Showing posts with label Lester Pearson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lester Pearson. Show all posts

Thursday, August 27, 2015

Our Addiction to Balanced Budgets May Need an Intervention



“There is always a storm. There is always rain. Some experience it. Some live through it. And others are made from it.” Author Shannon L. Alder

Recently NDP candidate and former Saskatchewan finance minister, Andrew Thomson, stated on Power and Politics, that cuts were inevitable, in order to balance the budget.

In Saskatchewan, he cut funding to education, though it still didn't balance the books.  He had to take money from the province's contingency fund, including almost a half million dollars for advertising, that he had balanced the books, when in fact, he had not.

Hiding deficits for politicians is not uncommon.  Jim Flaherty did it in Ontario and Joe Oliver is doing it now.

But in defence of Thomson, Flaherty and Oliver; we have become the enablers of their addiction to the high of being good economic managers.  They had to hide their red eyes and red ink, so they didn't have to come before us in shame, or ruin their chance for re-election.

The question we need to be asking ourselves, is why balanced budgets are so important.  Does it really matter if the federal government runs a deficit?

Political consultant and commentator, Will McMartin, discussed this recently in the Tyee.  He begins with the announcement that the Conservatives would present a balanced budget.  However, he implies, so what?
A closer look at the country's finances, however, raises a simple question: why all the fuss? The budget is a thin slice of the Canadian economic pie, and interest costs on our debt are shrinking to near-giveaway size. Ottawa is just one of three government levels, and taken as a whole our government spending is very much under control. 
The federal budget represents just 15% of our overall economy.

The Blame Game

There has been a lot of debate recently, over what political party is responsible for our perceived debt/deficit "mess".  Since only Conservatives and Liberals have ever formed government, it narrows the debate down to those two.

The biggest targets are Brian Mulroney and Pierre Trudeau.  However, John Diefenbaker, also ran consecutive deficits, but that is not how their legacies should be judged.

Diefenbaker was a visionary, who fought for a united Canada.  He gave us the Canadian Bill of Rights and stood up to the Americans, who wanted us to join their missile defence program.  He may have made mistakes, but his deficits were created in part, by a new universal hospitalization program, and an enhanced Old Age Security.

Lester Pearson also left a deficit, but what defines him, are the many contributions he made.  He expanded Diefenbaker's hospitalization plan, to give us universal health care and introduced student loans and the Canada Pension Plan.  He also created the Order of Canada, and moved toward abolishing capital punishment.

There's no denying what Pierre Trudeau did to move our country forward, as he also expanded social programs, and created a more just society, with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Even Brian Mulroney, whose tenure was mired in corruption, left his mark on making Canada a better country. He created eight new national parks, finalized the U.S.-Canada acid rain treaty, and brought in the Environmental Protection Act.

He is also credited with giving us NAFTA, not necessarily a good thing, but it did help Canada in the short term.

All of these men were big idea guys, who had the courage to make things happen.

Diefenbaker's idea:  a united Canada with a focus on human rights.

Pearson's: nation building and making Canada a diplomatic player on the international stage.

Trudeau's:  nation building with a focus on rights and freedoms, and an inclusive society.

Mulroney's:, a desire to bring Canada into the 21st century, with a focus on business and international trade.

Who cares if they left deficits when those deficits represented only 15% of our GDP?  Look at what we got in return?

I know that a lot of people are critical of NAFTA.  I'm one of them.  Not only did it hurt our manufacturing sector, but it has forced subsequent governments to adopt programs of deregulation, to meet the terms.  Unfortunately, more deregulation may be required, since we are now the country most sued, for not meeting our nefarious commitments.

Election 2015: a Psychedelic Trip to Bizzaro-land

When Thomas Mulcair was the environment minister in Quebec, and wanted to privatize water, shipping it in bulk, he said that "the environmental laws protecting water are considered barriers to trade." (The Press, Charles Cote and Mario Clouthier, June 16, 2004 ).  Mulcair helped to draft NAFTA.

Everything has become a "barrier to trade", that will exacerbate with even more international trade deals.

But what about the barriers to helping Canadian society?  We were told that these deals would lead to economic prosperity.  Where is it?  I guess we should have read the fine print, that said only economic prosperity for the top 1%.

During the 2008 economic crisis, the Canadian government bailed out our banks with over 100 billion of our money.  They bailed out companies, and sprinkled largesse over Conservative ridings.  They built libraries and indoor soccer fields for private religious schools and set up an advertising campaign called the Canada Economic Action Plan that would have rivalled Joseph Goebbels propaganda ministry.  (Yes I said it).      

We found money for that, by adding to our deficit and debt.  Adding it to the 15% stake in our country's GDP.  So why can't we do the same for the Canadian people?  

We need a National Housing Strategy, a National Food Program, and we need to expand our healthcare to include dental and prescription drugs.  We need a subsidized tuition program, help for our seniors and our veterans, and an environmental plan that works.

Those things are not drains on our economy, but a viable way to grow our economy, that will create good, full time jobs, while reducing poverty and homelessness.    We will see the value for the dollars we spend.

A recent poll shows that Canadians are OK with deficits.  They have different priorities and Justin Trudeau has tapped into that:
That suggests that it’s Mr. Trudeau whose position is in sync with the majority’s mood. The Liberal Leader has refused to rule out running a deficit, arguing he’ll have to see the extent of the “mess” the Conservatives have left in the public finances. 
It is the NDP, traditionally to the left of the Liberals, who have launched the most blistering attacks on Mr. Trudeau for opening the door to running a deficit. Under Mr. Mulcair, the New Democrats have sought to allay concerns about their economic policies by insisting they will balance the books, despite the slowdown in the economy.
What an odd turn of events. 

I'm glad that Trudeau is bringing the Liberal Party back to its roots, that put Canadians first. Now the NDP have to find their way back to the days of Tommy Douglas.
Many people have called me a socialist, but like Will McMartin, the author of the first piece I linked, I'm a conservative.  Although actually a liberal/conservative.  Common sense solutions to social problems.  Grow the economy and the budget will balance itself.

Or maybe I'm just a Diefenbaker, with a dollop of Pearson and a splash of Pierre Trudeau.

Not such a bad thing to be.


Monday, June 16, 2014

Clearly Liberalism is Not Dead Though Conservatism May be On Life Support

When Stephen Harper was with the Reformers, promoting an American style conservative movement, he mocked Canada's historic Conservative Party, because they boasted to be descended from Sir John A. MacDonald. "So what!" he said.

Recently the Harper government conducted a poll to determine the top ten Canadians who inspired us. From top to bottom:

1. Pierre Trudeau
2. Terry Fox
3. Tommy Douglas
4. Lester B. Pearson
5. Chris Hadfield
6. David Suzuki
7. Sir. John A. MacDonald
8. Wayne Gretzky
9. Jack Layton
10. Romeo Dallaire

What first struck me about the list was that no women were included.

What about Agnes McPhail, the first female MP and her work on prison reform? The Famous Five who fought and won the right for women to become "persons", not chattel? Louise Arbour who became the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights? The list goes on.

Most who made the cut are self explanatory, since they contributed a great deal to building Canada as a nation, and strengthened our international reputation.

Jack Layton was a puzzle though. He enjoyed some political success but I can't think of anything he did that would stand the test of time.

He joined Stephen Harper in fighting against the Kyoto accord and even campaigned against the carbon tax, claiming that it would hurt families, despite the fact that it was revenue neutral.

Elizabeth May recounted her experience with Layton and his political move.
I remember phoning Jack Layton to beg him not to bring down the government on the opening day of the climate conference. I had known and liked Jack since he was on Toronto City Council. He had been enormously helpful, volunteering as an auctioneer in local Sierra Club events. He told me when he ran for leader of the NDP that he was only seeking a role in federal politics to deal with the climate crisis. I had believed him. As he threatened to sabotage the most important global climate negotiations in history, I recall leaving a message on his cellphone: "How will you look at yourself in the mirror if you do this?"

... It is only with hindsight that I have come to believe that the climate negotiations were not merely collateral damage to the incidental timing of November 2 8. I now believe that Harper and Layton had a shared desire to pull the plug before the Martin government had a chance to look good on the world stage. I think it is extremely likely, given the way Layton downplayed the climate threat in 2006, that a conscious decision was made by NDP strategists. They had to make sure the key issue remained Liberal corruption for the NDP to avoid losing votes to the Liberals.
(Losing Confidence: Power, Politics, and the Crisis in Canadian Democracy, By Elizabeth May, McClelland & Stewart, 2009, ISBN: 978-0-7710-5760-1, Pg. 2-7)
A similar strategy backfired in the recent Ontario election.

I liked Jack Layton but he was not at the heart NDP, at least not in the Tommy Douglas tradition. He spent the most on travel, he exploited subsidized housing" and a study conducted by McMaster University, revealed that he was the nastiest MP.

I can think of many others more deserving, but there is a bigger issue with the list.

What does this say to Stephen Harper?

Our heroes fought for a Just Society, gave us National Healthcare, Peacekeepers, fight for the Environment and the plight of the downtrodden. Except for MacDonald, none were Conservative, though our first prime minister was nothing like our current, as Harper himself reminded us.

Clearly, Canada has not moved to the right, as some suggest. We cherish everything that Stephen Harper fights against.

It's also interesting as we watch American politics, in the days of the Tea Party, that they actually share the same values.

NBC recently conducted a poll asking who was the best President in the past 25 years. Bill Clinton was number one and Barack Obama number two.

As an interesting coincidence, the son of Canada's first choice will be running for Prime Minister in 2014, while the wife of America's first choice, may be running for President in 2016.

Harper conducted the poll in preparation for our 150th anniversary in 2017. We just have to make sure that the poll is his only involvement in the process.

How can we expect someone who wants to destroy everything our inspirations built, speak for our country?

Thursday, January 13, 2011

A Short Film to Remind us Why we Must Fight Against Neoconservatism


Still a few bugs to iron out but I'm getting there. (Republican spelled wrong)

I plan to, by election time, create several one minute ads that we can use.

Right now I'm just trying to get as much information out as possible, anyway I can.

Maybe next week I'll march with a sandwich board. Whatever it takes.

Saturday, September 25, 2010

Canada's Culture War is Not What You Think

Valuing Differences While Living as Equals
As Canadians, we have managed to create a single political community of equal citizens out of Aboriginal peoples, francophones, anglophones, and all the people like me whose families came here as emigrants from other countries. Out of those different languages, traditions, and cultures, we have forged a political system that holds us together and keeps us talking through our differences peacefully. We have also succeeded in maintaining a distinctive culture and a tradition of proud independence next door to the most powerful state in the world. Michael Ignatieff (1)

Q: "Is there a Canadian culture?" A: "Yes, in a very loose sense. It consists of regional cultures within Canada, regional cultures that cross borders with the US. We're part of a worldwide Anglo-American culture." - Stephen Harper (2)
It has been suggested that Canada is in the middle of a culture war. Stephen Harper is supposed to represent the working class, hockey loving, Tim Horton's coffee sipping crowd, while Michael Ignatieff is the voice of academia, Starbucks and the Canadian "elite".

When Parliament opened John Baird set the tone, with this nonsense. According to James Travers:
John Baird, Stephen Harper’s very right-hand man, lit a firestorm as MPs returned from their long summer holiday. Pre-loading for the gun registry vote Conservatives lost Wednesday, Baird savaged Toronto elites, notably Michael Ignatieff and Jack Layton, for imposing their neon big city will on salt-of-the-earth small town Canadians. Poking the privileged is good politics. It’s also brazen coming from someone whose perks include a chauffeur-driven car and gold-plated pension. (3)
Stephen Harper did not come from a working class family. His father was an executive at Esso. He uses hockey, because the Republican pollster Frank Lutz told him to: "Images and pictures are important. Tap into national symbols such as hockey. If there is some way to link hockey to what you all do, I would try to do it." (4)

And while Tim Hortons was created in Canada, it is now a multinational corporation:
... in 1995, American company Wendy's International Inc. acquired the Canadian coffee giant, but eventually let go of its shares in an IPO in 2006 and Tim's is now traded publicly on the TSX and NYSE. In recent years, the company has made a big push in the U.S., opening stores across the country, including in former Dunkin' Donuts stores in New York. Recently however, Tim Hortons has sold its stake in Maidstone, the Ontario-based company which makes donuts for every location in Canada, to the Swiss company Aryzta. (5)
So you might say that Stephen Harper represents the affluent, is directed by Republicans and best linked to multinational corporations.

But I'm not going to say that. Because what Stephen Harper is, is a career politician, and everything he says or does is for political leverage. Not what's good for the country.

The Real Cultural Differences

Not content to simply imply that Michael Ignatieff is an "elite", their latest tactic, (image courtesy of Calgary Grit), is that he's a 'Russian Prince'.

Michael Ignatieff is descended from a Russian 'Count', who earned his title, and his family legacy is one of diplomats. The 'Count' married a Russian princess, but they were forced to flee communism, arriving in Canada as immigrants. They chose to farm. And their children did well because they were smart and worked hard. Any privilege of birth was left behind.

And on his mother's side, the family is about as Canadian as you can get.

Putting on airs would be suggesting that you're an average guy, while riding around in a chauffeur driven limousine. Because you are playing us for fools.

When John Baird was in the Ontario Legislature, his office was found to have spent the most money on things likes meals in fancy restaurants. Perks. Putting on airs with money that belonged to "the little guy".
Baird, whose ministry is responsible for Ontario's poor and disabled, along with 11 senior political staff spent an average of $930.95 a month over a 15-month period on food and drink — more than double the $448 basic monthly allowance for a single mother with one child. Details of the minister's office expenses were obtained through Freedom of Information legislation. Many of the larger dinner bills are from trendy restaurants and bars late into the evening hours but omit a specific list of what was consumed. (6)
We need to start tuning this stuff out. Because as Travers points out, no one in the House of Commons has to sing for their supper. They do OK.

But I don't care.

I don't care that Stephen Harper, John Baird or Michael Ignatieff are wealthier than I am. I don't care that they have chauffeurs or villas or eat in classy restaurants.

We don't belong to the same social circles, and I don't care.

And I don't care that Michael Ignatieff is smart. I want my prime minister to be smarter than I am. In fact, I demand it!

But what I do care about, is that they understand what it means to be Canadian.

We are not a "Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term", (7) nor are we "a second-tier socialistic country, boasting ever more loudly about its economy and social services to mask its second-rate status". (8)

We're Canadian, and that's where the culture war begins and ends. It's a battle between "Canadian values" and "American values". Michael Ignatieff gets the first, while Stephen Harper embraces the latter. It has absolutely nothing to do with what kind of coffee we drink, or where we live, or where our ancestors were born.

Myself, I'm a Timmies fan, I live in a medium sized city, was born in a small town in New Brunswick, and my ancestors are French, Acadian, British and Irish.

I am not part of a "worldwide Anglo-American culture". I am part of a "distinctive culture" with "a tradition of proud independence".

I don't want the NRA dictating to me. I don't care what Republican pollsters have to say. I hate the Tea Parties and Glen Beck and will hate Fox News North.

And if that makes me "elite" it's a notion of superiority based on the fact that I am a Canadian!

Sources:
1. The Rights Revolution: CBC Massey Lectures, By Michael Ignatieff, Anansi Books, 2000, ISBN: 978-0-88784-762-2, Pg. xii

2. CBC Interview 1997

3. Hard right swing hits politicians where it hurts, By James Travers, Toronto Star, September 25, 2010

4. Kick the Liberals as they're down, By The Ottawa Citizen, May 7, 2006

5. Companies you think are Canadian, by Kate Robertson, Investopedia.com, September 23, 2010

6. Taxpayers pay Baird's doughnuts & dinner Average monthly bill for Tory minister & staff tops $900, by Richard Brennan, Queen's Park Bureau, Toronto Star, April 11, 2002

7. Conservative leader Stephen Harper, then vice-president of the National Citizens Coalition, in a June 1997 Montreal meeting of the Council for National Policy, a right-wing American think tank

8. It is time to seek a new relationship with Canada, By Stephen Harper, December 12th, 2000

Thursday, September 23, 2010

Canada and the United Nations: How Far we Have Fallen

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada
"Understanding the nature of conflict leads to peace." Lester B. Pearson
During the London Blitz, two men with the Canadian diplomatic corp. surveyed the damage to Canada House, when the Lutwaffe had concentrated their attacks on Whitehall. According to one of the men:
".. together we watched the charred remains of civil service files fluttering in the wind as the fires were burning out of control all around us. [His colleague] said something to the effect that civilization could not stand much more of this kind of destruction and that we would have to try to stop it. I knew what he meant: it wasn't a case of giving in to the Germans, but rather working for peace in the future. This was about the only time I heard [him] express personal feelings; he was not a communicative man. But he was dedicated to peace, as I was and still am. In spite of innumerable disillusionments, I remain convinced that that is the direction in which we have to go, because the alternatives are so appalling." (1)
And those two men would indeed devote the remainder of their lives, to the interest of peace.

One was Lester Bowles Pearson, who would go on to play an important role in the founding of both the United Nations and NATO. In 1957 he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for diffusing the Suez Crisis, the selection committee claiming that he had "saved the world." The United Nations Emergency Force was also Pearson's creation. He is considered the father of the modern concept of peacekeeping, and was responsible for the development of the structure for the United Nations Security Council.

The other man, and the narrator of the story was George Ignatieff, who would serve almost five decades as a diplomat, under many prime ministers of different political stripes. And because of his negotiating skills and commitment to nuclear disarmament the press dubbed him the "Peacemonger", a title he accepted with pride.

While the United Nations was being formed, Canada was fortunate to also have a prime minister devoted to peace, Louis St. Laurent; and when John Diefenbaker was in power, he defied U.S. President JFK, by refusing to accept nuclear war heads. And though this cost him the next election, he stood on his principles.

These men, and other Canadians like them, created the basis for our foreign policy, in a post-war world. And as a result, Canada has always punched above it's weight in the interest of peace, taking the lead on many issues.

But those days are gone.

Stephen Harper is addressing the United Nations today in hopes of securing a temporary spot on the Security Council, but many believe that it will be an uphill battle. " If Canada fails to win the seat in October, it will mark the country's longest absence from the council." (2)

A recent CBC survey asked "Do you think Canada deserves a seat at the UN Security Council?" 70% of the respondents answered "no". How far we have fallen.

Gerald Caplan recently outlined the reasons why we no longer deserve this honour. .... the Harper government has almost provocatively alienated other governments.

- His 110 per cent support for Israel, for example, does not impress the Arab bloc, while peremptorily cutting off aid to eight poor African countries and then freezing all aid to Africa has not exactly made friends on that continent.

- the following international figures have publicly criticized the Conservative government just in the last five months? Prince Karim Aga Khan, a spiritual leader devoted to the elimination of poverty and the advancement of women; Ban Ki-moon, the UN Secretary-General; David Miliband, former British foreign secretary and possible new leader of the British Labor Party; and most famously, Hilary Clinton. Since such folks normally never bad-mouth friendly countries in public, this may well be some kind of record.



- Dr. Julio Montaner, an internationally-known Canadian who just stepped down as president of the International AIDS Society. “I am ashamed to say,” he told a giant AIDS conference in Vienna in July, “that the government of Canada has punched well below its weight in funding universal access and supporting those affected by HIV and AIDS around the world.”

- the Harper government has canceled funding this year for a number of prominent Canadian international NGOs, including International Planned Parenthood Federation, Kairos, the Canadian Council for International Cooperation and Match International. This must be awkward for the government since all have large admiring international constituencies. Why were they cut off? Because all of them advocate for international development based on solidarity and respect

- Tony Blair’s Commission for Africa has [criticized] Canada for actually lowering its aid target for Africa. Of 22 rich countries, Canada now ranks 18th in terms of aid as a percentage of gross national income. Of 37 countries and multilateral agencies, the World Bank has just ranked Canada 29th in terms of aid effectiveness

- Canada ranks last among the G8 countries in terms of efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions. A prominent Guardian environmental columnist has declared that “Stephen Harper and [Environment Minister] Jim Prentice threaten to do as much damage to [Canada’s] international standing as George W. Bush and Dick Cheney did to that of the United States.”

- On peace and security issues, UN peacekeeping is now at an all-time high, with 109,000 peacekeepers in missions across the world. Canada was once proudly among the UN’s top contributors to such missions. Now we rank 57th, with just 27 Canadians deployed as peacekeepers in the traditional sense.

- At the United Nations next week, Mr. Harper will witness a group of 60 nations, including France, Britain and Japan, proposing that a tax – a Global Solidarity Levy – be introduced on all international currency transactions to raise funds for development aid. (We are not amoung them)

How does he dare even show his face?

If by some stroke of luck we are given that seat, it will not be because of anything this government has done, but in spite of their horrible record.

But let's look on the bright side. There's a very good chance that seat will be under a new prime minister.

The son of a "Peacemonger".

Sources:

1. The Making of a Peacemonger: The Memoirs of George Ignatieff, By Sonja Sinclair, University of Toronto Press, ISBN: 0-8020-2556-0, Pg. 73

2. Harper, on hunt for Security Council seat, addresses UN General Assembly, By: The Canadian Press, September 23, 2010

3. Stephen Harper does the UN - but shouldn't, By Gerald Caplan, Globe and Mail, September 17, 2010