Canada's New Parliamentary Budget Officer Doesn't Disappoint - Stephen Harper

After former Parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page locked horns with the Conservatives over their voodoo math, he was replaced by someone whose inexperience would be much easier to manipulate.

Not that Jean-Denis Frechette isn't a nice man, but as Michael Warren noted of his appointment, in the Star:

... the appointment of Jean-Denis Frechette as Page’s replacement should come as no surprise. Frechette, who was plucked from obscurity in the bowels of the Parliamentary Library, lacks almost any relevant experience. His appointment leaves the future of the PBO in doubt.

That’s a shame. From the outset Page showed the courage to speak truth to power. Despite persistent efforts by the government to reduce his budget and diminish his role, he attracted a small cadre of highly qualified staff.

Frechette's office has just released a report that could have been drafted in the Conservative Party war room.

Apparently taxpayers have saved thirty billion dollars in taxes, most of the breaks for the low-middle class. We should be overjoyed, right? Hmmm

Dennis Howlett of Canadians for Tax Fairness quarrelled with the interpretation. He noted that in actual dollars, most of the savings when to Canada’s rich.

According to figures supplied by the PBO, the top 20 per cent of income earners got $10.9 billion, or 36 per cent of the total, while the bottom 20 per cent got $1.9 billion, or only six per cent. “That’s a huge amount and who has got that money? Most of that in dollar amounts has gone to upper-income Canadians...."

David Akin over at Sun media couldn't wait to sing the praises of the Harperites. Under the ridiculous headline: Middle class, not rich, reap most from Harper tax cuts

... And the PBO says "low-middle income earners" have benefitted the most among all groups. The tax savings for these folks amount to a 4% increase in their after-tax income. For the richest 10%? An improvement of just 1.4%, the smallest of any income level ... notes that "low-middle income earners" live in households where annual income is between $12,200 and $23,300 a year.

More troubling however, is where the report places the low-middle class. There is no official poverty line in Canada, but in 2009, it was determined that to stay out of poverty, the following incomes were required

1 person: $18,421
2 persons: $22,420
3 persons: $27,918
4 persons: $34,829

The median level of this new definition of low-middle class, is $17,750.00, which sits below what even a single person requires to stay out of poverty.

According to a 2008 report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the rate of poverty in Canada, is amoung the highest of the world's wealthiest industrialized nations.

And Canada has the second worst infant mortality rate amoung those nations, topped only by the United States; which begs the question: why aren't the pro-lifers marching against these state sanctioned late term abortions?

Cuts to the GST again only benefit those with disposable income and in Ontario and other provinces, Jim Flaherty's HST was put on things that we never used to have to pay tax on.

The Ontario government did help to alleviate some of the stress with a monthly Trillium fund benefit, but it still hurt the average citizen.

Another tax benefit touted by the disillusioned, is the Working Income Tax Benefit. But according to Carlton University economics professor Frances Woolley

The stated goal of WITB is to provide "tax relief for eligible working low-income individuals". This makes little sense, as many of those eligible for WITB will pay no federal income tax. The WITB recipients who do pay federal income tax will find that WITB adds to their marginal effective tax rate, because an extra dollar of earnings will reduce their WITB payment. But I guess everyone wants a tax break, even people who don't pay much by way of taxes.

People earning between $12,200.00 and 23,300.00, don't need lower taxes. They need a raise.

And what of the thirty billion dollars in lost revenue? Frechette's report doesn't address that. While the Conservatives have put our National Healthcare on life support, we need to discuss what throwing money at the rich has done to the average Canadian, not to mention our fiscal sustainability.

When the Harper government came to power, they inherited a surplus of 13.8 billion dollars. Even before the economic crisis the Conservatives had already spent through that with their misguided tax policies. Yet at the time they refused to even admit that we were in trouble, only acting when the prospects of a coalition government threatened to topple their power.

Even if they manage to balance the books. (I'm not holding my breath), our debt is now through the roof. According to the International Monetary Fund's 2013 forecast, Canada’s gross combined government debt sits at 87% of GDP, or the 13th highest among the 30 most advanced economies.

Are tax cuts really the answer? It's pretty clear that we should be increasing government revenue, not depleting it.

But the New Parliamentary Budget Officer has done his job. He's made Stephen Harper look good.

Don't taxpayers already fork over a bundle for that?

So Who's the Elitist Now?

Rhys Kesselman, Canada Research Chair in Public Finance and a professor at Simon Fraser University’s School of Public Policy, has an op-ed in the Globe and Mail discussing the Harper government's new tax policies, clearly designed to benefit the highest wage earners.

Neoconservatives love to talk about "lower taxes", but they don't really mean lower taxes for everyone. They have designer tax cuts, allowing claims for gym memberships. We can expect fitness centres to tout this tax break, locking more and more people into expensive contracts.

They design "family" tax benefits, to only target their version of the "family", no single parents allowed.

And while they move toward a zero tax for corporations, they raise taxes on workers with a payroll tax, and implement user fees. Most of these fees are again a transfer of funds from the public, to the private sector, who take over services once provided by the government for free.

Jim Flaherty has tapped into George Bush's favourite line of "tax relief", using a median figure, but when broken down, only the wealthiest citizens reap any real benefit.

The wonderful Linda McQuaig, again reminds us that this systematic transfer of wealth to the top, is hurting everyone. And yet to hear the neocons talk, those who are suffering the most, are the ones hurting the economy.

I watched Bill Maher this week, and one topic of conversation was Republican rhetoric, that not only defies logic, but also defies history.

Sarah Palin suggested that Paul Revere rode to the British camp and told them that they must uphold their second amendment right to bear arms, despite the fact that there was as of yet, no such amendment on the books, and indeed, no constitution.

Another Republican presidential candidate, Rick Santorum, suggested that U.S. soldiers fought in WWII so that Americans wouldn't be forced to have healthcare. Silly Obama. He should have known that before touting his socialist ideas.

But as Maher reminded his audience, they are the kind of people who would probably get elected, because despite the fact that what they spout is pure nonsense, they spout it with conviction, never changing their story.

The Conservatives just keep chanting "low taxes, low taxes, low taxes" and we believe them, even if logic and the increased difficulty of stretching our pay cheques, prove otherwise.

Another argument made by the neoconservatives, is that cutting taxes for the wealthiest, drives down the price of consumer goods (that's the "job creation" part - jobs in Third World countries).

And yes we can now buy cheap TVs and DVD players, but the cost of housing is on the rise and food through the roof. We can buy cheap crap but basic survival is getting very expensive.

The Reform/Alliance/Conservative Party was never a populist party, but perhaps the most top down party in the history of Canada. They tapped into the populism of social credit for support, but their platform was written by Stephen Harper, right from the National Citizens Coalition handbook (Stephen Harper and the Future of Canada, by William Johnson, McClelland & Stewart, 2005, ISBN 0-7710 4350-3).

It is a party run by and for the corporate sector.

But darn it all if they don't sound convincing when they pretend that they work for us.

Stephen Harper Lied in an Attack Ad. Say it ain't So

In the 'Bull Meter' Ericia Alini takes a shot at the Conservative claim that "Ignatieff voted for an iPod tax of up to $75" - Conservative attack ad April 3, 2011

Apparently totally false.

The claim a $75 levy was ever on the table—and that it was supported by the Liberals—is dubious for two reasons: first, contrary to Conservative claims, the Copyright Board never suggested the levy should be up to $75. That amount was proposed by a non-profit called the Canadian Private Copying Collective, which collects and distributes private copying royalties. But while they may not be the ones who collect it, it’s the Copyright Board that fixes levies on MP3 players, such as the ones that were in place until a December 2004 Federal Court decision struck them down. These ranged from $2 to $25.

Secondly, the Liberals changed their policy on taxing digital audio devices in December and have explicitly rejected the notion of an “iPod levy.” They now support compensating artists with a yearly transfer of $35 million.

The GST quote was made when several of Canada's leading economists were suggesting that the cut to the GST was the worst possible cut to our revenue source.

The worst tax, and the one most people are complaining about is the HST and that was Jim Flaherty's and Stephen Harper's baby.

Jim Flaherty, Oct. 23, 2008. Being from Ontario, as you may have heard, I have a bit of a challenge with my provincial government and I’m gently nudging Premier McGuinty and the Government of Ontario and encouraging them in the direction of reducing the burden of business taxes in that province and, importantly, since that province and a few others are not harmonized, to harmonize the PST and the GST in those provinces, which would be the single most important step that could be done to help relieve the tax burden on business … we need harmonization of sales taxes in some provinces

From Stephen Harper's 2008 budget:

"Replacing remaining provincial retail sales taxes (RSTs) with value-added taxes harmonized with the GST is another area where provinces can contribute to strengthening Canada's Tax Advantage. Provincial RSTs impair competitiveness because they apply to business inputs, increasing production costs and deterring investment. By comparison, a value-added tax system provides most businesses with full tax relief through the input tax credit mechanism. Provincial sales tax harmonization is the single most important step provinces with RSTs could take to improve the competitiveness of Canadian businesses."

He was not the "father of the carbon tax", but the Green shift plan was the work of Stephane Dion and applauded by Nobel prize winning environmentalists. It was both transparent and revenue neutral.

They just lie and it doesn't matter. Nobody questions anything they say.

And they are also currently lying about supporting the CBC.

At the direction of the Prime Minister's Office, Conservative MPs have engaged in a national campaign to mislead voters concerning the Harper government's investment in the CBC. In reply to messages from constituents who have written to express concern about the future of the CBC, at least eighty Conservative MPs have stated in correspondence that:

"In fact, this government has increased support to CBC in every one of our budgets. This year the CBC is receiving $1.1 billion dollars in funding - this being the highest amount of funding ever allotted to the CBC - more than any government in Canadian history. " This statement is false.

Harper and Flaherty's Voodoo Economics. Tax Cuts for the Rich?

Jim Flaherty stole George Bush's 'Tax Relief' catch phrase and now the Harper government has also stolen 'Job Creators' when describing tax cuts for the rich. They also stole "support the troops", yellow ribbons, "flip-flop" ....

But then they have the same Republican advisors, so why wouldn't they rehash the rhetoric?

The Conservative Party borrowed heavily from the U.S. Republican Party with attack ads distorting a speech by Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff and a recent campaign employing an anti-tax slogan the Republicans seized in their assault against President Barack Obama and the Democrats, opposition MPs say. Conservative spokesman Fred DeLorey denies the party lifted the term "job creators" from the Republicans as a catchy description of businesses Prime Minister Stephen Harper (Calgary Southwest, Alta.) and his government say will suffer if the Liberals force the government to scrap $6-billion in corporate tax cuts scheduled for next January.

The fact that Michelle Bachmann and the Harperites were both touring with tax cuts for the rich as "job creators", shouldn't be surprising. The Americans for Prosperity help to finance them both.

The "job creator" phrase was used in a string of statements by Mr. Harper and Cabinet ministers over the past two weeks as they fanned out to react when the Liberals released campaign-style video ads—a reaction to attack ads the Conservatives unleashed two weeks ago—that zeroed in on the tax cuts and the $16-billion acquisition of F-35 fighter jets as potential centrepieces for their election campaign platform.

Coincidentally, Republican Minnesota Congresswoman Michelle Bachman drew attention to the Republican preference for the same term when she appeared on a Tea Party video responding to President Obama's State of the Union address to Congress last Tuesday. "We need to start making things again in the country and we can do that by reducing the tax and regulatory burden on job creators," she said.

Is Stephen Harper Determined to Make the Same Mistakes as His Republican Counterparts?

I've posted often about Stephen Harper's close relationship with high-powered Republicans, but it goes beyond shared campaign organizers, think-tanks and backroom boys.

It would appear that Stephen Harper is determined to repeat every mistake ever made by his comrades South of the border. Republican strategies for the past 40 years, have their country in such a bloody mess, it seems unlikely that they will be showing signs of recovery anytime soon.

And I'm not just talking about recovery from the recent economic crisis, but recovery from the horrendous results of Republican policies created by political strategists, instead of experts in their chosen fields.

I watched a panel discussion on Bill Maher the other night, and I slapped my hand to my forehead so many times, I started to feel faint. Eureka!

Because rather than just dwell on the impact of the corporate sponsored Tea Parties and the dumbing down of Republicans, they went back to when the real domestic problems began. Not wars or aggressive foreign policies, which have been devastating and will give Americans blowback for years to come. But domestic policies.

And it was suggested that this current downward spiral began with the War on Drugs. According to Time magazine:

It's a war without a clear enemy. Anything waged against a shapeless, intangible noun can never truly be won — President Clinton's drug czar Gen. Barry McCaffrey said as much in 1996. And yet, within the past 40 years, the U.S. government has spent over $2.5 trillion dollars fighting the War on Drugs. Despite the ad campaigns, increased incarceration rates and a crackdown on smuggling, the number of illicit drug users in America has risen ...

But the result, as the panel reminded us, is that the Americans now incarcerate more people than any other developed nation. They have more prisons per capita than any other country and spend more on policing.

Yet the Harper government has created a law and order agenda that includes their own war on drugs. I mean it failed so badly in the United States, why not see just how badly it can fail here.

And they are building more prisons in preparation. There's something about our low crime rate that just doesn't sit well with them. The right-wing echo chamber dictates that they be tough on crime, instead of being tough on the root causes of crime, something we have tried to do, and has worked.

When someone on the panel asked why so many prisons and prisoners (I forget names. Remember all that forehead pounding), everyone responded: money. The free marketeers have allowed the private sector to take over and they can't make money if their beds aren't filled.

And though it's not getting a lot of media attention, the Harper government is also working behind the scenes to create private "super prisons" in this country (watch video below to see just how bad they are). He hired Mike Harris's former, 'even if it's nailed down we'll sell it', hawker, Robert Sampson, to garner interest from American investors. His experiment in Ontario with privatizing our jails failed miserably, but he believes it will work if done on a grander scale.

But what American is going to invest money in private prisons, in a country with such a low crime rate? (Did you just pound your forehead?)

The next area discussed was rehabilitation, or the lack thereof, again blamed on putting profit first. They don't want prisoners to be rehabilitated, and thus the U.S. also has the highest number of repeat offenders.

The Harper government has closed the prison farm program, despite the fact that it has done so much to rehabilitate. Again, profit first. There's no money to be made if the prisons aren't filled to capacity.

But another consequence of this war on a noun and a "law and order" agenda, has been that other areas of their domestic responsibility, have been allowed to fall to ruin. Healthcare, education and infrastructure, have all taken a backseat to "crime and punishment".

Beyond the Panel

Another area debated on the show was taxation and how the Republicans have it so wrong. For decades, again through corporate sponsored AstroTurfing, the focus has been on lowering taxes. Taxes, taxes, taxes.

And borrowing from George Bush's "tax relief" campaign, Jim Flaherty is also on a lower taxes (for the rich) agenda. But when you lower taxes, you also reduce your ability to sustain important programs, like healthcare and public education.

In their new book The Trouble With Billionaires, Linda McQuaig and Neil Brooks discuss this at some length.

Another well-heeled pressure group, Americans for Tax Reform, has focused its efforts on keeping potentially independent-thinking Republicans from wandering too far from the tax-cutting agenda. The group seeks written pledges from politicians and political candidates that they will oppose all efforts aimed at raising tax rates at the upper end. Although some moderate Republicans originally resisted, increasingly they succumbed; by July 2009, 172 congressmen and 34 senators had signed the pledge. Such is the power of highly focused, well-financed pressure groups to keep Republican politicians from going off message.

In the article I linked to above about Jason Kenney, he did the same thing. Scroll down the page a bit and you'll find a photo of Mike Harris signing Kenney's pledge not to raise taxes (on the wealthy). Even then, 1995, the co-author of this book was sounding the alarm on his agenda.

... well-known tax expert Neil Brooks has stated, the CTF's 'anti-tax rhetoric disguises a view that government should play a minimal role' ... David Perry of the Canadian Tax Foundation ... notes that much of the group's anti-tax sentiment is based on ignorance of the actual situation in Canada .... a perception of reality, rather than reality' .... "Many other tax experts ... have also pointed out that the benefits received from government in exchange for taxes have to be taken into account ... Kenney's response to this, however is instructive. 'We only look at taxes, not benefits'... leading Brooks and many other critics to conclude that the CTF agenda is simply lower taxes, not fairer taxes." (2)

So let's cut to the chase. It's about lowering taxes for the wealthy. Why else would they ply so much money into groups like the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, Harper's National Citizens Coalition or Americans for Tax Reform (the parent group of Jason Kenney's Canadian Taxpayer Federation).

With this sort of discipline enforced by the party's wealthy donors, Republicans fell into line, unanimously backing a tax-cut package that would have infuriated a properly informed electorate. Of course, the administration had gone to great lengths to make sure that the public had little sense of what was actually going on; this included the Treasury department releasing some highly misleading statistical information and Bush himself stating barefaced lies, like insisting that "by far the vast majority of my tax cuts go to the bottom end of the spectrum." The public was further confused by the actual design of the tax cuts, in which the meagre benefits going to the middle class were provided quickly upfront while the really massive benefits directed toward the upper end kicked in a few years later, when public and media attention would inevitably have moved on. (1)

"A properly informed electorate". Be still my heart. As with Harper/Flaherty tax cuts, we are financing our own demise.

The result was a stupendously large redistribution of resources to the very affluent. The richest 0.1 percent of Americans saved 284 times more from the Bush tax cuts between 2001 and 2010 than people in the middle 20 percent of the U.S. income distribution —a result that, as the polling data show, the American public did not want and that will, sadly, make even larger sums available to conservative pressure groups seeking further tax reductions.

And the wealthy used their financial gifts to buy up the media, making sure we were not an informed public, and to gamble on Wall Street.

How do you like Neoconservatism so far?

Sources:

1. The Trouble With Billionaires, By Linda McQuaig and Neil Brooks, Viking Canada, 2010, ISBN: 978-670-06419-9, Pg. 191-192

2. Hard Right Turn: The New Face of Neo-Conservatism in Canada, Brooke Jeffrey, Harper-Collins, 1999, ISBN: 0-00 255762-2, Pg. 416-417

Harper's Christmas Gift. Tax Cuts for the Wealthy. Tax Increases for Everyone Else

Now that the NDP are backing billions more in tax cuts for the wealthy, the richest Canadians are being assured another nice chunk of our money, bringing those gifts to about 60 billion dollars, since Harper took office.

But on the flip side, those lucky enough to still have jobs, are lucky enough to have their taxes go up. Yeah!

... nearly all Canadian workers will pay more income and payroll taxes in 2011 ... The Canadian Taxpayers Federation released its annual tax calculations Tuesday and projected an average increase of 2 per cent in 2011 over 2010. The federation said Ontario residents will see the sharpest payroll tax hike, with British Columbia and Nova Scotia right behind them. While those three provinces will be particularly hard hit, the federation’s report said the working poor – regardless of region – will be seriously affected.

So the working poor will be forced to pay more, so that the idle rich can pay less. Don't you just love Neoconservatism?

And the government's response is typical.

“[The] Harper government has not increased taxes, we believe in lower taxes and we have the record to prove it – cutting over 100 taxes and lowering taxes $3,000 for an average family,” Mr. Pothier wrote in an e-mail. He added the Conservative government has kept EI premiums low with rate freezes. Minister of Finance Jim Flaherty released a statement Tuesday mentioning tax relief, though it only addressed a reduction in the corporate income tax rate.

"Tax relief". He took the words right out of George Bush's mouth.

Conservatives Know about Framing: On the day that George W. Bush took office, the words tax relief started appearing in White House communiqués to the press and in official speeches and reports by conservatives ....

And the Bush Administration knew how to sell tax cuts for the wealthy, by making it appear as though everyone enjoyed this so-called "relief". And by suggesting that the wealthy would use their tax cuts to create jobs. And when jobs continued to be lost, there was a simple remedy. Give the rich more "tax relief".

So how did Bush deal with this proven failure? Like the character in Chicago who said, "You going to believe what you see or what I tell you?," Bush in 2003 brazenly attacked the problem head-on. "That six percent [jobless] number should say loud and clear to members of both political parties in the U.S. Congress, we need robust tax relief so our fellow citizens can find jobs"—even though four-fifths of the job losses followed his 2001 tax relief. So when press secretary Ari Fleischer said in mid-2003 that "tax cuts have helped create jobs and to promote growth in the economy," he must have had the economy of the Cayman Islands in mind. (1)

And while constantly suggesting that the average American was paying less taxes, the opposite was true.

The President also kept heralding the statistic that the "average" family would get back $1,083 from his proposed 2003 cuts. This combination of populist rhetoric and actual data would be more appealing, however, if it were true. But based on data from the Tax Policy Center, 80 percent of Americans will get three-fourths less than W.'s claim of an "average" tax cut of $1,083. Filers in the middle quintile of the income spectrum—the "median" household—would receive only $227, and that before increased local and state taxes due to federal cutbacks are subtracted. And the 42 percent of taxpayers who are neither married nor have children would get a "little bitty" $50 on average, according to Citizens for Tax justice. By including in his "average" the $20,762 each of the top 1 percent of all tax filers would receive and the $89,509 returned to those 0.2 percent earning a million or more annually, Bush's figure perfectly fit Mark Twain's definition of a "stretcher"—literally true but misleading. (1)

And the Harper government has their own "stretchers" when it comes to this so-called $3000 "tax relief" that all Canadians are supposed to have enjoyed.

Again, my best advice comes from Hannah Arendt. THINK!

Are we really paying less taxes? They lowered the GST by 2% but then shoved the HST down our throats, even having the audacity to use our tax dollars as bribe money. And yes the GST portion of the HST is lower, but it has been put on things that we never paid GST on before. There is no net benefit.

THINK!

Just because they say it, doesn't make it true. You just have to learn to speak Neocon. It's a bit Orwellian but a lot more complex. But to crack the code, remember that all language used is "framed" and wrapped in calculated ambiguity.

THINK!

"Tax relief" translates to "please give me the shirt off your back so my chauffeur can use it to clean my Mercedes." Only they never say please.

"If Ottawa giveth, then Ottawa can taketh away." - Stephen Harper

Sources:

1. The Book on Bush: How George W. (mis) Leads America, By Eric Alterman and Mark Green, Penguin Books, 2004, ISBN: 0-670-03273-5, Pg. 39-40

Good News, Bad News, and Worse News on the Economy

Recent economic forecasts are a little unsettling.

If we had a fiscally conservative government, I might feel a little more comfortable with their handling of the recent economic crisis.

But we don't.

They are Neo-Conservatives and that's a whole different ballgame. In fact, our massive deficit and enormous debt is a good thing to them. There's no way in hell they're going to do anything to reverse that.

So instead of making decisions that will strengthen our economy and create jobs, the current situation will simply be exploited to further their agenda of dismantling the country.

As disciples of Leo Strauss, the lower class can fend for themselves. They believe that if you're poor you are genetically predestined to be, or just lazy. Don't expect any help from neo-Cons. You're the enemy, and they'll just crush you with their heel.

I don't know if many of our country's top economists realize the difference. I'm sure they do but are reluctant to say so.

Eugene Lang, a former senior economist at Finance Canada, and Philip DeMont, an economist, veteran financial journalist and former Ontario government adviser, are co-authors of the book Turning Point: Moving Beyond Neoconservatism; and they know the difference.

In a piece written for the Toronto Star, entitled Big-spender Harper true to his neoconservative roots, they outlined clearly the Harper/Flaherty agenda.

The Harper government has ... remained very true to its ideology. But that ideology is not "conservative." Rather, it is "neoconservative," and this makes a big difference on the question of deficits and fiscal policy. For neoconservatives – the denomination that emerged in the 1970s and 1980s – balanced budgets are not a first-order priority. The overriding objective is to cut taxes; balancing the books comes a distant second or even third on the to-do list. Most neoconservative governments have never gotten around to balancing the budget."

And:

" If we view the Harper government through a neoconservative lens – where tax-cutting and reducing government fiscal capacity are the paramount objectives – then the Harperites are operating in a manner entirely consistent with neoconservative economic philosophy, not to mention the track records of their forerunners in other jurisdictions.

So don't be fooled. There is nothing "liberal" about the Harper government's fiscal and economic policy. They remain true to their ideological roots, and can walk proudly in the footsteps of trailblazers like Ronald Reagan."

Remember when the economic crisis first hit? Harper downplayed it, then dismissed it. Flaherty's first budget, post crisis; had nothing in it to fight the recession, but instead was just partisan homicide. It backfired and they shut down Parliament rather than deal with it. Fortunately the Bank of Canada dropped interest rates to help with the crisis, while Jim Flaherty went skiing.

Now on to Plan B: Spend, spend, spend. See how big they can get the deficit, then drop the hatchet.

This way, they can justify their original plans to cut social programs, and have a little fun doing it. And of course, use up as many taxpayer dollars as possible for Reform-Conservative advertising. This was like Christmas come early.

It's now a year later, and the Reformers continue to exploit the economic crisis, even suggesting that's why they closed down Parliament so they can focus on stage 2. I better not see any of them hanging out at the Olympics when they're supposed to be doing their homework.

Some notes on the newest predictions.

Recession is over, but the future is still grim: experts

The great recession of the decade is behind us now, according to top Canadian economists. But Canadians are being warned there's little relief ahead. A report put out by TD Economics on Dec. 17 predicts the world economy will expand by about 4 per cent by the end of 2010 ....

Jay Hill Refuses to Address Unemployed Forestry Workers

Up to now Stephen Harper and his government have ignored the plight of the unemployed, downplaying the significance of massive jobs losses, but demonstrations by the Communications, Energy, Paperworkers (CEP) Union, in Conservative ridings have made him start to take notice.

Most of these sit-ins were in rural areas, where Harper needs to hold onto seats.

However, Jay Hill was the only targeted MP to absolutely refuse to speak to demonstrators. I guess it's not in his secret handbook. Unfortunately, he can't just whip them into shape like he does the Tory caucus.

Canadian Ministry Sit-ins Awaken Stephen Harper to Jobs Crisis

June 04 2009

WorkerFreedom

Seven sit-ins at rural offices of three MPs and four Ministers – including Canada’s Finance, Treasury, and Inter-Governmental Affairs Ministries – got Stephen Harper’s attention and the question now is will his government listen.

Tomorrow, Communications, Energy, Paperworkers (CEP) Union will stage another manifestation on the crisis facing the forest sector, this time a protest and march that will lead to direct face-to-face talks with the Harper team in Ottawa.

The sit-ins were carried out early last week in an escalating strategy by the CEP to spotlight the mass job and social loss that has overtaken forest-based communities across Canada. CEP is adamant that it is Harper’s responsibility to find the answers. And CEP is ready to work with government to ensure the correct measures are found.

March and Rally Tuesday, June 2

The sit-ins follow mid-May strategy meetings and a protest at AbitibiBowater’s headquarters in Montréal. That protest was directed more at the Harper government than at the bankrupt newsprint company. Last week’s sit-ins at the rural offices of key lawmakers mean this issue will stay focused on rural Canada’s very survival and way-of-life.

Tomorrow, 2 June, at 11:30 in Ottawa, the CEP will rally first at the offices of Natural Resources Minister Lisa Riatt and then march to Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s building. They then will meet with Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, whose Ontario offices in Whitby-Oshawa were the only CEP-occupied offices not in a rural area.

Six of the seven sit-ins across four of Canada’s provinces produced immediate results. Three sit-ins occurred in rural government offices in Québec, two in British Colombia, and one each in New Brunswick and Ontario. In British Colombia, an MP, Jay Hill, a lead Tory whip in Ottawa from Prince George/Peace River riding, was the only legislator refusing CEP’s invitation to discuss the crisis.

At the other occupation in British Colombia, inside the offices of John Duncan, Vancouver Island North riding, the CEP spokesman for the occupying team, promised, “We plan to keep on making noise and do whatever we have to do” to move this government to action.

The CEP is demanding financial support for the industry at the federal level. The union is also demanding iron-clad protections on pensions, something that will not be compromised. And CEP will insist tomorrow that the Harper government must enact industry tax relief for companies’ converting black-liquor from the wood-pulp process to energy. That set of tax breaks exists for pulp and paper firms in the US and the CEP insists on a level playing field.

The CEP is also demanding a national summit on the forestry crisis in which key stakeholders will decide on strict guidelines aimed at employment stabilisation and forest regeneration measures. The sit-ins made one targeted politician jump on that idea quickly. In Québec, the Minister for Inter-Governmental Affairs, said she will convene such a summit.

ICEM affiliate CEP calculates that 55,000 jobs in the forestry sector have been lost over the past two years alone. Far more were lost in earlier years. The impact of these good-paying jobs on others in rural communities – when those jobs disappear – is immense and the ripple effects must be multiplied to get the real economic picture.

Thousands of forestry workers protest in Ottawa
June 2, 2009

CBC News

Thousands of unionized forestry workers from across Canada demonstrated in Ottawa on Tuesday, demanding the government do more to support their industry.

They wanted to meet with Prime Minister Stephen Harper to discuss solutions to the forestry crisis, including protection of workers' pensions and a plan to keep viable mills operating with the help of federal government loan guarantees and other measures.

"The reason we're here is the forestry industry has taken an awful downfall in northern Ontario," Joseph Lefebvre, a pipe-fitter with AbitibiBowater in Iroquois Falls told CBC News. "We want the Harper government to get off their butts and do something about it."

In the past six years, the industry has lost about 130,000 jobs in Canada.

"Our main demand has always been for the federal government to backstop loans so that viable companies can keep operating, saving jobs and communities," Dave Coles, a spokesman with the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, which represents most of the workers, said in a release. "We are not asking for a bailout."

The issue came up in question period, sparking a heated exchange between government ministers and opposition parties.

Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe accused the government of offering "crumbs" to the forestry industry in Quebec while throwing out billions for Ontario's auto industry. He said the government supported GM, because it would cause the loss of thousands of spinoff jobs and crush communities dependent on the automaker, which Duceppe said was exactly the same situation the forestry industry faces.

NDP Leader Jack Layton called on the government to create a strategy for the forestry sector. "What we need is some fair trade for a change. What we need is to stop raw logs from going across the border and creating jobs down there in the states," said Layton.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper replied that the forestry sector is struggling because of changes in the market and a dramatic decline in demand for lumber in the United States.

The government, he said, has taken action by offering assistance to help laid-off workers and communities, as well as increasing financing for the sector through the Business Development Bank of Canada. (Yes and I guess that's why they have to launch protests)

Workers from as far away as British Columbia and the east coast took part in the protest, which kicked off at Natural Resources Minister Lisa Raitt's office and wound through the city to the prime minister's office.