Michael Ignatieff Has Given Political Discourse Some Substance

In October of 2006, an American journalist visiting Canada noticed that something was not right. He had been making the trip every year, but this time there was a marked difference.

As an American journalist visiting my wife's relatives in Canada, I've always been struck by how ardently the country's political discourse focused on substance — the budget, health care, schools, roads — with little of the cheap theatrics and angry divisiveness of U.S. politics and punditry. Reading and listening to the Canadian news media during those family trips could be a tad boring, but it also was touching, like remembering your earnest grade-school civics teacher lecturing about the wonders of the American democratic process.

But in my visit this past summer, I noticed that the tone of Canada suddenly had changed. There was a nastier edge to the commentary .... To someone who has covered U.S. politics for three decades, there was a shock of recognition. Standing out starkly against the bland traditions of Canadian governance was the pugnacious 'tude of American political combat, wedge issues pounded in with a zeal that put the goal of winning and holding power over everything else. (1)

The 2008 election campaign was all about the carbon tax, with Stephen Harper and Jack Layton singing harmony on their chosen wedge issue. They are career politicians and know how to play the game.

On the other hand, Michael Ignatieff was a war correspondent, documentary film maker, academic and author. He remembered Canadian politics from his father's day as a career Canadian diplomat, in the days when political discourse helped to make Canada a leader on the world stage.

This election started out the same way.

Harper wanted to set the tone with the "reckless coalition", but that has fallen flat, especially since Canadians are fine with it.

The Liberals under Igantieff stressed the loss of our democracy, an important issue, but it wasn't resonating. Too abstract to those who don't follow politics.

But then he found his issue. Healthcare. Something on the top of every one's list of priorities.

And with that he has changed the subject.

It started slowly with the campaign ad warning Canadians that Harper wants to privatize our healthcare system, turning it into an HMO nightmare. But the Conservatives cried foul, pointing out that one quote in the ad did not belong to Stephen Harper at all, but to someone else.

But instead of retreating, the Liberals challenged it. They allowed us to select what private healthcare quote we would like to see in the ad instead. Brilliant. Reminding us that Harper has always supported private healthcare, so there was a vast array of quotes to choose from.

Some journalists have sprung into action looking for the infamous quote to end all quotes.

And even the misquoted quote, became in itself a story. It actually belonged to former head of the National Citizens Coalition, David Somerville, who had groomed Harper to take over for him. The NCC was founded to end public healthcare. Enough said.

Then another group from Harper's family and friends network, the Fraser Institute came out in support of the pm, suggesting that we should put the Canada Health Act on hiatus.

Now the Canadian medical Association has come out denouncing the corporate funded Fraser, and holy schmoley, we've got us an election debate. Something we can sink our teeth into. Not a tad boring but as exciting as hell.

We're getting our country back. You can see the sliver of light.

The wonderful Murray Dobbin, who has been following Harper's career for years, agrees: Dr. Harper’s New and Improved Medicare

Well played Mr. Ignatieff, well played.

Source:

1. An American journalist's view of Harper, By Richard Fricker, October 18, 2006

Stephen Harper Addresses Medicare and Pensions With Stone Cold Silence

It isn't what Stephen Harper says about the protection of pensions or Medicare, but what he doesn't say that we should be concerned with.

As the person responsible for drafting Reform Party policy, he had a lot to say back in the day:

In August 1988, 250 delegates met in Calgary to go over a draft platform of policies drawn up by Stephen Harper ... Economically, the party called for a greater reliance on the market, free trade, an end to all government agricultural subsidies ... privatization of government agencies ... right-to-work (that is, anti-union) legislation.

... Finally, on social policy, the party called for an end to the social welfare state; a rejection of proposals for state-run day care; an end to government financial involvement in the unemployment insurance system; an end to federal encroachments on provincial jurisdictions in the areas of medicine (through the Canada Health Act which underpins the medicare system), education, and the like; an end to official bilingualism, immigration policies based on primarily economic reasons, "justice system which places the punishment of crime and the protection of law-abiding citizens and their property ahead of all other objectives." (1)

But that's not exactly the way he would present that platform to the public. Instead the policies were veiled in calculated ambiguity. As Murray Dobbin reported after attending an information session:

[in Medicare] Not only was the policy one of eliminating the nation-wide health care system, but it was phrased in such a way that the impact of the policy was obscured. The resolution called for the "provincialization" of medicare, an odd way of saying that the National Health Act would be rescinded. But rescinding the Health Act is what "provincialization," with "unconditional" funding from Ottawa would mean. Its implications were enormous: it could and probably would mean the balkanization of medicare and, eventually, one system for the rich and another for the poor. There was no popular outcry for changing the medicare system, so why was this populist party calling for this radical change? (2)

Dobbin also speaks of how, many seniors, left the party, after translating their "pension reforms", as an attempt to put an end to Old Age Security along with a dramatic scaling back of Canada Pension.

And knowing that pensions and Medicare were going to be election issues used by the other parties against them, an internal memo shows how Stephen Harper wanted his candidates to handle it. With silence.

"To avoid problems, stick to the themes and the Party priorities. Do not talk about Medicare -that is a Provincial issue. Because Medicare is not a Federal issue, the Reform Party does not have a position on it.

"Pensions: this is a issue where common sense and fiscal responsibility have to be brought to bear. It would be examined in a context of suggesting ideas to control spending and making sure people who need help get it.

"The biggest problem candidates will have is when they get off our themes. Don't fight the issues that other parties bring up. Make incumbents defend their party's record rather than debate Reform proposals."

He uses the same techniques today. Party members must stick to a few scripted responses, even when they make no sense to the questions asked, while allowing few to attend local debates or speak to the media.

And it has many wondering about the future of the Canadian healthcare system. After blowing off an important Canadian Medical Association conference, Andre Picard asked:

Does Canada still have a federal health minister? And, more important, does it have a government with the slightest interest in maintaining the national health-insurance program called medicare? For all practical purposes, the answer to both of those questions is a resounding “No.”

And on the pension front, Linda McQuaig reminds us that the issue is guaranteed to be a pot boiler.

An excellent example is the looming battle over public pensions, an issue that will be the focus of a meeting of Canada's finance ministers in December. While reducing poverty among the elderly has been one of the success stories of Canada's social welfare system, the situation threatens to deteriorate significantly, largely because of the recent failure of employers to expand private-sector pensions.

The Canadian Labour Congress is pushing to expand the CPP, to double the average benefit, currently only about $500 a month. This expansion, which would involve mandatory increases in premiums paid by workers and employers, would be phased in over time and benefit younger workers most. Support for an expanded CPP has come from former CPP chief actuary Bernard Dussault, but business and the financial sector would prefer Canadians rely more heavily on private investments in mutual funds and RRSPs. This is a costly alternative, however, since the financial sector siphons off a significant amount through management fees.

Eerily similar to the policy on "helping" the aged, hammered out by Stephen Harper back in the day. Grandma and Grandpa should look after themselves, forgetting that they paid into those pension plans for years though premiums and taxes.

Expect to be bombarded with reports from groups like the Fraser Institute and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, attacking those selfish Baby Boomers (aka seniors).

Has Their Back-Up Plan Backfired?

However, there is something else going on here showing that people like Rob Ford may be a day late and a dollar short.

The Neocons have always relied on turning citizens against each other. The new Toronto mayor is attempting the same strategy. According to McQuaig:

Mayor-elect Rob Ford famously painted the city's garbage collectors as a pampered elite enjoying a "gravy train." Appealing as it must be to pick up Toronto's garbage, that's one gravy train I don't mind missing out on.

Similarly misleading attempts to portray public-sector workers as overindulged have come from business spokesperson Catherine Swift, who implies that relatively generous public-sector pensions -- for workers cleaning schools and emptying hospital bedpans -- are imposing a huge burden on Canadian taxpayers. (Swift omits to mention that public-sector workers pay into their pensions, both as workers and taxpayers.)

But they are running out of armies to do their dirty work. Because of corporate welfare we have turned into a nation of bed pan emptiers and cleaners.

As Thomas Walkom reported recently:

... the gap between those at the very top and the rest of us — also known as the middle class — are growing faster than at any time in recorded Canadian history. Canada’s middle classes have been under attack before. [but] Programs like unemployment insurance, welfare and old age pensions — as well as union-friendly labour laws — were designed in large part to prevent social upheaval.

Today, we see the same impoverishment of the middle classes that Canada endured 75 years ago. Employers use high unemployment levels to beat back unions. Governments use recessionary deficits as a rationale for cutting social
spending.

As more and more Canadians fall victim to neoconservatism, they are running out of victims to blame things on.

It will then be time to look at these guys.

Talk to us Stevie. You got some 'splainin' to do.

Sources:

1. Of Passionate Intensity: Right-Wing Populism and the Reform Party of Canada, By Trevor Harrison, University of Toronto Press, 1995, ISBN: 0-8020-7204-6, Pg. 119-120

2. Preston Manning and the Reform Party, By Murray Dobbin, Goodread Biographies/Formac Publishing, 1992, ISBN: 0-88780-161-7 4, Pg. vii

Is Harper Using Leona Aglukkaq to Announce the End of Medicare?

Stephen Harper's MO, when it comes to announcing bad decisions, is to temporarily remove the muzzles from his ministers, letting them make the announcements, thereby allowing them to take the fall.

Only after the minister is completely backed into a corner, will he make a brief appearance and in six words or less, announce his position, usually quoting the intellectual Bart Simpson "I didn't do it".

So when his health minister Leona Aglukkaq refused to attend a key doctors’ conference, because she was busy having her picture taken with the "Big H", he allowed Diane Finley, wife of corporate lobbyist Doug Finley, to send a clear message. Stephen Harper has successfully scrapped the Canada Health Act, a career long goal, by simply never mentioning it again.

Andre Picard asks:

Does Canada still have a federal health minister? And, more important, does it have a government with the slightest interest in maintaining the national health-insurance program called medicare?

For all practical purposes, the answer to both of those questions is a resounding “No.” Leona Aglukkaq, who holds the title of Minister of Health, was glaringly absent this week from the Canadian Medical Association gathering in Niagara Falls, Ont.

Stephen Harper knows that if he makes the announcement that the policy he wrote for his party in 1987, does not include free health care and never will, he would be out on his butt quicker than you could say "Stephen Who"?

So instead he just avoids the topic and demands that his entire caucus avoids the topic.

Ms. Aglukkaq is an intelligent, thoughtful politician; she has a superb grasp of the health file, which she demonstrated as the health minister for Nunavut. But she is an abysmal federal health minister for the simple reason that she is a victim of political glossectomy performed by the hatchet men in the Prime Minister’s office.

... But the PMO’s decision to keep the minister away from the CMA general council is powerfully symbolic. It should send a shiver down the spine of everyone who cares about the future of health care.

Picard recalls Harper's famous line when he was with the National Citizens Coalition, the organization formed with the intent of dismantling our health care system: “It’s past time the feds scrapped the Canada Health Act.”

It would appear that they have done just that. And as usual, they are using religion to sell it to their base, while working to the benefit of private health providers who have been trying for decades to get their hands on our health care.

This was a key plank in this party's platform as far back as Ernest Manning, who detested Tommy Douglas and his "schemes", stating that "Giving to the individual societal benefits such as free medical care ... breeds idleness... causing a break down in his relationship with God ... where the state imposed a monopoly on a service ... the sinful philosophy of state collectivism scored a victory." (1)

And Preston followed in his father's footsteps:

It is worth remembering that Ernest Manning fought a fierce battle against the introduction of all national social programs, including medicare. In 1965, with Ottawa preparing to act on medicare, he declared: "To those who want to see a free society preserved in Canada, the proposed ... program is a direct challenge to individual liberty and responsibility." As an alternative to a state-run plan, he proposed that governments subsidize private insurance policies. Individuals, he noted, would be responsible for buying those policies — just as they are in the United States today.

The Reform Party's 1991 privatization policy [written by Preston's lieutenant Stephen Harper] shows equally clear marks of Preston Manning's deep devotion to trimming government and ending centralization. It states that all crown corporations should be placed where they can work best, and "We believe that there is overwhelming evidence that this would be the private sector in the vast majority of cases." The policy Blue Book calls for total privatization of Petro Canada [already done by Brian Mulroney] and Canada Post [being done by Stephen Harper], adding that "there should be no restrictions on private competition in the delivery of mail."

Preston Manning's political goals are very clear. He wants a society of widely dispersed power centres with most institutions and functions in private hands, safe from any collectivist conspiracy. He wants each individual to be free to find the Mannings' Christian God. Ideally, he would like each person to provide for the major part of his or her basic needs, including key social services and medicare. (2)

When Obama was trying to get his health care bill passed, a group founded by one of Harper's MPs, John Weston, pulled a dirty stunt to discredit our health care system. And when Harper was asked in the U.S. about our system, he said he knew very little about it. Right. As president of the NCC, he would have known that act from cover to cover.

Back in the day when Canada was a democracy (was it really 4 1/2 years ago? How time flies), the prime minister would have explained why he is ignoring this issue that is so important to all Canadians. And back when Canada was a democracy and had a media, they would have demanded answers. Instead the pm is in the North, engaged in another high priced photo-op.

Fascism is so much better than democracy, don't you think?

Sources:

1. Preston Manning and the Reform Party, By Murray Dobbin, Goodread Biographies/Formac Publishing, 1992, ISBN: 0-88780-161-7, Pg. 9

2. Storming Babylon: Preston Manning and the Rise of the Reform Party, By Sydney Sharpe & Don Braid, Key Porter, 1992, ISBN: 1550134124, Pg. 79