core of our problems lies not in our democracy but in ourselves. There is nothing wrong with our democracy except it involves people – us.


Mr. Evans is clearly upset with what is taking place with Mission Hospital, changes that are clearly being driven by budget considerations and limitations. Yet Mr. Evans wants to cut the extra $300 million that the province will collect from the HST this year and next and that the government has (for reasons of politics) pledged to spend on health care.


How does Mr. Evans propose the provincial government raise $300 million to replace this shortfall? Or what budget cuts does Mr. Evans suggest to offset the lost $300 million – closing Mission Hospital entirely? Or is it someone else’s Hospital Mr. Evans proposes to close?


Citing the same mythical ‘savings’ to be obtained by better management etc as the politicians do is not acceptable. What specific action(s) does Mr. Evans propose to offset the $300 million in forgone HST revenue for the provincial government?


Further if Mr. Evans and other anti-HST supporters have their way they will force the province to repay $1.124 billion to Ottawa from this year’s budget and forgo the final payment from Ottawa of $475 million in 2011’s budget.


How do Mr. Evans, Mr. Vander Zalm, the NDP and the other HST opponents want to offset this $1.6 billion? What taxes and fees will they raise and what programs will they cut?  You might also want to consider that most of this 1.6 billion came out of the pockets of non-BC Canadians but the full $1.6 billion cost that results from not implementing the HST as agreed with Ottawa, will come out of BC taxpayers pockets or from reduced funding for health care, education etc in BC.


This, typical, behaviour is why I say that there is nothing wrong with democracy and that until we, people, are willing to change our behaviour all the tinkering with systems in the world will accomplish nothing because the true cause, citizens behaviour, will remain unchanged.
We demand more services at the same time we refuse to pay for them or even demand we pay less than we did for a lesser level of services.


If you cut back the days you worked from 5 days to 3 days would you expect, or could you reasonably demand, to receive the same level of pay? Of course not, it would be irrational to expect to work 40% less and not receive 40% less pay.


Yet people are constantly seen on the news demanding school boards bear the expense of keeping open underutilized schools, as thought there was no cost associated with keeping all those schools open.


Have you ever heard those demanding that schools be kept open to say ‘we want our school kept open; we know it costs money and we will pay the extra costs associated with keeping the schools open’?


Similarly Mr. Evans praised Mr. Vander Zalm for leading the anti-HST campaign, an action which Mr. Evans approves of; ignoring the facts that Mr. Vander Zalm’s actions are clearly political and that Mr. Vander Zalm is practicing the age old political technique of lying by omission.


If this were truly about what is best for the province Mr. Vander Zalm would be addressing the question(s) of where the money to repay or offset the $1.6 billion Ottawa paid BC to implement the HST will come from or where the $300 million to offset the extra funding for health care the HST would have put in the provincial coffers will be found. What fees or taxes do Mr. Vander Zalm, the NDP and the anti-HST campaign propose to raise or programs/funding will they cut to offset the nearly $2 billion dollars they want to rip out of the provincial budget this year and next?


As long as people will embrace a politician because they like or agree with what he/she says, forgetting that Mr. Vander Zalm was such a good Premier that under his leadership the Social Credit party ceased to exist and ignore such ‘minor’ points of reality as the cost and effects not implementing the HST will have on the BC budget, programs and the citizens of BC, things will not change no matter what tinkering is done with the system.


Examine Mr. Evans suggestion of term limits in support of which Mr. Evans states “If good enough for a U.S. President to be limited to two terms, I believe the same logic applies to Canada”. Ignoring, overlooking or not knowing that the two term limit set for presidents of the USA had nothing to do with logic or reason but was entirely a political decision in 1951 designed to prevent control of the White House by one party through another 4 term president like FDR.

“Enlightened and effective political reforms are needed …” Enlightened and effective in whose judgment? As Ralph Waldo Emerson said “One man’s justice is another’s injustice; one man’s beauty another’s ugliness; one man’s wisdom another’s folly.” What Mr. Evans regards as “Enlightened and effective” will be seen as censorship, unfair or oppression by others.

How differently humans can view the same things, seeing things as they interpret them, is underscored by Mr. Evans assertion that the fact the papers did not print all his letters is proof the papers are censoring him.

I am a prolific letter to the editor writer as is my friend Regina Dalton. Not all of our letters are printed but neither of us feels that, just because a letter is not printed we are being censored as neither of us has any expectation of having all our letters published in our local print media. It is unreasonable, given the space limitations and number of letters to the editor the papers receive, to expect all the letters one submits to be printed, particularly those letters that run over 250 words.

I am not arguing that the local papers never practice censorship, observation of their coverage of local issues evidences that they have biases and that those biases affect their reporting and the letters they choose to publish. What I am saying is that the failure to print every letter a person sends to the editor is not proof of censorship.

The fact that an unreasonable expectation, all someone’s letters get printed, is not met may simply be proof of a need to examine the assumptions one has made.

Mr. Evans calls for an “impartial, unbiased and completely factual media approach “ then proceeds to editorialize about the “unwise and harmful” HST failing to provide any facts to support his claim that the HST is “unwise and harmful”. He advocates holding the press to a standard he fails to hold himself to.

Mr. Evans calls for “Freedom of the Press” yet is upset that business exercised its right to freedom of the press to support the HST which Mr. Evans opposes. In order for it to be a truly free press it must be open to everyone, even those who disagree with us.

Mr. Evans needs to remember that Media is a business that needs to make a profit to continue its existence and that its ability to make a profit is tied to supplying a product there is a demand for.

Keep in the forefront of your mind the fact that news programs are now a major source of revenue for broadcasters in Canada and elsewhere.

In calling for changes in Canadian Media Mr. Evans has failed to take into consideration that ‘the media’ in Canada is currently in a state of massive change as a result of the market forces that resulted in the end of CanWest Global’s existence. The Media that existed just a few short months ago is not the Media that currently exists.

Media depends upon a market for its product to be able to finance its operations and ultimately its existence. People are the market and thus ultimately are responsible for the product delivered by Media. People heavily watched the first ‘reality television’ shows and the airwaves became saturated with ‘reality TV’ because the lower production costs of producing ‘reality television’ meant a higher contribution to Media’s bottom line.

FOX news in the US can be as blatantly biased to the ultra right because there is a market that will support that skewed a viewpoint because it wants to hear exactly what FOX is saying. This audience is not looking for what the facts are or reality is but to hear what they want to hear and have what they believe confirmed,

As in politics the ultimate responsibility for the state of the Media lies in the hands of the people. People get the Media they will accept.

What you get when you let the state start to dictate to the Media how, what, when, were or why they report is PRAVDA. Only by keeping the government as far away from the Media as possible can you have a free Media.

Allow the state to dictate to the media and you end up with FOX type news that reflects your views but has nothing to do with being an “impartial, unbiased and completely factual media approach”.

CanWest Global failed to offer a product that there was a lucrative enough market for, that people were interested in watching, to allow CanWest Global to survive. As a result of CanWest Global’s business plan its newspaper assets went to the unsecured creditors and the broadcast assets were purchased by Shaw.

The new owners of the newspapers must provide a product that people consider relevant to their needs or they too will fail.

Government interference via the CRTC is going to shield not only the television broadcasting assets acquired by Shaw from CanWest Global but the entire Canadian over the air broadcast industry from the market, forcing Canadians to subsidize this obsolete (as currently constituted) sunset industry until such time as a government with an understanding of the changes taking place in the field of information delivery is elected to Ottawa.

Aside: The author considers the Canadian over-the-air broadcast industry as it is currently a sunset industry since it came into being to rebroadcast foreign television signals to Canadians who had no other means to view these signals. Cable, then satellite and the phone system have all become alternatives for the delivery of television signals to Canadian households. Indeed most Canadians now receive their Canadian television signals together with foreign television signals by cable, satellite or the phone system.

Had the government not chosen to interfere the over the air television broadcast industry would have been forced to both rationalize and reinvent itself as was radio with the advent of television. In order to survive broadcasters would have been required to both innovate and provide material that attracted viewers.

The assets and broadcast licenses of the broadcasters who failed to adapt to these new market realities would provide the opportunity for local ownership as change driven by the failure of current broadcasters would enable new players to enter the broadcast arena.

It is tragically ironic that a Conservative government unwilling to invest in a national housing strategy or invest in reducing the increasing numbers of Canadian children living in poverty, is prepared not only to fund billion dollar bailouts for corporations but is willing and eager to not only shield a broadcast industry that is financially unviable (as a result of technological change) from the market but also happy to provide an unending stream of corporate welfare to broadcast corporations.

As a result of this artificial skewing of the market the information technology delivery industry in Canada will fall even further behind the rapid technological changes occurring in the field of information delivery and the generation of content for delivery to consumers taking place in other countries around the world.

The point being that the traditional media that Mr. Evans wants to impose rules to ensure an “impartial, unbiased and completely factual approach“ is in a state of flux and change as a result of changes in the market.

Newspapers will have to become relevant to readers or cease to exist. In order to do this they will need to provide information of use and interest to readers – or cease to exist.

Indeed it is the very type of government interference that Mr. Evans calls for that will protect broadcast television from being forced to become relevant to viewers or fall to the side and so provide for the entrance of new players into the Canadian television broadcast industry.

Driven by technology there is a new industry (industries?) of information and content generation and delivery emerging. Abbotsford Today, The Tyee, homelessinabbotsford.com are among the emerging ‘new media’ that provide news, alternative views and examination of issues to the public.

This commentary would not be printed by traditional media, not because of censorship but due to its length and the space constraints imposed upon traditional print media. Homelessinabbotsford.com or Abbotsford Today however, can expand as much as they need into cyberspace in order to publish what they considers of interest to their readers. This emerging new media will force the old media to become more relevant to readers/watchers – or cease to exist – with no interference required.

Like politics the problem of information comes down to people. The information is out there and available to those who want to know.

If you are unhappy with the quality of our local papers let the editors know and let advertisers know you will not be using their services or purchasing from them if they continue to support the status quo at our local papers.

The power to know and to encourage change in local papers, both lie in the hands of people. The question is are people willing to make the effort to acquire useful knowledge, differing viewpoints and to bring about change?

Whether media or politics the fault lies not in the systems but in ourselves. Tinkering with the political system or media will accomplish nothing – the information is available; we can vote for whom we choose – that people fail to do so is not a fault in our stars but in ourselves.

In the final analysis one does not ‘improve’ democracy or freedom of the press by decreasing democracy or freedom by imposing limitations.

Consider, Federal

Thoughts on the Toronto G20

Leave a comment

While Mr. Harper may consider a meeting that produces a piece of paper that is no more likely to be acted upon that any of the past G20 meeting agreements a success, it is understandable how Canadians living with the impact the financial downturn and Mr. Harper’s policies have had on Canadians living in the real world regard Mr. Harper’s $billion$ dollar photo-op as a failure and a profligate waste of money.

Going into the meeting Mr. Harper was seeking agreement on switching from stimulus to austerity in the name of deficit reduction and to avoid any topics he did not want to talk about (the increasing levels of poverty and homelessness, the lack of a national housing strategy and the disproportionate negative effect these issues have on women and children in Canada).

Obviously Mr. Harper is hoping that getting the G20 to call for a switch to austerity will provide political cover for the budget when it begins to inflict pain on most Canadians – ‘It is not my (Mr. Harper’s) fault, the G20 decided on this’.

I say most Canadians because, while these cuts will be devastating to the poor and painful for average Canadians, the budget will undoubtedly be generous to wealthy Canadians and Corporations – after all Conservative ideology is that you have to preferentially treat business and the wealthy.

So, with Mr. Harper hosting a G20 meeting from which he wanted to achieve an agreement to move from stimulus to austerity what does Mr. Harper do?

He wastefully spends $1.2 billion, the lion’s share of which includes spending 30 times more on security than has ever been spent for security at a G20 meeting before and splurging on fake lakes, false backgrounds for reporters to use to file their stories and other luxuries.

At a G20 meeting where Mr. Harper’s agenda was about imposing austerity on the average citizen, about creating more poor, more poverty, more homeless, more social inequity – Mr. Harper spent as though cost was no object.

Why is it that when politicians talk about the need for austerity and deficit reduction, that austerity never applies to them? When the actions of the government result in job losses or lower salaries why aren’t government MP’s laid off and the salaries or the golden pension of the remaining MP’s reduced?

I wonder: if the members of the government were forced to share the pain their decisions and policies caused, just how much less cavalier and more thoughtful these decisions, not just decisions on austerity but all decisions, would be?

At the very least, if you are holding a G20 meeting about the need to end stimulus and impose austerity that meeting should be austere not a billion dollar luxury boondoggle.

You hold it at a military base were security is already in place.

Not enough accommodation for all the staff that wants to attend? Bring smaller entourages.

No luxurious accommodations? Base housing, barracks, military meals … it would serve to remind the leaders and the attending civil servants about economic and housing realities in the lives of real people. A reminder that this G20 meeting demonstrates is badly needed by Mr. Harper and his government.

Holding it on a military base or somewhere other than the downtown core of Toronto would not have turned downtown Toronto into a ghost town, shutting down businesses and disrupting the lives of millions of Canadians. Unless, of course, you’re a Politician of Mr. Harper’s nature – then your wants outweigh the needs or good of millions of ordinary Canadians.

Mr. Harpers comments on “the invading vandals heading to the nearest large city” highlight Mr. Harper’s preference for seeing what he wants or needs to see to justify the decisions made.

Having those whose only aim is vandalism and rioting head for the nearest city is exactly what you should want to achieve as it will separate out those whose only purpose is violence from the legitimate protesters who will be on location at the G20 meeting site. Proper planning would ensure that when the vandals show up on city streets – without the cover of thousands of protesters to hide in – police could move in and arrest them.

Toronto’s mayor is correct in asserting that the federal government should not only be compensating businesses for lost business as a result of closing down downtown Toronto but should bear the costs of cleaning up the mess of the rioting and should be compensating businesses for any costs they are out of pocket as a result of the riots.

All of these costs resulted from the poor judgment shown by Mr. Harper’s government in choosing to hold the G20 meeting in downtown Toronto and so are the responsibility of Mr. Harper’s government.

What makes spending any money on the Toronto G20 spendthrift, and the amount actually spent obscene, is that the history of agreements arrived at during G20 meetings indicate that this current agreement has all the worth of what it is – a bunch of politician’s promises that are no more likely to be kept than the promises made at previous G20 meetings or during elections.

Given that the US is worried about a double dip recession and plans on continuing stimulus spending to avoid stalling the US economy into that second, possibly deeper and longer, downturn the so-called agreement is not worth the cost to print it.

In fact reality may yet intrude on Mr. Harper’s ‘successful G20 meeting’ as the latest economic numbers, together with what is taking place in the equity markets and developments in other nation’s economies suggest the worldwide economy is still in a very fragile state.

Which raises the disturbing question: is this what Success has become?

Watching the politicians, pundits and media falling all over themselves to proclaim what a success the G20 meeting was engendered a ‘we’re doomed’ response from this writer.

Generating a piece of paper covered with fancy words and political promises (and we all know just what those are worth) at a G20 meeting when the words and promises of prior G20 meetings were relegated to the scrapheap as soon as the meetings were over, is not a success.

Landing a man on the moon and returning him to earth was a success. The performance of Canada’s athletes at the Vancouver Olympics was a success. Creation of the Charter of Rights and freedoms was a success.

In each of these instances something concrete and valuable was achieved.

Reducing poverty instead of increasing it; reducing homelessness instead of increasing it; providing leadership on the issues of mental health and addiction instead of ideology that ignores both knowledge and reality; creating more financial equity in Canada rather than increasing the inequity by robbing from the poor to give to the rich; increasing the social equity in Canada rather than creating a class structure; providing leadership that helps citizens strive to be Canadians rather than wannabe Americans; would be concrete and valuable goals and achievements.

A billion dollar photo-op is not a success – unless your goal is to bankrupt Canada both financially, ethically and of the Canadian Spirit.

Federal, Issues

Stephen Harper’s Billion Dollar Photo-op

Leave a comment

Surely there were far less costly ways for Mr. Harper and the Conservatives to offer definitive proof of the Conservative Party’s fiscal irresponsibility than the G8/G20 billion buck boondoggle?

Well, more accurately Billion plus boondoggle – $933 million (security bill) + $160 million (hospitality, infrastructure, food safety and extra staffing) + $?.?? (federal documents show further outlays are likely).

I suppose that Canadians should just consider themselves fortunate that Mr. Harper could not find a more expensive location to hold the meetings than in downtown Toronto or even more taxpayer dollars would be being squandered.

Yet no doubt, come the next election, Mr. Harper and his Conservatives will be claiming to behave in a fiscally responsible manner, despite having added this exclamation point to Harper’s profligate spending on everything except Canadians in need.

When the Liberal leader Mr.Ignatieff suggested “The numbers are off the scales” a spokesman for Public Safety Minister Vic Toews said Ignatieff’s comments indicate no understanding of the reality of providing security to world leaders.

Given that security cost only $18 million at the G20 summit last September in Pittsburgh and $30 million at the G20 meeting last April in London, might I suggest that the fact the Canadian government is spending $900 million over the highest of the two costs confirms that if anyone has “no understanding of the reality of providing security to world leaders” it is Mr. Harper and his Conservatives?

Oh well, that makes it OK then.

I’s so glad that the government isn’t wasting $2 million on a fake lake.

No, for $2 million you also get fake cityscapes; fake dock with canoes, trees and deck chairs to go with the fake lake; and of course fake images and backgrounds for the media to use to file their stories.

All of which, according to Mr. Harper, makes dissipating taxpayer dollars in this manner OK.

Simply because Mr. Harper and the Conservatives have been claiming that one of the benefits of these meeting would be a boost to tourism, one certainly wouldn’t want the foreign press to be encouraged to visit real cityscapes, to travel the few blocks to a real lake – Lake Ontario or to use real backgrounds in filing their reports.

Probably just as well, since holding the G20 meeting in downtown Toronto has resulted in turning the downtown into a ghost town with the closing of most, if not all, tourist attractions and businesses in downtown Toronto.

Besides, if the media was away from the media centre they might miss covering one of Mr. Harper’s photo-ops. And when you are wasting, I mean spending, $1.1 billion you want to make sure no photo opportunity is missed.

Should holding the G20 meeting in downtown Toronto cause any difficulty for businesses or inconvenience for thousands of workers or anyone seeking to do business downtown, it is a small price to pay to maximize Mr. Harper’s photo opportunities.

At least in Harper/Conservative think.

Harper/Conservative think where there is no money (or need) for a nation housing strategy merely because Canada is the only G8 nation without such a strategy or because there is a affordable housing crisis in Canada or that homelessness is increasing or that poverty is increasing or that children’s poverty and hunger continuing to increase.

Harper/Conservative think – the mindset where there is $2 million to build fake cityscapes, docks, lakes and backgrounds for the foreign press but no $$$ to build real housing for Canadians

Harper/Conservative think – the mindset where the poor and the homeless are just Canadians, Canadians who probably don’t even vote having no fixed address, while the foreign press will allow Mr. Harper to assume his proper place on the world stage.

Harper/Conservative think – the mindset were leadership is about recognition and photo-ops; the mindset that cannot comprehend that with the state of the world’s economy, the need for austerity in Greece and other countries, the need to reign in runaway federal deficit spending and the numerous other economic challenges facing Canada and the world – real leadership would have been to hold a scaled back entourageless meeting on a military base to maximize security and minimize cost – without worrying that this would not maximize press coverage and photo-ops.

Harper/Conservative think – the mindset that has no appreciation of the value of a dollar or understanding of the financial/economic realities that the majority of Canadians live with day to day; thus unable to see anything wrong with a spending increase of 3100% on security or with spending $2 million on fake cityscapes, fake lake and dock and fake backgrounds for media reports.

Self-esteem is as important to our well-being as legs are to a table.

The most worrying statements are the repeated references to having Canada “take its rightful place”. As in “this is what it costs ($1 billion +) for Canada to take its rightful place”.

If it was ever necessary that Canada “take its rightful place” I would say that it was done on the battlefields of WWI.

Psychologists will tell you that bullying is rooted in lack of self esteem; that in a lack of self esteem lays approval seeking behaviour, seeking to “take ones rightful place’.

We need to set up a Stephen Harper Self Esteem Fund to raise money to ensure Stephen Harper can get the professional help he needs to build his self esteem to the point he no longer feels the need to engage in attention seeking behaviours in order to “take his proper place”.

A Fund so as to ensure Mr. Harper’s treatment is not interrupted and ensure that he can learn that respect is something one earns, not something one buys. Because Canadian taxpayers and the Canadian Armed Forces cannot afford the cost of Harper’s attempts to buy respect and his “rightful place”.

Perhaps once Mr. Harper moves into recovery vis-à-vis his self esteem issues, he will gain an understanding of what it means to be Canadian, rather than a wannabe American, coming to understand that childhood poverty, liveable wages, affordable housing and a health care system to rival the best among the industrialized nations, as opposed to being at the bottom of health for the industrialized nations barely ahead of the USA, are important – not billion dollar photos shoots.

With self esteem would, hopefully, come an understanding of what Kim Campbell meant when she said “Our first Prime Minister saw a country that would be known for its generosity of spirit. And so it is.”

Or was until Mr. Harper became Prime Minister.

Caveat emptor, Consider, Federal

The FACTS are …

Leave a comment

Leaving aside, for the moment, the errors in fact contained in Mr. Johnson’s letter of June 15th am I to infer from his letter that if everyone was jumping off a bridge he would jump as well?

Mr. Johnson has every right to be fine with the Conservative government using the previous Liberal government in setting its ethical standards.

Just as I have the right to demand substantially higher ethical standards of behaviour from our federal Canadian government, rather than tolerating the lowest common denominator as the standard.

The fact is that the federal government should not be worrying about being ‘embarrassed’ over the issues of affordable housing and child poverty but about addressing these issues.

The fact is that, prior to Mr. Harper’s appointment of Mr. Braley, senate appointments had indeed been made to party faithful – as a reward for years of hard work on behalf of the party. Mr.Braley’s ‘faithful service’ was large financial contributions, a very different kettle of fish. Leaving one to draw the conclusion that under Mr. Harper a senator seat is the reward for substantial enough monetary contributions to the Party.

The fact is there is no requirement that forces the federal parliament to appoint senators on a specific timeline. Mr. Harper could have kept his promise not to appoint senators.

Instead, despite Mr. Harper’s repeated attacks on the previous Liberal government for appointing senators, as soon as the opportunity to appoint enough senators so that the Conservatives would control the Senate and could force legislation through without being troubled by any sober second thoughts Mr. Harper appointed those senators.

The fact is there was nothing for Mr. Harper to over-rule on the matter of pensions. When the day came that Mr. Harper and members of the Conservative caucus had to either a) opt into the golden pension parliamentarians have approved for themselves or b) opt out and never be eligible for said sweet, overly generous pensions Mr. Harper and the Conservatives scurried right up to pig-out at the public trough.

All Mr. Harper and the Conservatives had to do to remain true their own words on the matter of pensions was – just say NO. But when push came to shove and it would cost Mr. Harper and the other members of the Conservative caucus big pension $$$, expediency (and their pocketbooks) won out.

Mr. Johnson’s most significant factual error lies in his dismissal of ethics in his statement “We have far bigger problems than noted above …”

Ethics are a fundamental building block, perhaps THE fundamental building block, in a government, a country or a society. Without an ethical underpinning considerably higher than the lowest common denominator we are going to continue to get the government, country and society that the majority of Canadians are very dissatisfied with. Despite it being the government, country and society that we have, through our actions and choices – individually and collectively – built.

If we want to change the government, country and society for the better we need to start with a solid ethical foundation and not a set of ethics that is based on ‘everybody does it’.

The problem for so many is that setting one’s ethical standards based on high-principles and honourable behaviour often causes inconvenience, sometimes great inconvenience by denying one convenient, self-serving behaviours.

If you promise not to appoint senators then, even/particularly when politically convenient you don’t appoint senators. If you are going to attack MP pensions then when it is time to opt in or out you opt out – even if it is costly.

I make no apologies for feeling we need to hold our government, our country, our society and most of all ourselves to higher ethical standards in order to change the same old government, country and society everyone complains and bitches about into the government, country and society Canadians want.

Caveat emptor, Federal, Media, Municipal, Provincial

The problem with democracy is … People.

Leave a comment

In reading “Why Old Politicians Shouldn’t Be Running Our City” the thought that came to mind was ‘Wow! I would never have thought that the solution to problems with our democratic government is … less democracy?

Certainly I would never have thought of removing or limiting people’s rights and freedoms as a solution to problems with government.

Of course, as a solution it does beg the question of just who it is that is going to be setting these limits on democracy and removing/limiting our Charter rights and freedoms. And just where do we stop the removal of rights and freedoms?

Or perhaps more importantly: once we permit the removal of rights and freedoms, just how do we stop/avoid having more and more of our rights and freedoms removed?

Given that the media has failed to live up to “… public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist’s credibility” – should we ban everyone currently connected to media in anyway from involvement in any form in media from this point on?

Of course that would mean we would not be hearing from the Murray Dobbins either. Unless we would have exceptions – which brings us back to who decides who can and who cannot participate.

Taking away freedoms is never a solution, no matter how convenient it may sound or in fact be in the short term.

Besides it is not in the people in office or those running for office that the problems we face and the hole(s) we have dug ourselves into lie.

As Shakespeare wrote “Our remedies oft in ourselves do lie” or the more oft quoted “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves”.

You want to stop repeat offenders – don’t re-elect them.

There was thoughtful, public, vocal opposition, opposed to Plan A because of serious questions and reservations about the accuracy, veracity and reliability of city council’s Plan A promises and predicted (profits? etc) results. The analysis of those opposing Plan A had found city council’s promises and claims to be based on predictions that were based on assumptions that were unrealistic, wildly positive and highly unlikely to occur.

Contributing to the approval of Plan A was abuse of the democratic process. The city poured $140,000 into advertising, banned posters and literature opposed to Plan A from city property and made unlimited use of city resources and manpower in promoting Plan A, The city also abused its power and advertising budget to influence (muzzle) the coverage of this issue in local newspapers.

In fact the actions of the City of Abbotsford were judged an abuse of process so pronounced and blatant that guidelines for holding municipal referendums were created to ensure fairness in future referenda.

Still, despite the abuse of the process by the city the opposition was heard, leading to Plan A barely being approved.

The passage of time has proven those opposed to Plan were correct to be concerned, that city council’s claims, projections and promises were … inaccurate.

The point here is not that the city’s numbers were prodigiously inaccurate while the numbers of those opposed to Plan A were notably accurate. Rather the point is that careful, thoughtful and realistic analysis provided a sound projection of Plan A outcomes.

Furthermore this analysis did not require knowledge of an esoteric nature but a) knowledge of fundamental financial facts all should be aware of because these facts affect people’s day-to-day lives; b) basic mathematical skills; and c) common sense.

Arriving at an understanding of the concerns raised by the opposition required not exceptional levels of knowledge and intellectual ability. What was required for the citizens of Abbotsford to achieve an understanding was an investment time and effort.

The sad reality of Plan A is not only were voters apparently unwilling to make the investment of time and effort to understand the financial consequences of Plan A, 75% could not be bothered to vote on a matter that would have profound financial effects on Abbotsford for decades into the city’s future.

By the time of the municipal election major problems with city council’s promises and claimed results had already surfaced – and yet 6 out of 7 city councilors seeking reelection were reelected.

This was not because voters did not have alternatives – they did. Moreover the turnout to vote in the municipal election was, as usual, abysmal.

If voters are going to act in irrational ways what does it matter if you don’t let current politicians run?

The problem is not that the actions of politicians are removed from reality, doing nothing to address pressing issues or solve problems.

The problem is that people keep reelection the same politicians and political parties as if they expect the leopard to change its spots and start acting in a rational manner that addresses pressing issues and solves problems rather carrying on business as usual.

Clearly the problem with our current democratic system is not in the mechanics of how the system functions but that people are involved.

Unfortunately this unwillingness to invest time and effort in order to be able to become informed and to vote is not limited to the municipal level but extends to the provincial and federal levels.

I ran into an ardent NDP supporter of my acquaintance recently and took the opportunity to ask about how the NDP planned to replace the $1.5 billion the federal government was paying the province to implement the HST if their opposition to the HST led to the HST not being implemented. I followed up by asking about how the NDP proposed to pay for the large spending increases on Health Care and Education the Party was calling for.

It was a relief when she corrected me to $1.6 billion ($750 million [with the introduction of the enabling legislation] + $394 million [the day the HST takes effect – July 2, 2010] + $475 million [one year latter – July 2, 2011] = $1.599 billion) because I had begun to wonder if the NDP, Mr. Vander Zalm or the Media were aware of the fact that not implementing the HST would cost, reduce the funds transferred from the federal government by $1.6 billion?

My concern arising from the fact not one of the NDP, Mr. Vander Zalm or the Media seems to be addressing the cost of NOT implementing the HST.

The answer given was not in the form of “we (NDP, Mr. Vander Zalm, other HST opponents) will be raising these taxes and/or fees”, nor was it in the form of “we will be cutting these programs’ or some combination of tax and fee increases together with cuts in spending (programs).

The reply to how the NDP planned to pay for the $1.6 billion dollars lost by not implementing the HST was to inform me that “it all comes out of one pocket” as if that in any way changes the reality that the BC budget would have $1.6 billion less and that the $1.6 billion must be made up either by increasing revenue (taxes, fees) or reducing spending on Health Care and Education (with the need to cut $1.6 billion only Health Care and Education cuts can reduce spending by that large an amount) – even though that is at odds with all the NDP electioneering on increasing spending on Health Care and Education.

But then we are talking party politics were, apparently, logic, financial and economic reality have nothing to do with policy or position.

Yes, government revenues come out of the same pocket, that of the taxpayer. However those revenues do not go into the same pocket. Rather those revenue streams flow into three separate pockets – a federal pocket, a provincial pocket and a municipal pocket.

The fact that the federal pocket has $1.6 billion available doesn’t mean a thing to the provincial pocket – UNLESS that $1.6 is to be transferred to the provincial pocket. Saying no to the HST means the $1.6 billion stays in the federal pocket.

More importantly it means that when the provincial government goes to pay for the services the $1.6 billion in funds was allocated to pay for – they cannot pay.

You go into a store to buy books, clothes etc and when you look in your wallet it is empty what happens? You leave the store without the goods you want to buy. If the goods are important you could take a second job to earn the extra income needed.

Unfortunately the way governments get their spending money is out of citizens pockets. So in order to offset the $1.6 billion that not implementing the HST will cost the BC budget either the government cuts $1.6 billion in costs (services) or raises other taxes and fees by $1.6 billion.

You may have noticed the nasty kicker in the “it’s all one pocket” argument the NDP supporter made.

In rejecting the HST the $1.6 billion stays in the federal pocket for them to spend. Does anyone think they are about to give that money back to taxpayers? If so, I have some lovely land in Florida to sell you. No, if we are extremely lucky the $1.6 billion will be used to reduce the federal deficit. Most likely, given the political situation in Ottawa, the federal Conservative government will find some way to spend it promoting the Conservatives electability. Something along the lines of the taxpayer funded Conservative party advertising labeled ‘Canada’s Economic Plan’.

Deficit or political pork barreling it leaves the BC provincial government short $1.6 billion. The only provincial programs large enough to ‘fund’ $1.6 billion in cuts are Health Care and Education. Given the caterwauling going over Health Care and Education in the current budget the provincial government will be motivated NOT to make the cuts necessary to offset the $1.6 billion revenue loss/shortfall.

This leaves raising taxes/revenues to cover the $1.6 billion shortage.

**** I acknowledge the BC government could increase the provincial deficit by $1.6 billion, but in the economic climate of today such a course of action will result in negative economic consequences proportional to or exceeding the $1.6 billion. ****

Which leaves BC taxpayers paying the $1.6 billion twice – once to the federal government (the pocket it is in and will stay in) and once to the BC provincial government were it is spent on the programs the original $1.6 billion was slated to pay for OR paying through $1.6 billion in health care and education cuts.

As a final cruel, ironic adding of insult to injury remember that most of the $1.6 billion dollars that would have gone into BC’s coffers for implementing the HST would have consisted of dollars that came mainly out of the pockets of other Canadians.

In rejecting the HST BC taxpayers are choosing to turn down the $1+ billion portion that came out of the pockets of Canadians who do not live in BC, turn down the repatriation of the balance of the $1.6 billion that came out of the pockets of BC taxpayers and to be out of pocket an additional $1.6 billion to replace the $1.6 billion in federal funds lost by not implementing the HST.

Makes the victory claimed by the anti-HST forces pretty much a Pyrrhic victory, does it not?

I can understand the public’s anger at the Liberals and the desire for revenge on the Liberals on the part of both the NDP and Mr. Vander Zalm.

Given the number of memorials I have attended this year for people whose deaths are in part or in full the result of policies of the Liberal government, the needless damage and suffering the policies of the Liberal government continue to cause and the increasing levels of misery, poverty, illness and even death the policy choices and actions of the Liberal Party will give rise to in the coming years I have issues and a passionate anger with the behavior of the Liberal party.

However as part of getting into recovery from mental illness I had to deal with the propensity of Adult Children of Alcoholism to be masters of self sabotage, to avoid self-destructive behavior.

Avoiding self-destructive behavior is why, while I would love to see the Liberal government and Gordon Campbell get a figurative kick in the ass, I am not willing to do it at the cost that will result from ‘punishing’ or ‘teaching a lesson’ to Gordon Campbell and his Liberals through a rejection of the HST.

Being motivated by anger (taxpayers) or the need for revenge (political foes) and acting out of anger or pursuing revenge in a way that would damage citizens and the province more than the Liberals is, to be blunt, not only childish but extremely foolish if not out-and-out reckless.

One expects politicians (the NDP, Vander Zalm et al) to be focused on their own needs (revenge, scoring political points) and pursuit of those needs, rather than the best course of action for the citizens of BC.

But the people of BC cannot allow their own anger or the desire of political opponents for revenge to dictate their actions vis-à-vis the HST.

The cost to taxpayers pocketbooks or to Health Care and Education of engaging in a fit of self-destructive pique with the Liberal government, is simply too high. However bitter, the HST is a pill that must be swallowed by the citizens of BC.

I don’t expect the NDP, Vander Zalm et al to be capable of passing by the opportunity for revenge and scoring political points since.

Indeed, knowing the $$$ costs and the potential for significant negative impacts on both Health Care and Education the NDP is pursuing their anti-HST campaign without outlining in what manner, if any, they would offset the need for significant cuts to Health Care and Education.

Questioning how the NDP proposed to offset the negative costs and effects of not implementing the HST while at the same time funding all the additional spending on Health Care and Education the NDP have been calling for since the budget was brought down, resulted in a list (Olympics, convention center, new ferries built abroad, etc) of financial misadventures of the liberals.

When I enquired what the sins of the Liberals had to do with how the NDP was going to pay for not implementing the HST and the increased spending on Health Care and Education they were advocating in response to the cuts forced by the Liberal budget I moved into the category of those who a political discussion with was a ‘waste of time”.

I asked and courteously received an acknowledged that she had assumed, from the fact I stayed focused on how the NDP proposed to cover the costs of increased Health Care and Education spending and also cover the cost of not implementing the HST, I was a Liberal supporter. When I stated I was not a Liberal supporter I was dismissed as a Green or Conservative supporter.

I earned a snort from saying that at this point I felt none of the current provincial (or federal) political parties had demonstrated they deserved, or had the ability and vision, to form the next government.

Listening to the list of financial ‘sins’ committed by the Liberals I was struck by a sense of déjà vu. The Liberals originally came to power in BC on a list of financial ‘sins’ committed by the NDP. The last election was about which party had committed, or would commit if elected, the most financial and other ‘sins’.

When faced with questions of how the parties and politicians propose to pay for their promises, whether the Liberal’s Olympics or the NDP’s rejection of the HST agreement with the federal government, what voters get is a list of the ‘sins’ of the other parties.

Our elections, both federally and provincially, are not about policies, answering voter’s questions or about why you should vote for a particular party. Elections have become about scare tactics, bogeymen, why you should not vote for the other party or parties and a list of the sins of the other party or parties.

Provincially and federally I am in the position many Canadians find themselves, without a party to support because none of the politicians and parties are about articulating a vision for Canada (or BC); they focus on telling you why you shouldn’t vote for the other parties not on points of policy but on the basis of past ‘sins’ and scare tactics based on future sins; none of the parties seems to understand or grasp the real world, especially in terms of the financial realities of today and the future as well as the needs and social fabric of Canadians and Canada.

I am not alone in this view of having no party that reflects my views of the priorities and policies that are needed, federally and provincially, to provide the leadership and governance Canada needs at this time of change.

I know this because, after finishing the paragraph about being without a party to support I ‘prorogued’ writing to allow a trip to the Library to return materials and to pick up two items on hold for me. While at the library I ran into an acquaintance and extended the prorogation to share a coffee.

Our conversation began with the current state of the Mental Health system, the difficulties one has accessing the system, the current rationing of mental health services and the current ‘horror show’ state of affairs that exists at the psychiatric ward of Abbotsford’s new Regional Hospital. Not surprising this conversation led to the current government’s policies, political parties and the political situation in general.

It developed that my partner in conversation had also been rendered party-less at the federal level by the actions of the traitor from the Maritimes, he whose name should never be spoken, betrayer of the Progressive Conservative Party, members, supporters, voters and Canadians.

We both feel that there is a need for policies to help those Canadians most in need of help, that people (housing, poverty, mental health, etc) are more important than things (bridges, Olympic venues) and that there is no reason government cannot be socially responsible while being fiscally responsible.

My acquaintance used fiscally conservative, which was the term I used before the federal Conservative party took the words responsible, thoughtful, balanced and fair out of what people now think of when you use the term Conservative in reference to fiscal/budget policy.

The current Conservative party is many things when it comes to budget and fiscal policy but they are not in any way conservative, balanced, fair or most especially responsible.

We spoke of the fact that not only are the Liberals and Conservatives doing great damage to the social fabric of the province and county but that, despite their claims to be fiscally responsible, their pursuit of their ideology is inflicting financial damage that puts Canada’s and Canadian’s financial future at risk.

We agreed that until such time as the NDP get both their fiscal policy and financial house in order, they undermine their policy agenda. That a government needs solid financial footing to fund needed social policies and programs.

Remember that it was the BC NDP who first began the demise of the Income Assistance system (currently Housing and Social Development) trying to balance (reduce the deficit) the budget. Agreeing that before we could vote NDP the party would have to strengthen its right (financial) wing.

We shuddered at the thought of the provincial Conservatives and Randy White and the damage, both socially and financially, they would inflict on the province.

We agreed that the Green party is the one current party that has promise, but that the party needs to get its financial house/ wing in order as well as attracting some solid, mature candidates.

We lamented the fact that at this time there is no party whose policy is to deliver good governance, help to the most vulnerable Canadians, ethical behaviour, to raise issues that Canadians need to discuss and address even though Canadians want to avoid thinking about or addressing these issues, provide leadership and deliver responsible and sustainable financial management.

Finally we spoke of the need for a new fiscally responsible, socially progressive, cognizant of the fiscal reality the majority of Canadians live with daily and, perhaps most importantly, aware that the world has changed and that fiscal policy needs to reflect the fiscal realities Canada faces – not what used to be or what a political party’s ideology imagines the world to be. Or the need for responsible citizens to run as independents in order to put an end to so many voters being forced to vote for the lesser of evils; giving voters the ability to vote for policies and MP’s instead of holding our nose and making the least objectionable choice.

Without change in the behaviour of voters, simply denying the current crop of politicians the right to run for office will change nothing. The parties will simply present a new crop of candidates no better (hopefully no worse) than the current bunch and the status quo will remain unchanged. As friend of mine said, our current politicians are like vermin – you get rid of one and five more pop up as replacements.

Only a change in behaviour on the part of voters can effect a change in the governance of municipalities, provinces and at the federal level. I need to amend that statement. A change in voter behaviour is required to bring about change in a controlled manner.

To quote from the Abbotsford Today article: In a very insightful column in the Vancouver Sun Monday, entitled “Consumers are in denial with social crisis looming“, Murray Dobbin, of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, argues that, in terms of consumer debt, our current ‘consumer madness’ indicates “An almost wilful denial of reality.”

“Optimists may have imagined that the current combination of inconvenient truths would cause people to pause and re-examine their habits.”

I would not have considered myself an optimist but, I admit that I had hoped as reality, particularly the fiscal/resource reality that governments around the world are bumping up against, began to assert itself people would be forced to “pause and re-examine their habits.”

It is becoming clearer that Mr. Dobbin is correct – such a hope is optimistic.

The evidence of behaviour indicates people have, ostrich-like, buried their heads so deeply in the sands of a “wilful denial of reality” that only when reality forces large tax increases or deep cuts to favourite programs like medical care or Old Age Security will Canadians and their politicians be forced to pull their heads out of … the sand.

The problem with that is, when you reach the point where reality asserts itself and forces action, it is extremely painful; as demonstrated by what is taking place in Greece.

Financial reality has asserted itself and Greece finds itself insolvent and needing a bailout from other members of the European Economic Community to avoid an economic disaster. As part of the bailout the Greek government has been forced to impose painful financial and economic budget cuts to government spending.

How did Greek citizens react to these austerity measures? Unbelief, a denial of reality so strong that it has lead to strikes demanding the Greek government go back to ‘business as usual’. Even when faced with the evidence of their economic crisis, the need for Greece to be bailed out by other members of the EEC, most Greek citizens continue to deny reality considering it to be some kind of government plot so as to impose austerity measures.

Lest Canadians feel that they would not be that unrealistic – have you heard the radio ads running that urge people demand the government change CPP so that everyone can enjoy a golden retirement. People are finding that the changes in the Canadian and world economies mean they cannot comfortably save enough money to retire on.

Increasingly those who have already retired are finding themselves pinching pennies, purchasing only those goods and services necessary to live and/or forced to go to work part-time to be able to pay the bills. Increasing numbers of people are realizing that their retirement income will have them on strict budgets cannot afford to. Increasing numbers of people are facing the reality that they will never be able to afford to retire on the levels of retirement income the are currently in line to receive.

Rather than adjusting their current spending they want the government to change CPP so that they can afford to retire. Ignoring the fact that government cannot afford to fund commitments it already has made to the public and thus simply cannot afford any major new policy initiatives. Oh yes, Canadians can be at least as unrealistic as Greek citizens.

And before Canadians pull the covers of their “wilful denial of reality” back over their heads telling themselves if could not happen in Canada they had best remember the old adage about those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

What am I referring to?

Take a minute and think about the situation Greece and its citizens find themselves in: bankrupt and needing a bailout from other countries that, as a condition of the bailout, require the imposition of harsh austerity measures by the government. Sound familiar?

Sounds eerily similar to the financial crisis situation that South American countries (and other countries around the globe) found themselves in – unable to pay or service their debt they had to be bailed out by the IMF (International Monetary Fund).

At the time it was dismissed as being a problem confined to the developing world/nations. Developed nations, such as Greece (and Portugal and Spain), rested secure in the knowledge that it was ‘third world’ problem and not an early warning sign of changing world economic and resource realities.

I recognize that as part of the “wilful denial of reality” most Canadians are in denial about what is happening in Greece serving as an early warning for Canadians to get their financial house in order. Instead of seeing Greece as a cautionary tale that financial reality will exert itself at some point, that while nations/countries can put off the day of reckoning longer than individuals or corporations a day of reckoning will come, the majority of Canadians are telling themselves “that is just Greece, you know how those Europeans are’.

Just as it was “just the developing countries, you know how the third world is”.

For those still clinging to this has nothing to do with Canada just look at the effect the situation in Greece had on the Canadian Dollar which plunged from parity with (briefly above) the US dollar to 0.92 cents against the US dollar. A response as investors flee to the perceive safety of the US dollar; a response that may well prove to be loonie.

Loonie because the assumption of the safety of the US dollar is of questionable validity – a rather sobering thought.

There are a number of economists, economic and financial thinkers who are not wedded to the established models of economic thought because they believe that the reality that that these models and modes of thinking, such as unlimited growth, are based on has changed. That, logic and mounting evidence suggests the traditional, accepted economic realities upon which we are planning and managing municipal, provincial, national and the world economy no longer exist.

People blame tax increases for the fact that, year after year and decade to decade their pay cheques do not go as far or purchase the goods and services they did. People assume that the reason that their pay cheque does not purchase the goods and services it did last year is that someone (government) is taking more (taxes) out of their cheque so that they have less dollars to spend than they did the prior year or in years prior to that.

Recently I was at an economics lecture where it was pointed out that tax rates have dropped for both rich people and poor people over the last 15 years. That there were big declines in marginal tax rates for rich people 56% in 1994 to 45% in 2008.

If taxes are falling then why do people feel they have less money to spend? Because while taxes have gone down and they have more dollars to spend, the goods and services those dollars will purchase are less than the goods and services that a lesser number of dollars purchased the year before.

This widespread but misplaced blame on taxes has consequences. This misplaced blame results in fiscal policies focused not on what are the actual problems or issues in the Canadian economy, but on what citizens (and politicians) think is the problem. The consequences of this are threefold.

First, time and resources are spent not on addressing the actual problems or issues, but elsewhere. It is all but impossible to solve problems or issues when you are not aware they are the problems and issues you need to be addressing. The actual issues and problems remain untouched when one is focused on solving problems and issues that are not really problems or issues or are not the problems and issues you need to be focused on.

Second, the actions taken in seeking solutions to the incorrect set of problems or issues can, and often does, worsen or exacerbate the true problems and issues. Additionally trying to solve the wrong problems or issues can give rise to new problems and issues.

Third, it can lead to incorrect voting decisions. If voters believe that taxes are responsible for reducing the amount of goods and services they can obtain this incorrect belief will influence, may well dictate, how they vote.

A major tenet of the federal Conservative Party’s ideology is that tax cuts are a solution to economic issues and problems or perhaps that should read any tax cut is a good tax cut. Voters, believing that increasing taxes are the reason the amount of goods and services they can purchase is falling proceed to vote Conservative. The Conservatives proceed to cut taxes and the voters … find that the amount of goods and services they can purchase has gone down yet again.

Because we are dealing with human beings, this further reduction on the goods and services they can purchase seems to convince people that somehow taxes must have gone up and what is needed is further tax cuts; even as they are demanding more (ie shorter wait times for operation, more prisons to lock up repeat offenders) from the government.

So policies are based on what is, incorrectly, perceived as the problem and upon the party in power’s ideology (currently the federal Conservatives and Liberals provincially.) The result is policies that are not based on solving what the problems and issues are but upon what are perceived and/or believed to be the problems and issues.

Take a look around the province and the country and you see the consequences of basing policies on perception and believe instead of Reality.

The amount of goods and services Canadians can purchase continues to fall rather than increase. Meanwhile homelessness, those living in poverty and the numbers of poor Canadians increase significantly. Government policies over the past several decades have resulted in what one wants to rise (wealth) falling and what one wants to fall (poverty levels) rising.

A Caveat about government policies having resulted in a decrease of wealth for Canadians: while it is true that government policy resulted in a reduction in wealth for an overwhelming percentage of Canadians these policies did result in significant wealth increases for a small percentage of Canadians. This wealth increase was not the result in an increase of the net wealth of Canadians but the transfer wealth from other Canadians, including the poorest, to the wealthiest Canadians.

Might I suggest a change in behaviour and policy is in order. Or we could continue the insanity of doing what we are doing, pursuing the government polices we have been pursuing and hoping for a different outcome.

Personally, I think the most like course of action to result in different, more desirable, outcomes is to change the behaviour.

While thinking that over here are a few more points to ponder.

Prior to our current economic challenges BC, indeed Canada, enjoyed a long and strong (labelled by governments as the longest and strongest ever) boom. What did the boom bring about?

Increased homelessness, poverty, child poverty, loss of housing affordability, loss of traditional middle class, living wage jobs which were replaced by 20 hour minimum wage jobs; this is what government policies brought about when we were in a boom – as the Canadian and worldwide economy struggles to adjust to $200 a barrel oil and other economic realities, it is frightening to contemplate: if that was what our government policies caused in boom conditions what will those policies cause under far less favourable circumstances?

When is a tax cut not really a tax cut? When the money you receive from this ‘tax cut’ will have to be repaid plus interest. The federal Conservatives financed their ‘tax cuts’ with borrowed money (deficits). As a result Canadians will have to repay not only the amount of money they ‘received’ but will also have to repay the interest costs of the money. Doesn’t seem to be much of a tax cut to me?

The emerging school of thought holds that we need to change our traditional, business as usual, economic thinking, planning and managing to reflect new realities – or suffer increased pain as a result of the fallout from the discrepancy between what we insist is economic reality versus the actual economic reality.

This new reality includes concern that the US economy has dug itself into a financial and economic hole from which it cannot, in any non-(extremely)painful, non-drastic manner recover; that the US economy is being sustained on its size and momentum, the established behaviours and beliefs of not only investors but of countries and of course denial of what is (or would be) a potentially disastrous situation.

This view suggests that countries need to get their financial behaviours, financial houses, in order so as to strengthen their economies, putting them on a solid footing to minimize the pain and fallout as the economic reality the world is in fact in, asserts itself and imposes adjustment to reality upon the world economies.

Denial, right up until you hit the brick wall of Reality, is oft a far more comfortable place to dwell that is reality.

Unfortunately, an extremely painful unfortunately, the comfortable bubble of denial will not, cannot, protect us from the SPLAT of hitting the brick wall of Reality.

Our economic and financial behaviour is like the skier on the opening of ABC’s Wide World of Sports, racing out of control.

We can choose either to suffer the ‘agony of defeat’ – the SPLAT – when reality exerts itself OR we can manage the pain by “pause and re-examine” moving out of our current state of a “wilful denial of reality” and making thoughtful, intelligent and rational policy choices.

In the final analysis simply changing the current crop of politicians for a new crop of ‘the same old’ politicians and political behaviour; tinkering with the electoral system (proportional representation etc); will change nothing.

Ultimately the responsibility and the ability for good government is in the hands, the votes, of the public and until such time as the public becomes willing to engage in a discussion/debate of reality, as opposed to their far more comfortable “wilful denial of reality”, Canada, Canadian society, the Canadian economy and indeed the future of Canada are going to continue in an accelerating downward spiral.

We can Think or Sink; no longer having the excess resources to allow us to deny reality and put off a financial reckoning, we must Choose to take our fate, however uncomfortable, in our hands or be Victims of fate and the dictates of economic forces we will have sacrificed our ability to exert influence upon by our insistence in dwelling in the land of denial and a “wilful denial of reality”.