Tag: Conservatives

… And Parliament goes on vacation

Well, it’s disappointing. Truly, the GG’s precedents for this were thin on the ground, so this decision was as valid as the other, but it’s still disappointing. It amounts to a reprieve for the Conservatives. Now they can wander off and cobble together a budget that takes all the best ideas from the coalition and present it and have the other parties look silly for voting against it.

Of course, it’s good if this actually reins the Conservatives in. But it’s unfortunate that it means we’ll likely continue to have a Prime Minister whose character is so clearly deficient, so far from what the country needs at this time.

And also, can we afford to have no federal action for two full months? Not exactly the best time for them to be off on vacation on our dime.

What’s been good

Well, it’s certainly engaging many Canadians in a way I’ve rarely seen before. Thousands of comments on news articles, pages full of letters to the editor… There’s very far from being a consensus of opinion on this. And more thoughtful commentary than I would have expected.

Opinions I have little patience with

“It’s a coup, it’s undemocratic, it’s a power grab, we didn’t vote for a coalition…”

Realizing my impatience with it will not make this opinion go away (especially with the Conservatives running ads on this theme), we elected a Parliament. The way we always do. We do not elect Prime Ministers. The elected members of Parliament can organize themselves in whatever combination they wish to form effective government. Coalitions, while rare in Canada, are perfect valid and completely in line with our democratic system.

“We need to have another election first.”

I actually can’t believe some people are of this opinion. Shall we just convert every vote in the House to an election then? For heaven’s sake! We just had a freakin’ election. We can’t afford the time, expense, and sheer aggravation only to likely end up with pretty much the same thing.

These are the people we elected. Let them find a way to govern for a little while, one way or another.

Opinions I’m more sympathetic toward

“I don’t want Dion as Prime Minister”

Yeah. Much as we don’t literally vote for Prime Ministers, I still think Canadians clearly expressed that they didn’t want Mr. Dion to be P-M. Hence his resignation from the leadership post the next day. Realizing they didn’t have a lot of time, I still wish the Liberals had gone with another interim leader for this coalition. (I wish Mr. Dion had recognized that could be in the best interest of the country as well.)

And regardless of what happens next, the Liberals seriously need to think about electing a new leader sooner than May. That’s too far away. Frankly—and even though I don’t particularly like Ignatief—I still think any of the three Liberal contenders would be a better bet than anything else on offer from the other parties (Duceppe’s separatism and May’s lack of a seat in the House rather hobbling these otherwise decent options).

And speaking of Duceppe…

“I don’t like that the coalition includes separatists”

The Bloc are annoying fact of Parliamentary life, but the math says the only way to bring the Conservatives down is to get Bloc support. And if it weren’t for the Bloc, the Conservatives would have their majority, and the other parties would have lost their financial capacity to fight them in future elections.

So while sympathetic with that point, me, I can live with them being involved. (Just like Stephen Harper could back when he was in opposition.) They wouldn’t actually sit in government; they’d just agree not to bring it down for 18 months. Seems an acceptable compromise.

What not to lose sight of

This crisis is Stephen Harper’s doing. Period. He has not taken responsibility for that, and he has not shown one iota of remorse for it.

So what do you think of your coalition now?

Now that the Conservatives have blinked, it’s more complicated.

They’ve dropped the funding cut to political parties. And also the ban on the right to strike. And, they pledge to bring forward a budget, with stimulus package, earlier, in January.

And yet the coalition agreement was signed, with Dion as Prime Minister, members of the NDP in cabinet, and the Bloc agreeing to support it for at least a year.

Politically, I don’t know how wise this is. The unpopular leader, the deal with separatists, leaving the party with the single most seats out in the cold—it’s just going to make a lot of people really angry.

On the other hand… It really is cooperation, isn’t it? And isn’t that exactly what a lot of people say they want? Three parties agreeing to work together for the good of Canada. Of course, their motives are nowhere near pure. But, it’s still a little refreshing.

And, I kind of like some the policy statements I’ve heard from the coalition side so far. Dropping the NDP demand to cancel corporate tax cuts (thank goodness). A stimulus package sooner. A blue chip economic advisory committee. Possibly restoring arts funding. Elizabeth May, Senator.

On the other hand (I clearly need more hands), it’s really hard to have great confidence in this group. The Liberals are still in a fair amount of disarray, and the NDP campaigned on a completely unrealistic platform. One hopes the NDP would learn from actually governing, but Canada isn’t in the best position right now for them to practice on. And Dion, despite some definite virtues, has not exactly shown himself to be a great leader.

I guess there isn’t any way for us to get Barack Obama as leader without actually joining the US? No? Well, OK then…

In this article I just found [link no longer valid!], Andrew Steele lays out Harper’s options.

  1. Preemptively Remove Michaëlle Jean.
    To which I say, wow, he can do that? I don’t like that one. It’s not right. And I like Ms. Jean.
  2. Reschedule the Vote again.
    How long a delay would be long enough? Eventually, someone has to govern…
  3. Appoint Opposition MPs to the Senate.
    This option is too boring to even contemplate.
  4. Caretaker Prime Minister.
    This apparently means admitting defeat, to some extent, and seeking to find a coalition partner. He would just be a “caretaker” Prime Minister in the meantime, with more limited powers. Interesting. Would he actually do this?
  5. Prorogue
    i.e. Cancel this session of Parliament and start again. This is the one he wants, but which admittedly limited precedent suggests the G-G shouldn’t grant.
  6. Apologize, fire Flaherty, and reach across the aisle.
    Is it a big enough gesture? And would he do this?
  7. Request an election.
    No! Not another damn election! No!
  8. Convince Opposition MPs to support the government.
    They’d need 12 turncoats.
  9. Seduce the Bloc into supporting the government.
    They’re already running anti-Bloc, so doubtful this is still a viable option.
  10. Step down as Conservative leader.
    Which is also what the Globe Editorial today recommends, and would, I think be a big enough gesture to appease the opposition (at least the Liberal party). But would he do that?

“May you live in interesting times.” Really is a curse, eh?

See? This is why you shouldn’t have voted Conservative!

Well, that didn’t take long.

I actually cannot believe that Parliament has just opened, and Stephen Harper already has me in a blind rage.

Step 1: Economic statement focus

Earlier in the week, I heard that the government’s economic statement was to focus on preserving a small surplus, plus some initial cuts.

I thought that was a very strange approach in a time when most economists, including conservative (small “c”) ones, seemed to be saying that spending and stimulus were the most important priorities at this time.

Still, I was only mildly irritated at this point. Sure, it suggested the Conservatives were bad economic managers. But I already knew that, and there is some comfort in being right. Plus, I still have a job, for the time being at least, and it’s Christmas. So why fuss about politics now?

Step 2: Cutting federal funding for political parties

This, I was not happy about, even before all kerfuffle arose.

Bully for the Conservatives that they’re so great at fund-raising they don’t need any help from the taxpayer. That’s what happens your party is the one that attracts most of the rich people.

But parties who attract more lower-income people who can’t afford to donate (NDP, Greens), or are currently in some disarray (hello, Liberals), still have the right to exist. No, more than the right; they must exist, or we don’t have a democracy. We have a Conservative dictatorship.

Step 3: The opposition rises

That is some hubris that caused Harper to think the other parties would actually vote for their own demise.

Now, it may well be politically wise for the other parties to say it’s the economic statement itself, and not the cutting of federal funding to political parties, that is the tipping point. I’ll come back to that.

But my opinion is that the party funding alone is enough reason to defeat this bill.

  1. It’s unbalanced. This bill came in to compensate for loss of other ways for political parties to raise money. Previously, corporations and unions could donate; now they cannot. Previously, individuals could give as much they wanted; now they’re capped at $1000. You can’t take the funding away without making other legal changes that allow the parties to compensate for that loss.
  2. It’s undemocratic. Funding is calculated on a per-vote basis (with the exception of parties earning less than 5% of the popular vote). It’s one of the very few ways in our system that (almost) every vote counts. Some people, particularly Green Party supporters, do cast their votes exactly for that reason: to get federal funds to their party of choice. Taking away the funding disenfranchises all who voted for a major party.
  3. It doesn’t help the economy. The amount is too small to matter. Now, there is something to be said for the mostly symbolic gesture. Freezing top-level government salaries and cutting perks also probably doesn’t really help the economy, but it’s just bad optics to be flying all over in first class while people are losing their jobs and savings. But party funding isn’t a luxury; democracies aren’t completely cost-free.

    If the Conservatives don’t want their share of that funding, they can give theirs back and dare the other parties to do the same (knowing that they won’t). That way the Conservatives can get on their high horse, where they like to be, without kneecapping their opposition.

But party funding probably is a dicey thing to defeat a government on, so the opposition is instead focusing on the content of the economic statement. And frankly, there is plenty to be against there, too.

  • Claiming they already stimulated the economy with 2006 tax cuts. Huh? Even ignoring that they selected the most non-stimulative form of tax cut possible—the GST—something you did three years ago is not going to have a new effect now.
  • Claiming a surplus based on bogus number, such as inflated projections for the price of oil.
  • No infrastructure programs at all, though it’s not difficult to find excellent candidates for these across the country.

But even at this point, I wasn’t quite in a blind rage. I was really kind of excited that the opposition was showing some teeth, and acting cooperative, and refusing to roll over for the bully at the helm. Until…

Step 4: Harper claims a coalition government is undemocratic

While we have been working on the economy, the opposition has been working on a backroom deal to overturn the results of the last election without seeking the consent of voters. They want to take power, not earn it.

Stephen Harper

Overturn the results? No consent of voters? Makes me crazy ever time I read or hear it.

Mr. Harper, the majority of Canadians voted against you and your party.

The majority of Canadians voted for four center-left parties who agree on a number of major issues.

Three of these parties won seats. Two are discussing forming a coalition government, with the backing of the third.

This could be the closest Canada has ever had to the makeup of the government reflecting their actual votes.

Step 5: ?

Who knows how this plays out. But if the Conservatives don’t change their statement, they deserve to go down over it. And that better not lead to an election!

In the midst of a global economic slowdown that may plunge Canada into a deep recession and threaten the livelihood of many Canadians, it would helpful if there were some adults in Ottawa. … While there is certainly a crisis, there is no semblance of crisis leadership here, and therefore no chance for national cohesion. The responsibility for that lies squarely on the shoulders of Stephen Harper.

— Globe and Mail editorial, How to compound an economic crisis

Martin Luther King dreamed of the day when men would be judged “by the content of their character.” By that benchmark, Stephen Harper has proved himself to be a nasty little man.

— Peter Blaikie, letter to the Editor, Muzzling the opposition

The miscalculations have been stunning. Mr. Harper’s strategy has accomplished already the near-impossible: to bring the Liberals and NDP together.

He had so many other, less partisan options at a time of economic crisis and grave national concern. That he acted in this fashion, at this time, was enormously revealing. And very sad.

— Jeffrey Simpson, Economist with a tin heart, politician with a tin ear

Whatever the debatable merits of distancing parties from taxpayers, this isn’t the time or way to change payments peripheral to dangers facing Canadians. It won’t save a single job, meaningfully reduce the ruling party’s runaway spending, or somehow make the democratic exercise cost free.

— James Travers, Harper has needlessly provoked this crisis

Vote for the animals

Now, I don’t think animal welfare should be the top issue in this campaign, but Canada’s penalties for animal abuse crimes are a little archaic, don’t you think? And the public gets regularly outraged when an appalling act of cruelty against an animal gets met with a slap on the wrist, as that’s all the law allows for.

So, I guess there is one area where I think we could get a little tougher on crime.

Anyway, WSPA sent a survey to all five major parties to ask for their stand, their platform, on animal welfare issues.

But without even looking up the results, can you guess? Can you guess which one party refused to answer any of the questions?

You got it. The Conservatives aren’t even willing to make a statement against kitten abuse.

Where’s the platform—under the sweater?

Jack Layton to Stephen Harper

An environmental take on strategic voting

Generally, I have to say, I hate voting strategically. However stupid it is in our “first past the post” system (and I still haven’t quite forgiven Ontarians for voting against changing it), I prefer to vote for something than against something else.

That said, I’m must admit to being relieved, this election, that the party I really do want to vote for also happens to be the party with by far the best odds of defeating the Conservatives in this riding.

But I come to this topic from an email I received from the environmental group, Just Earth.

What’s an environmentalist to do in the federal election? Even for card-carrying Greens, it is complicated. The party worst on the environment in general, and climate change in particular, is the Conservative party. All four others are better, although they differ on particulars. The Liberals have the excellent Green Shift plan, which the New Democrats reject, but the NDP is better on clean energy.

Strategic voting will be the option for many. A website has been launched that will help voters make a rational choice (www.voteforenvironment.ca). A riding by riding breakdown identifies races where the Conservatives won by a small margin, and are therefore vulnerable, and ridings where they are a close second and a threat. Some 60 ridings will make the difference, argues this (somewhat incognito) website.

With split votes, this would be the result: Conservative 147 seats, Liberal 76, NDP 34, Green 0, Bloc 49, independent 2.

If we “vote smart,” this would be the result: Conservative 97, Liberal 109, NDP 46, Green 1, Bloc 53, independent 2.

Not easy, though. Imagine being a federalist in Quebec faced with the “strategic” choice of with voting Bloc or getting another Conservative elected!

Also interesting was a report from the Sierra Club, which compares and grades the party’s environmental platforms as follows:

  • Green Party: A-
  • Liberals: B+
  • NDP: B
  • Bloc Québecois: B
  • Conservatives: F+

I must say, their assessment of the differences between Green, Liberal, and NDP on this front were smaller than I thought.

(Remember when votes used to get split on the right side of the political spectrum, too? I really miss those days.)

RDtNVC: Increasing energy prices without compensating with tax cuts

There were two letters in the Record yesterday related to the carbon tax plan. One asked how charging for pollution could possibly reduce it — wouldn’t companies just pass the increased cost onto customers as higher prices? The other asked, wouldn’t it be better to just force big polluters to pollute less, via regulation?

Both good questions. Comes down intuitively favoring a regulatory or “cap and trade” approach over a carbon tax, as so well articulated by Jeffery Simpson in the Globe and Mail:

They [the Green Party] bring urgency to the debate that the Conservatives lack, and they’ve got one thing right: that carbon emissions have to be assigned a price, that a tax is a defensible way to do it, and that the revenues from the tax are best recycled into lower personal and corporate income taxes.

There is another way of finding a price, through a cap-and-trade system, as proposed by the Conservatives and NDP. This targets mostly large polluters. Some of the costs are then passed to consumers. Using the tax, a method favoured by many economists, gives carbon a price certainty but doesn’t guarantee a particular emissions result; using the cap-and-trade produces a particular result but at an unknown price.

Politically, the cap-and-trade is a much easier sell, since the eventual effect on the ordinary person is indirect, whereas changes to the tax system are in the faces of consumers. The easier politics of the cap-and-trade explains in large part why Conservatives, New Democrats and U.S. politicians like it.

It’s too bad we can’t have a reasoned debate between these two approaches, instead of the slanging match and attack ads about the “carbon tax” that the Prime Minister calls “insane” and says will “screw” Canadians and “wreck the economy,” something that’s not happened in any of the countries that have thus far introduced one.

Now, I’m think of writing my own letter to the editor on this subject, and I can’t just plagiarize Jeffrey Simpson if I do that. So here’s my draft, which I’ll refine later! [I’m such a technical writer, sometimes. Just can’t resist the bulleted list!]

Something that seems to be missed in all the wild claims about the effects of a carbon tax on the economy and prices is that the regulatory or cap-and-trade system offered as an alternative will also raise energy prices — and without balancing them with an income and corporate tax cuts.

A cap-and-trade system involves only the largest polluters. Total target emission levels are set and are assigned a price. Companies who pollute the most pay the companies who emit the least. But exactly as with a carbon tax, some of those extra costs are likely to be passed on as higher prices for consumers.

The reasons the most economics and environmentalists — groups that don’t typically agree on much — favor a carbon tax over a cap-and-trade system include the following:

  • By involving everyone, not just the largest polluters, the potential reduction in pollution is therefore much greater.
  • With a cap-and-trade system, there’s no benefit to companies that will never reduce their emissions below the overall target, so they won’t. With a tax, the more they reduce, the more they save–and the greater the environment benefits.
  • It rewards companies and individuals who are already doing well, environmentally. They get more back in income and corporate tax cuts than they pay in increased carbon taxes.
  • Corporate and income tax cuts are generally stimulative to the economy, freeing up more money for investment, savings, and spending.

The truth is, the environmental policies of all the political parties–including the Conservatives–are going to increase energy prices. The question is, do you want an income tax cut to help you pay for those inevitable price increases, or not? If you do, then you should vote for one of the two parties planning to implement a carbon tax: the Green Party or the Liberals.

(2023 Postscript: These are the roots of the Conservative war on carbon taxes, but interesting that they supported cap and trade at the time. Also interesting that the Liberal plan was to reduce income taxes as compensation rather than the current “revenue neutral” approach. Finally, so sad that so many years later Canada has accomplished so little on this front.)

RDtNVC: Verbal arts attacks

(Reason of the Day to Not Vote Conservative)

Being the odd man out on the arts funding issue, this is what Mr. Harper had to say about it: “I think when ordinary working people come home, turn on the TV and see a gala of a bunch of people at, you know, a rich gala… claiming their subsidies aren’t high enough… I’m not sure that’s something that resonates with ordinary people.”

So, typically, kind of mean-spirited, somewhat insulting, somewhat misleading (since when are most artists rich?) — but that’s not what I want to focus on. See what he actually said there? What he used as his example? “I think when ordinary working people come home, turn on the TV and see a gala…”

You mean ordinary Canadian come home from work and immediately turn to — the arts?

Of course most Canadians don’t list the arts as “top of mind” issues. They simply take them for granted. It’s woven into the fabric of our lives. TV, galas, concerts, festivals, dance recitals, musicals, music downloads, CDs, DVDs, theatre, plays, museums, galleries, radio, novels, poetry, children’s literature, essays, magazines… It’s all part of the arts, high and low. And government helps fund a good part of them.

No political party would win if they pledged to make arts funding the biggest part of the budget… But none would win if they pledged to eliminate all cultural activity from this country, either. TV, galas, concerts, festivals, dance recitals, musicals, music downloads, CDs, DVDs, theatre, plays, museums, galleries, radio, novels, poetry, children’s literature, essays, magazines — we do want at least some of that to be made by Canadians, in Canada.

I leave you now with this hilarious video by Michel Rivard. Even if you speak French, it’s even funnier with the English subtitles on.

RDtNVC: Mispronouncing people’s names

(Reason of the Day to Not Vote Conservative)

It’s just rude, man. Shows a lack of respect.

It’s Stéphane Dion — Dee-ô, not Dee-Awnnnn. Silent final “n”.

He’s not a quintuplet.

RDtNVC: Soft in the head on crime

(RDtNVC: Reason of the day to not vote Conservative)

I think I finally understand the fuzzy blue sweaters now.

Harper in fuzzy blue sweater
Harper in fuzzy blue sweater

Because, when I thought the Conservative were going to run on the “Canada is strong” theme, I didn’t see why they wanted the leader to appear more soft and fuzzy. Seemed incongruous.

But, that’s actually not their theme, is it? It’s more like, Canada is weak. Canada is in danger. And only the Conservatives can protect you.

For that message to come across, they have to totally that old “Harper is scary” thing. He has to look safe and reassuring. So Canadians are ready to bury our heads in the sand and join them behind the barricades.

Safe. Safe from crazy-ass, risky ideas like taxing pollution instead of income.

And of course, safe from the bad guys. The criminals. The gangs.

Only the Conservatives can protect us. “Soft on crime does not work.”

I like how he says “Soft on crime” as though it’s actual thing, and not just a cliché. As though the Liberals had previously passed the famous “Soft on crime” bill, or something.

Anyway, whatever “soft on crime” is, apparently that’s what we have now. And I guess it’s just not working.

Wait, what’s that flying by there? Is that an actual fact?

Canada’s overall national crime rate, based on incidents reported to police, hit its lowest point in over 25 years in 2006, driven by a decline in non-violent crime.

The overall crime rate fell in every province and territory in 2006.

Police reported 605 homicides in 2006, 58 fewer than in 2005. This resulted in a rate of 1.85 homicides per 100,000 population, 10% lower than in 2005. The national homicide rate has generally been declining since the mid-1970s, when it was around 3.0.

Virtually all provinces and territories reported declines in their homicide rate in 2006. The most notable occurred in Ontario, where there were 23 fewer homicide.

Statistics Canada

Boy, yeah. We sure don’t want to keep that up!

But wait, wait — buried in there — what’s that about youth crim?. Up 3%? 3%! Now there’s your “soft on crime”. It’s that darned young offenders act. Because, really, until we start incarcerating 14-year-olds, how are they going to learn to be better criminals?

Oh, pesky facts, stop telling me that youth offenders actually get incarcerated at much higher rates than adult offenders, and are much less likely to be released early (per John Howard Society).

Instead, I’m going to take a Conservative tack and tell you a story. If they were to tell you one, it would be about some hideous youth committing some appaling crime. Mine will be a little different.

At 15 years old, Ashley Smith was arrested for throwing crab apples at her post man and was placed in youth custody.

Throwing crab apples.

She proved to be a less than compliant inmate, though, and her original sentence was extended repeatedly in response to her behavior, which included many incidents of self-harm. Although she showed clear signs of mental disturbance, she received no consistent psychiatric treatment. She spent two-thirds of her sentence in a nine-by-six-foot isolation cell.

At 18 years, she was transferred to a federal prison. There she was subjected to pepper spray and a stun gun. And she was kept in segregation for nearly a year. She filed a grievance against conditions in segregation, which included inadequate protection against cold. But, against federal regulations, the grievance was ignored.

Ashley Smith committed suicide on October 19, 2007. She was 19.

Postscript: I wrote this in 2008, originally. In 2013 there was an inquest into Ashley Smith’s death. It was ruled a homicide. “She had tied a piece of cloth around her neck while guards stood outside her cell door and watched. They had been ordered by senior staff not to enter her cell as long as she was breathing.”

Canadian federal election: Week 2 recap

The Liberals were much more visible this week, taking my advice by taking on Harper on a number of fronts, including childcare. The Liberal team was emphasized, which seemed wise. Dion explained the Green Shift on The Current podcast, and was, to my mind, clear and convincing.

The NDP and the Conservatives, meanwhile, were busily injecting a rare note of humour into the campaign. The NDP experienced the resignation of not one but two, toke-smokin’, car-drivin’, former members of the Marijuana Party as candidates for the party in BC, because they apparently didn’t bother to YouTube them before offering them the nomination. And the Conservatives, of course, had the whole “death by a thousand cold cuts” kerfuffle. Am I a bad person because that made me chuckle?

Anyway, this inspired the fourth apology by Harper since the campaign began (emphasizing why he’s so reluctant to let his candidates speak to the media), but the first that seemed to stick. And stick. Please, enough with the calls for his resignation, already! Lack of regulation might be the serious issue here. A dark sense of humour is not.

The US economy provided some excitement, with huge companies collapsing and stocks going on a roller-coaster ride in the wake of the sub-prime mortgage crisis. It ended only when the Bush government reversed its laissez-faire policies and stepped in with massive investment. (Fun fact: $1 trillion could buy you 5 billion iPhones. Or 1 war in Iraq.)

Canada never allowed sub-prime mortgages, and so isn’t at risk of this exact same crisis. But there’s a more general lesson here about what happens when governments aren’t involved enough, when companies (banks, meat) that need regulation don’t get it, when governments are downsized to the point of ineffectuality.

[Harper’s] inability to think in a positive, passionate way about large political projects shows starkly at this tense economic moment. In policy, he prefers to act small. His favourite word is modest. “Our plan is simple, modest and practical,” he said about a tax break for home buyers. As if he’d rather do nothing but, in a pinch, will settle for the least possible. His modest GST cuts give little relief, but they whittle government revenues down so he can claim we can’t afford much anyway. This week, he announced a ban on tobacco ads, which are already banned, and sales to kids, ditto. I know this “modesty” reflects Stephen Harper’s political philosophy and he could rattle on passionately about why government should do the least it can, for the good of us all. It’s the reason he wants a majority: so he can do even less and eliminate more. But he may be the wrong leader at the wrong time.

Rick Salutin, Globe and Mail