Category Archives: Federal

Come On!!

The first though I had on reading Ed Fast’s attack on Mr. Ignatieff was:

If the federal Conservatives put even a tiny fraction of the effort they put into whining defensively “there is no need for an election” into collaborating with the other federal parties, Canadians would not be facing the possibility of another federal election.

The difference between Mr. Harper’s true colours, his actual thoughts and attitudes towards the other parties versus his statements to the Canadian public is clearly shown by the video on the CBC news of September 9, 2009.

By the way Mr. Fast (and perhaps you could pass this bit of reality along to Mr. Harper), Canadians did not give the Conservatives a strengthened mandate: they denied the Conservatives a majority having judged Mr. Harper unworthy of being entrusted with a majority government.

As to the negative effect on the dollar and stock market, both the dollar and the stock market have bounced back. Following Mr. Fast’s logic that would mean that, upon reflection, it was felt that election of Mr. Ignatieff as PM was considered a positive for Canada.

“Why are they insisting on a pointless exercise which will cost taxpayers another $350 million?” That was exactly the question Canadians were asking themselves in 2008 when Mr. Harper ignored the law he and the Conservatives had enacted setting the next vote for October 19, 2009.

Perhaps the answer will emerge from the current court action where Democracy Watch is suing Mr. Harper for violating his own fixed election date law, as well as the Canadian Charter of Rights.

Let’s be accurate: the reason Canada has fared better than most countries is that our banking system was not able to engage in any of the financial mismanagement that banks in the USA and around the world engaged in and that necessitated governments in many countries being forced to bail banks out.

Why did the Canadian banks not engage in this mismanagement? Because the Conservatives could not pursue their deregulation of Canadian banks with a minority government; since it was the Canadian people who refused to give the Conservatives a majority government, it is the Canadian people who deserve credit for Canada  faring better than most counties.

Speaking of the economy Mr. Fast, just how will the Conservatives wild spending spree and the massive deficit they created protect the economy and lead to prosperity?

The Conservative government took over a surplus that was being applied to paying down the federal government’s debt, providing more economic manoeuvrability.

Claiming a surplus that existed only by holding billions of dollars in military spending off the books, the Conservative government proceeded to make tax cuts. Not only had the Conservative government stopped paying down Canada’s debt but, when the cost of their military adventurism in Afghanistan was properly accounted for, begun increasing Canada’s debt again.

The Conservatives, through their demonstrated lack of fiscal responsibility or ability, are creating a level of debt that not only will our grandchildren be paying it off (to their economic detriment), but that our great-grandchildren and great-great-grandchildren will be burdened with.

“Home Renovation Tax Credit …leaving thousands of Canadians betrayed.” That would be as opposed to the betrayal of hundreds of thousands of unemployed Canadians, the record level of Canadians currently on EI and facing the end of EI eligibility and joining the hundreds of thousands whose EI benefits have run out, the thousands of Canadians who find themselves living in poverty or homelessness or hopelessness?

I am sorry Mr. Fast I am not nearly as concerned with homeowners who have money to spend on home improvements as I am with homeowners losing their homes, those who have lost their homes, those without money for food to eat, food banks (the need for food banks in Canada period) lacking sufficient food to distribute to hungry families and especially hungry children – all abandoned, indeed betrayed, by the current Conservative government.

The recession may be over for those earning immoderate government salaries with gold plated pensions (that even corporate executives with their million dollar bonuses wouldn’t dare give themselves), but for millions of poor Canadians, Canadians living in poverty or homelessness, those who have lost their homes and all else – the pain and effects will be felt for years and many will never recover from these reversals.

Talk about being out of touch with Canadians ….

Mr. Fast – these Canadians are not concerned with prosperity, they are concerned with survival.

Mr. Fast’s Letter

Michael Ignatieff just doesn’t get it. Canadians have made it very clear that they don’t want another election less than a year after the last one. More importantly, a federal election will stall our economic recovery which has just begun. In fact, the stock markets and Canadian dollar dropped immediately after Mr. Ignatieff announced that he was bringing down our Conservative Government and forcing Canadians into their fourth election in five years.

Mr. Ignatieff’s ill-considered action is already creating uncertainty and instability within our economy. If an election actually took place, most federal legislative and economic business would come to a virtual halt for three months. That’s bad for our economy, it’s bad for hard-working Canadians. What’s more, programs such as our recently announced Home Renovation Tax Credit would be at risk of cancellation by the Liberals, leaving thousands of Canadians betrayed.

So why are the Ignatieff Liberals pushing for an election that nobody wants? Why are they insisting on a pointless exercise which will cost taxpayers another $350 million?

First, it’s become very clear that our Conservative Government’s Economic Action Plan is working! Last month, the Bank of Canada’s governor Mark Carney announced that Canada’s economy was the first of the G-7 countries to turn the corner on the recession. And it’s no coincidence that the day before Mr. Ignatieff demanded an election, Statistics Canada released figures showing that Canada’s economy actually grew in June! Thanks to the prudent economic stewardship of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Canada has fared much better than most other countries around the world.

However, what’s good news for the nation is not good news for Mr. Ignatieff’s thirst for power. He fears that more positive news about our Conservative government’s economic stewardship will derail his plan to become prime minister after being away from Canada for 34 long years.

Mr. Ignatieff also wants to trigger an election now so he can hang on to his majority in the Senate. He has used his unelected and unaccountable Liberal senators to block important criminal justice reforms passed by the duly-elected Members of Parliament. The Liberals have also used the Senate to block our government’s efforts to create senate elections and limit Senate terms to 8 years. As more Liberal senators retire and are replaced by democratic-minded candidates, Mr. Ignatieff would lose his power to block the will of Canadians.

Finally, if the Liberal leader waits until 2010, Canadians may have even more reason to feel good about themselves and their great country. Mr. Ignatieff is afraid that voters will be less likely to vote for change when feeling patriotic – and the 2010 Vancouver-Whistler Olympics in February will undoubtedly inflame a greater sense of patriotism and excitement across our country.

Our Conservative Government proved that it was able to govern responsibly and became the longest-serving minority parliament in Canadian history. Canadians returned us to power last October with a strengthened mandate. Surely Mr. Ignatieff and his Liberals can’t believe that Abbotsford residents want another election campaign today?
While the federal Liberals continue to threaten Canadians with an election, our Conservative government remains focussed on our number one priority: protecting Canada’s economy and continuing to invest in stimulus measures that will secure hope and prosperity for Canadians.

Courtesy of Ed Fast, M.P.

Another Big Business Bailout

Obviously Canadians are wrong in thinking the role of the CRTC is to support Canadian radio and television, protect the interests of Canadians and to make decisions that benefit Canadian viewers and listeners?

But then, how were Canadians to know the CRTC’s role had changed to protecting the interests and survival of the broadcast media conglomerates until the commission’s actions revealed this change? Actions that continue the deterioration of Canadian television and the destruction of the local in local television.

The CRTC imposed a new tax on Canadians in order to fund a bailout of large corporate media conglomerates, saving them from their own bad management decisions; decisions that had the conglomerates failing to make payments on (some) loans and teetering on the edge of bankruptcy.

Apparently the media conglomerates slick advertising campaign to have the CRTC impose a new tax on Canadians and bail out the conglomerates was successful.

A campaign that a federal government that was protecting Canadian citizens, rather than the interests of big corporate media, would have charged the media conglomerates with misleading advertising for running.

The failure of the federal government to protect Canadians from this deceptive campaign and the decision to impose a new media tax on Canadian consumers to bail out the media conglomerates is hardly surprising, given the Conservative governments record of making decisions favouring big business and the wealthy, over the needs of average, hardworking Canadians.

After all, would it be reasonable to expect the Conservatives to resist the lure of the media access and gentle treatment on issues and Conservative government actions, merely to act in the best interests of Canadians and Canada?

Evidently the Conservatives found the expectation that they act in the best interests of Canada and Canadians unreasonable; choosing to act instead in the best interests of the media conglomerates.

The Conservative decision to force Canadians to bail out the corporate media conglomerates demonstrates that the Conservatives are capitalists only when it suits them or benefits big business, the wealthy or the Conservative Party.

When letting the marketplace decide the fate of the media conglomerates would result in the bankruptcy of the media conglomerates and thus return control and ownership of local media outlets to local interests, suddenly the Conservatives are all for government intervention in the marketplace.

What is the next step for these market interventionist, interfere in the marketplace Conservatives? A tax on the internet to bail out the media conglomerates print assets?

If, as I do, you support local media and media freedom then contact you local MP and the leaders of all the federal political parties to tell them this support of the interests of the big media conglomerates over the interests of Canadians and Canada is unacceptable.

Tell them that this market intervention to bail out the media conglomerates is unacceptable.

Tell them you support true local television, radio and newspapers; that you are well aware that media conglomerate ownership of local media does not qualify as local media, is detrimental to the health of local media and the health and diversity of media in Canada as a whole.

Tell them: I support local television; I do not support bailing out media conglomerates.

Tell them: I strongly oppose forcing Canadians to bail out the media conglomerates, rescuing them from their own bad business decisions. Particularly in light of the media conglomerates blatantly deceptive ‘Save local television’ campaign, the goal of which was clearly the imposition of a tax on cable customers and the use of the revenue from such a tax to bail out the media conglomerates.

Tell them to let the marketplace decide the fate, the existence or non-existence, of the media conglomerates.

Tell the federal Conservatives that the federal government is suppose to be looking after the interests of Canadians and Canada, not the best interests of the Conservative’s media sycophants.

Politicians Lie? What a Shock!

I'm Shocked!
I'm Shocked!

Why is anyone surprised that politicians would lie, withhold information or release information when it is most favourable to the politicians?

After all that is how the voting public has trained them to behave.

When you punish those of integrity – who tell the truth, want to address important issues, are solution oriented acknowledging that solutions are not going to be neat, tidy or free, are interested in the wellbeing of all Canadians and in bringing change; then have the audacity to insist on talking about these things when Canadians want to hear everything is wonderful and it is easy, simple and inexpensive to fix problems – by refusing to listen or think about what they are saying and refusing to vote for those of integrity because they insist on telling the voting public the truth, is it any wonder that people of integrity cease seeking office?

When you reward those who tell the public what it wants to hear no matter what the reality of the situation is; listen to their fear-mongering tales of boogeyman; accept unquestioningly financial statements and claims that if applied to your personal finances would have you homeless and on the street; accept unquestioningly statements that cannot stand up to event the most elementary logic or reason; insist that problems have easy, neat, tidy and fast answers; claim that everything is wonderful and there is not need for change; pit citizen against citizen for personal and political advantage – voting for them simply because they tell the voting public what it wants to hear, is it any wonder that politicians lie, withhold information or release it when it is to their advantage?

“What is the primary purpose of a political leader? To build a majority. If voters care about parking lots, then talk about parking lots.” Newt Gingrich

When the public votes only for those who tell them what they want to hear and about parking lots, refusing to listen to, consider or vote for those who insist on addressing issues, how can they be surprised that they end up without people of integrity in government and with a legislature populated with those who will lie and tell them whatever they want to hear in order to win?

If citizens want people of integrity in government then they have to convince people of integrity that they are ready to listen, to think about and to engage in discussion of important issues – even if they would rather not hear about issues, about making choices and change.

Then they have to be willing to vote for them.

There is a joke that goes: Stop repeat offenders. Don’t re-elect them.

If citizens want honour and integrity in those in elected office they have to vote for people of honour and integrity.

Understand that if you elect people of honour and integrity they are not going to lie to you and tell you what you want to hear, they are going to tell you what is and what you need to hear about, think about and decide about.

Fairness

I was driving by Tim Felger’s store and looking at the window damage as the radio DJ was speaking of Marc Emery spending 6 – 8 years in an American jail (or serving his sentence in Canada). Arriving home the second item on the 11PM news was about granting an exception to Canadian law for the ex-KGB agent currently taking sanctuary in a church to avoid arrest and deportation.

All of which left me pondering the state of fairness in the Canadian justice system.

It has been a sad fact of life that those with money can, through their ability to hire high priced legal talent, realistically afford a different brand of justice than the average citizen. By the same token the average citizen can afford a different brand of justice than the poor, the homeless, the addicted or the mentally ill who have no money and are far too often entirely at the mercy of chance as to how they fare within the legal system.

Not a perfectly fair reality, but a reality nonetheless and an issue that, while difficult to remedy, has at least the fairness of being in the public awareness.

I am far more concerned with popularity of the party involved becoming the deciding factor as to how the law is or is not applied. Politics is a popularity contest and one only has to take a honest, objective look at our cities, provinces and country to see how badly popularity can be as a basis to make policy or apply policy on.

Worse, it seems to being played out in the media. Contrast the tone of the current reporting on the ex-KGB officer who has taken refuge within a Vancouver church with the reporting that was done when an illegal immigrant from India took shelter in a Sikh temple. While the circumstances are not exactly the same, the principle is.

Marc Emery is not a friend of Stephen Harper or his Conservative party and is not the type of person or character that any of the opposition parties will stand up on a matter of principle over.

Personally I would gladly kick Mr. Emery’s ass over many of his actions and behaviours. But … as a matter of principle he should not have had to cut a deal and serve prison time because the Canadian government (and most Canadians) don’t like him or what he stands for.

Remember what Mr. Emery was doing in Canada was legal for him to be doing in Canada. The failure of the government from the start to say no, under these circumstances we will not extradite him, has far reaching consequences (just ask other Canadians abandoned in foreign jails to foreign legal systems) as well as fairness issues.

I caught an interview with Salman Rushdie on CBC’s The Hour. What would have happened if Iran (or another Islamic country) had asked for his extradition to face charges for writing the Satanic Verses? What do you think the public’s reaction would be and in light of public and world reaction, what would the Canadian government have done? Refused the extradition request.

Fairness?

I have seen no editorial outrage or public outcry at the damage done to Tim Felger’s front store windows or the shooting out of the truck’s and rear store windows. Considering the extremely close watch the police, the city and outraged citizens keep on Mr. Felger and his establishment and the extent of the damage done and the time it would take, it is troubling that someone had that time and that no suspects have been found.

Over the years Mr. Felger has made himself very unpopular in Abbotsford particularly with city council and the police, but in fairness that should not affect the handling of the criminal damage done to his store.

Fairness requires that whether we like or dislike the people, like or dislike the situation, that like or dislike does not affect the outcome.

In suggesting that the law treat the ex-KGB agent differently ‘because he deserves it’; in tolerating the government not refusing to extradite Mr. Emery ‘because he deserves it’; in tolerating the damage done to Mr. Felger’s store and way he is treated ‘because he deserves it’; we increase the unfairness of the system and decrease our own rights and protections.

Fairness does not just protect the Felger’s of the world. Fairness protects us all and we abandon Fairness ‘because he (they) do not deserve it’ at our own peril.

Character – or lack thereof.

As a Canadian it pleased me to hear that the CBC had declined to run Stephen Harper’s desperate and contemptible anti-Michael Ignatieff drivel. It appears at least someone in Canadian broadcast television has at least minimal standards.

Although in the case of the media conglomerates, in light of the ‘save local television’ con they are running, they could hardly refuse even as crass and un-Canadian an advertisement as Harper’s odious personal attack on Michael Ignatieff.

Of course one cannot overlook the matter of self interest in the decision by the media conglomerates to accept and run Harper’s sordid attack ad. It is in the best interest of the media conglomerates to curry favour with Harper and the Conservatives as they want them to impose a tax on Canadian’s cable service then give the tax monies raised to the media conglomerates in order to save them from bankruptcy now and to guarantee future corporate profits without the need to bother to do anything about their bad management practices.

I do acknowledge that I did find the irony inherent in the tag line accusation “in it for himself” rather amusing. It left me wanting to suggest to Mr. Harper that he should not ascribe his personal motivations to anyone other than himself. Just because Mr. Harper continuously demonstrates, through his behaviour, that he is clearly “in it for himself” does not mean anyone else seeking office is “in it for himself” and not motivated by a desire to rescue Canada and Canadians from Mr. Harper and the Conservatives.

The most disturbing aspect of the ad, other than its demonstration that Stephen Harper has no understanding of what it means to be Canadian, is what it says about Harper and the Conservatives on issues of policy and governance.

The advertisement highlights Mr. Harper’s desperation and fears that the polls showing the Liberals under Ignatieff leading the Conservatives strongly enough to win the majority in parliament that Canadians denied Mr. Harper.

There was no vision, ideas, priorities or integrity revealed in Mr. Harpers attack on Mr. Ignatieff; just the desperation of Mr. Harper to hang onto power in any manner and at any cost.

Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power. Abraham Lincoln