Tag: politics

Canadian federal election: Stepping back to survey the week

The most interesting, and heartening, event this week was the Green Party being admitted to the leader’s debate after public protests of the initial exclusion. I heard leader Elizabeth May interviewed on CBC’s The House, and the woman is a breath of fresh air. She’s smart and articulate, but doesn’t hide behind that political “bull” filter that all the other leaders do.

The Conservatives have campaigned effectively this week, and this point certainly look to be on a victorious path. I’m not sure any of their gaffes—the infantile Dion cartoon (I’m just not linking to it), insulting the father of a slain soldier[had link here, but it’s no longer valid]—will really stick. But it certainly highlights to me just how mean and nasty significant parts of the Conservative crowd can be. Why so angry, folks? You’re winning!

The Liberals really weren’t very prominent, getting attention mostly for defending themselves against Conservative attacks. A good defence is important, but they need way more offence. It’s not as though the Conservatives haven’t left them plenty of targets. Start shooting at them, already.

The NDP, on the other hand, I’ve seen a surprising amount of. They’ve run an ad that I think isn’t too bad, though it’s a bit low on specifics. [Had link to this also; also no longer valid.]

I’ll end with some favourite comments from others this week:

But the mystery is: Why did the Harper-Layton-media juggernaut back down here? I never expected it. Jeffrey Simpson says they “misread public opinion,” which “insisted Ms. May be heard.” So what? The public wants lots of things. Usually it’s just ignored.

Rick Salutin, Globe and Mail

But increasingly, Mr. Harper himself looks like a deer frozen in the headlights of onrushing economic and environmental change. He insists now is not the time to risk a new course. But what does he propose?

It sounds more and more as if he is seeking a mandate to do nothing.

Ian Porter, letter to the editor

On some August nights, my father, a professor of economics and a rather conservative man, would phone me (during the cheap hours) to try to explain Stéphane Dion’s plan.

“It’s brilliant,” he’d say. “The cheapest way to lower greenhouse gases. It’ll lower income taxes, which slow growth …”

My father said Stephen Harper must know that it’s a good plan. “He can’t not know. He’s an economist. He’ll have an election before someone finds a way to explain it to the likes of you and his party goes down.”

Tabatha Southey, Globe and Mail

Reason of the day to not vote Conservative: Cancelling child care program

Being childfree, this isn’t a big issue for me personally, but from living in the world, I know it’s a big issue.

Back in 2006, the Martin Liberals brought in a national child care program.

Upon taking office, the Harper Conservatives promptly cancelled it, amidst protests of the provinces, and individual citizens, who argued that $100 per child tax credit being offered instead wasn’t enough to help, and that the corporate tax credits weren’t enough to generate the predicted 125,000 new daycare spaces.

This proved prophetic, as the program has yet to create a single new daycare space [edit: I had reference for this at the time, but it’s now a dead link], and the OECD now ranks Canada last amongst industrialized nations in spending on early learning and child care programs.

The reasons the Conservatives gave for giving a tax credit instead of honouring the child care deal was “choice” and “fairness”. Creating daycare spaces helps only those who want their preschool children to have quality daycare; it doesn’t help those who make other choices: staying at home, or using a babysitter or nanny.

Isn’t that rather like saying that governments funding new programs in colleges and universities is unfair, because it doesn’t help young people who make other choices, such as getting a job right out high school, or backpacking through Europe?

In fact, isn’t it exactly like that? Universities and colleges provide post-secondary education. Not everyone attends a post-secondary institution. Still, those are largely tax payer funded. Canadians know that having a well-educated population is beneficial to the country in the long run, and therefore worth funding.

Colleges and universities are optional young adult education opportunities; quality daycare provides optional early childhood educational opportunities. The idea of replacing college/university funding with giving all 18-year-olds $100 a month for their “choice” of education options is clearly absurd.

But that’s exactly the policy the PCs are running on, except for preschool children rather than young adults.

There just aren’t enough daycare spaces in Canada to meet the demand. That is the problem government needs to address. Parents are not, currently, “free to choose” quality child care, because too many of them can’t find it at all, or they can’t afford it when they do (yes, it’s typically quite a bit more than $100 a month). The $1200 credit does you no good whatsoever if all available daycare spaces are gone.

The PC’s have been this week try to “scare” Canadians into thinking the Liberals will cancel the child tax credit; the Liberals have been busy denying it. And adding, in small print that I think should be large headlines, “Liberals do intend to replace the Conservative plan to create child care spaces, because their plan didn’t work.”

So I leave this with a few fast facts on child care in Canada [edit: another reference lost to time. This page was previously full of links!]. It’s from 2004, but unfortunately, I don’t think too much has changed.

  • Estimated amount that work-life conflicts cost Canadian organizations each year in time lost due to work absences: $2.7 Billion
  • Percentage of children aged 3 to 5 whose mothers work in the paid labour force: more than 70%
  • Compared to 12-year-old peers in New Zealand who received top-quality early childhood education, difference in Canadian scores on literacy and numeracy tests: 12 percentage points lower
  • In a 2003 poll, percentage of Canadians who:
  • agreed that Canada should have a nationally co-ordinated child care plan: 90%
  • agreed that there can be a publicly funded child care system that makes quality child care available to all Canadian children: 86%

[Edit: I have no idea what today’s stats are. But (writing this in 2023) the Liberals have been rolling out a funded childcare plan in the last few years. I believe a complaint is that demand exceeds the supply.]

Reason of the day to not vote Conservative: Obstructing Parliament

We all knew it was just an excuse, but still, that’s what Harper said: that Parliament had become dysfunctional. That’s why we needed this election.

And if anyone should recognize Parliamentary dysfunction, it’s the Conservatives. After all, they wrote the book on it. Literally. A 200-page manual on making sure your representatives in Ottawa cannot get their jobs done.

The handbook, obtained by National Post columnist Don Martin, reportedly advises chairs on how to promote the government’s agenda, select witnesses friendly to the Conservative party and coach them to give favourable testimony. It also reportedly instructs them on how to filibuster and otherwise disrupt committee proceedings and, if all else fails, how to shut committees down entirely.

Reason of yesterday to not vote Conservative: It’s the deficit, stupid

2023 commentary: Well, this argument has not aged well. Certainly some Conservative governments (like Trump’s) continue to run big deficits, but so do a lot of Liberal ones, including a number cited below. Plus, whether this is such a bad thing is more of a debatable point now, especially with interest that until recently were at record lows. I had more links to sources for these points originally, but of course many no longer work, so I removed them.

Why do people just automatically think that Conservatives, right-wingers, are better at economics? How did they earn such undeserved plaudits?

Because it seems to me, based on evidence of recent years, that what’s most notable about the economic record of conservative governments is the size of their deficits.

Bill Clinton turned Bush Sr.’s $300 billion dollar deficit into a $200 billion surplus, only to have Junior Bush tax-cut and “war against terror” into the biggest deficit in the country’s history.

Ontario’s much-maligned NDP government managed to get to a balanced operating budget in recessionary times, only to have the Harris PC’s turn boom times into the biggest provincial deficit ever. Ontario was brought into the black by McGinty’s Liberals.

And federally? Well, yes, there again, the biggest deficit to date was accrued by the Progressive Conservative government of Brian Mulroney. It was the Liberals, again, who brought Canadians into their current position of budgetary surpluses.

Until… Federal government runs a $157M deficit in April, May (CBC News, July 2008).

So the Conservatives came in with about a $13 billion surplus, and they have squandered it all.

Leaving us with less nothing in reserve to get through the looming economic downturn.

Cost of Conservative tax cuts and spending: $13 billion and change.

Cost of nevertheless having the reputation of being “best for the economy”: Priceless.

Reason of the day to not vote Conservative: Lying about gas taxes

This is from 2008. Re-reading in 2023, I had forgotten that the initial Liberal carbon pricing proposal would have exempted gasoline prices.

Well, I’m very pleased at this breaking news that Elizabeth May of the Green Party will be part of the televised Leaders Debate after all. And in honour of that, let’s look at an environmental issue today.

Monday, I received yet another one of those delightful (🤢), taxpayer-subsidized little Conservative polls in the mail.

This one had a headline from the Vancouver Sun on the front, with a graphic of a car fuel tank: “New 2.3 cent carbon tax sends gas price up a dime in places.” Inside, it says “Just imagine how much Stéphane Dion’s carbon tax will raise the price of gas…”

The Conservatives are lying. Knowing what a hot potato it is, the Liberal Green Shift plan is clear on this point: “This won’t include any extra tax on gasoline at the pump.” The justification for this exemption is that there is already a federal excise tax on car gasoline, set at a rate higher than that proposed for the carbon tax.

There is a debate to have here.

Is it good that diesel and natural gas prices will increase, while car gasoline prices do not? Some environmentalists would said no.

Or, what about getting rid of the excise tax and replacing it with a carbon tax? Some might think that would be a beneficial move for consumers, as gas prices might actually go down initially.

Could be an interesting discussion. Too bad we won’t hear it–because the Liberals will be too busy fighting the Conservative lie that the carbon tax includes gas at the pumps.

Why debate the facts when you can just fudge them, eh? The truth is for wimps.

Reason of the day to not vote Conservative: Preventing candidates from speaking to the media

First wrote this in September 8, 2008. This tactic has become considerably worse since. Now they don’t talk to media at all, never mind only waiting for “talking points”, and they routinely skip debates.

This is a small point, but still significant, I think.

Can’t find a link, but CBC Radio reported yesterday that they were not able to interview some new Conservative Party candidates in certain Toronto ridings. Reason? The party specifically instructed them not to speak to the media until they’d sufficiently guided by the party in how to do so. And when would that be? “That’s a good question.”

One can appreciate Harper’s desire not to be embarrassed by candidates who run amok, making homophobic or other inappropriate comments, as has happened in past elections.

But one might suggest that the party try to find better-quality candidates, rather than stifling the lot of them.

Because, it doesn’t matter that not everyone cares who their local candidate is. The fact is, that’s who we vote for to represent us. We have a right to know who they are. The only practical way to find that out is through the press.

If my potential MP sincerely believes the world was created in seven days, I want to know!

Reason of the day to not vote Conservative: For calling this election

While that not enthused about this election (Canadian elections are rarely very inspiring, are they), I’m not sure the timing itself is all that terrible. There was a good chance there would be one this fall or winter anyway—a few months sooner or later doesn’t make that much difference.

No, it’s the calling of this election I think should give you pause.

Stephen Harper looked us in the face and said it was unfair for the party in power to manipulate the timing of elections for partisan advantage. Not just empty words, either; he actually passed a law to that effect.

Has he actually broken the law? Well, until he and Ms. Jean are hauled out and arrested, I guess we have to assume he hasn’t—that the law has some wiggle room. That in a minority parliament, the party in power can, in fact, still find ways to manipulate the timing of the election.

But we all know that he has broken the spirit of the law. Because Mr. Harper was right back then; it is an unfair advantage for the party in power to control the timing of elections.

It takes a man of high-minded principle to give up power in the interest of fairness.

Mr. Harper has just demonstrated that he is not such a man. He was just pretending to be one.

Canuck election

Well, like it or not, here we go, with federal politicians trying to draw to your attention away from Obama vs. McCain long enough for you to notice there is another election—one that you can actually vote in!

Me, I’m thinking of voting Liberal. I don’t usually do that, but I like the green shift policy, dammit, enough that I don’t care that Stéphane Dion’s English isn’t smooth. But if you can’t fathom him as your leader, I can see why you might want to turn to Jack Layton, whose English and French is pretty good, and whose party  has some reasonable policies of their own. Or, shake things up with the Green Party, who really do need a few elected seats in the House.

I think any of those choices are defensible. The only vote I can’t agree with is that for the front-running and likely winner of this election, the Conservative Party of Canada.

The reasons? Oh, so many reasons! In fact, time permitting, I could probably post a new reason every day.

Dolls, Mad Men, and the US election

So I just finished Jacqueline Susann’s Valley of the Dolls. It’s a novel about three beautiful women who all become rich and famous—but not without being victimized, betrayed by love, and addicted to valium (sedatives, the “dolls” of the title). It’s an addictive read, and while certainly not literary, I was left pondering just what the message was supposed to be here.

The novel is set between 1945 and 1965, or so, and the portrayal of women is something to behold. Like the assumption, throughout the novel, that a woman should quit her job—no matter how fabulous—the minute marriage or even just engagement is on the horizon. Pile on the more dramatic horrors of involuntary incarceration in a mental institution and choosing suicide over the potential loss of fabulous breasts to cancer, and you’re left feeling rather glad to be living in these times.

One gets a similar sense from the much-hyped TV series Mad Men, set in 1960. One character, Peggy, becomes the first “since the War” to do any copy-writing for the Stirling-Cooper ad agency feature. “It’s like watching a dog play piano” says one of the men, of Peggy’s writing abilities.

The most recent episode I watched focused on the Nixon-Kennedy election. The firm—which the creator notes is a “dinosaur”, destined to be rocked by the changes of the times, not participating in them—is backing Nixon. And having to accept that their man has been bested by the young, charismatic Senator from Massachusetts.

And here we are, with the year’s US election, and the old man of the Republican Party figures his best chance of defeating the young, charismatic Senator for Illinois is to put a young, dynamic woman on his ticket.

Good thing she didn’t quit her job when she got married.

My response to the Conservatives little Tax poll

Conservative MP’s keep mailing me. They give me these flyers that either say that they are great, or that some other party (usually the Liberals) are terrible, then ask me to check off a box on whether I agree with them and mail it back to them.

So far, I’ve only responded once, telling them I thought their GST tax cut was a stupid idea and they should really have just cut my income taxes. This is my response to their “Who do you think is on the right track on taxes?” question. After checking the Stephane Dion / Liberal box, I added this note:

You seem a bit confused by what the Liberals are proposing here. It’s not actually a tax on everything. It’s a tax on carbon emissions. Now, if that ends up affecting many products, that’s because our society has grown far too dependent on fossil fuels. Is this tax the best way to end that dependency? I don’t know. But it’s certainly better than doing nothing.

You also state that Liberals are desperate for money. Well, that’s a bit rich, isn’t it, from a government that has more or less squandered the big Liberal surplus on various spending programs and a very ill-conceived GST tax cut. Not too mention mailing me I don’t know how many of these silly little polls of yours.

But what’s more infuriating here is that the Conservatives are just hurling insults at the Liberals instead of engaging in an intelligent debate on this very important issue. The Liberal plan is crazy. It’s a tax on everything. It’s a trick that Dion devised downtown urban elites (and what does that one even mean? If you live downtown, it’s hard not to be urban, right? Which, of course, 80% of Canadians are. And “elites” just means smart, successful people—can’t imagine why Dion would think they have anything of value to impart!)

The Green Shift is not a tax trick; it’s a plan. You do tax carbon; you reduce income taxes. While designed to be revenue neutral overall, it’s not going to be revenue neutral to everyone, it’s true; those who pollute more will pay more.

Why don’t you talk about that? Why don’t you get into the specifics of it, and attack those where warranted, instead of hurling vague insults? Afraid that ordinary Canadians won’t get it, won’t understand? After all, they’re not very smart, not like those “downtown urban elites”… You said so yourself.

See, isn’t this fun? You should try it yourself.