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?

Unemployment and Underemployment. But What About Precarious Employment?

"There are great numbers of people who are in work but who, from a financial point of view, might equally well be unemployed, because they are not drawing anything that can be described as a living wage." — George Orwell, The Road to Wigan Pier, 1937 (1)

If there is one word that we have heard more than any other in the past two years, it's "economy". The "economy" in crisis. We can't address other concerns until "economy" is taken care of.

"Economy, economy, economy".

Expensive taxpayer funded TV ads sell us on the notion that Jim Flaherty and Stephen Harper have handled the "economy" well. We averted the worst of the "economic crisis" because of these two whizzes.

First off, as I've already pointed out, they did not handle the "economy" very well at all. Flaherty has just always been a master of disguise, and coupled with Harper's secrecy, most in the media, and indeed most Canadians, have no idea what is happening with our money.

And let's not forget, this was not so much an "economic crisis" as it was a "heist", perpetrated by Wall Street.

Now the media is lapping up the next phase of the fairy tale, suggesting that the government is focused on "jobs" and the corporate tax cuts that will help to create those "jobs", despite the fact that history has proven that to be wrong. "Voodoo economics" in the words of a famous Republican.

But what about those jobs that everyone is raving about? We are told that all jobs lost during the "heist" have been replaced. But how true is that? People who lost their jobs may have found another, but few have been able to replace the jobs they lost. Instead they are working for lower wages, working longer hours, and many are having to rely on foodbanks just to get by.

According to the authors of Persistent Poverty: Voices from the Margins;

Today many people are so absorbed in the struggle to stay afloat and get ahead that they have failed to observe how the focus of concern has steadily inched up the income ladder, from the homeless to the working poor and now, alarmingly, to significant parts of the middle class. (1)

And alongside unemployment and underemployment, there has been a significant growth in precarious employment.

Precarious employment is work for remuneration characterized by uncertainty, low income, and limited social benefits and statutory entitlements. 'This kind of work can have multiple dimensions. It might be self-employment or paid employment; it might be temporary, permanent, full-time, or part-time.'

The uncertainty is not only in whether or not you will have a job the next day, but is also a concern over whether or not you will have a full pay cheque. Often employers will send staff home early if it is slow, to save money. But this makes it difficult to maintain a household budget. You live day to day, not just pay to pay.

Another word we hear a lot these days is "growth". Economic growth as another measure of our success. However, "Canada's most recent burst of economic growth has been accompanied by stubbornly high rates of poverty among working-age adults" (1). This is not a good measure of a country's economy.

And it is certainly not "recovery", when so many people are on financial "life support".

Recently we are seeing headlines that our banks are recording record profits. The same banks who were gifted with $125 billion dollars of our money.

National Bank reports record profit

Royal Bank Profit Rises to Record on Consumer Lending

Bank of Nova Scotia Reports Record Profit, Raises Its Quarterly Dividend

However, there is one headline that may have been lost in all of these feel good bank profits stories. Hunger on the rise in Canada, report warns

What if those banks took some of that massive profit, and instead of rewarding their investors, paid back some of the money we gave them to help feed our poor? I know it would never happen, but what if?

If we view those headlines as sin in it's rawest form, another story would probably have you on your knees. The income disparity. The growing gap between rich and poor. The increasing struggles that are now reaching the middle, are not an accident.

A leaked memo in 2006, from Citigroup, to it's wealthiest clients, reveals that what is happening today was cleverly engineered, and the memo provides its readers with suggestions to make sure that the trend continues.

The World is dividing into two blocs - the Plutonomy and the rest. The U.S., UK, and Canada are the key Plutonomies - economies powered by the wealthy. Continental Europe (ex-Italy) and Japan are in the egalitarian bloc.

... In a plutonomy there is no such animal as"the U.S. consumer" or"the UK consumer", or indeed the"Russian consumer". There are rich consumers, few in number, but disproportionate in the gigantic slice of income and consumption they take. There are the rest, the"non-rich", the multitudinous many, but only accounting for surprisingly small bites of the national pie.

... We posit that the drivers of plutonomy in the U.S. (the UK and Canada) are likely to strengthen, entrenching and buttressing plutonomy where it exists. The six drivers of the current plutonomy: 1) an ongoing technology/biotechnology revolution, 2) capitalist-friendly governments and tax regimes, 3) globalization that re-arranges global supply chains with mobile well-capitalized elites and immigrants, 4) greater financial complexity and innovation, 5) the rule of law, and 6) patent protection are all well ensconced in the U.S., the UK, and Canada. They are also gaining strength in the emerging world. (2)

The memo is 30 pages long and I'm dissecting because there is a lot of important information that will have a profound affect on "average Canadians". But what's interesting is that the authors provide some warnings to the ultra-rich. The threats to the status quo.

We can see a number of potential challenges to plutonomy. The first, and probably most potent, is through a labor backlash. Outsourcing, offshoring or insourcing of cheap labor is done to undercut current labor costs .... Low-end developed market labor might not have much economic power, but it does have equal voting power with the rich .... the third threat comes from the potential social backlash. (2)

A labour movement, a vote equal to that of the rich and a social backlash, all threaten the wealthy's hold on power.

In the United States, the filthy rich Koch brothers created the Tea Party to stave off a potential labour movement, but events in Wisconsin, Egypt and Tunisia, remind us that real change is possible. We don't have to accept this. There should be no poverty in a wealthy country like Canada. And people shouldn't have to work so hard for so little.

Stephen Harper's VP when he was President of the right-wing National Citizens Coalition, Gerry Nicholls, claims that the difference between the "left" and the "right", is that the the "left" is guided by emotion, while the "right" is guided by reason.

The Canadian Senate spent 2 1/2 years investigating poverty in Canada, but Stephen Harper has declared that he has no intention of acting on any of their recommendations. That's "reason"?

Sorry, but little old emotional leftie me, sees that there is something fundamentally wrong with that. I'm glad that I weep for the poor and the homeless. And I'm glad that I feel empathy for the disenfranchised, but none for the poor Wall Street banker who was forced to swallow his pride and accept a handout from the taxpayer.

If the conditions of the Great Depression are being recreated, it's time to also recreate the movements that brought us out of it. And it sure wasn't corporate welfare.

Sources:

1. Persistent Poverty: Voices From the Margins, by Jamie Swift, Brice Balmer and Mira Dineen, Between the Lines Toronto, 2010, ISBN: 978-1-897071-73-1, Pg. 16-25

2. Equity Strategy, By: Ajay Kapur, Niall Macleod, Narendra Singh, Citigroup Global Market Research, October 16, 2005

When Did Caring Become Defined as a Left-Wing Issue? Help Me David Croll.

I rarely miss Bill Maher, though envious that the U.S. actually has progressive commentary, and this week one of his guests (via satellite) was Arianna Huffington.

There has been a lot of chatter about the recent acquisition of the Huffington Post by AOL, and a suggestion that the media could take a leftward swing.

In the discussion of this, Huffington asked when caring about the middle class became a left-wing issue. When caring about the unemployed and underemployed became a left-wing issue. And when concern for a crumbling infrastructure became a left-wing issue.

And she's right. Like myself, she has been a lifelong conservative, though as a Republican she supported Newt Gingrich. He has always been far too right-wing for me. I felt lucky that in Canada we had a Progressive Conservative Party with centrist views. At least until Brian Mulroney came along, but even Mulroney at least pretended to care.

In Huffington's bio it says that she has in recent years moved to the left. But has she? Or was she like me, pushed to the left because she no longer had a viable conservative alternative.

Because to be conservative these days, means having to leave your soul behind.

Senator David Croll

"The poor do not choose poverty. It is at once their affliction and our national shame. The children of the poor (and there are many) are the most helpless victims of all, and find even less hope in a society where welfare systems from the very beginning destroys their chances of a better life."

Those words came from a senate report presented by the late David Croll (1900-1991) entitled "Report of the Special Senate Committee on Poverty". Tabled in 1971, it prompted Pierre Trudeau to triple the family allowance benefit and later introduce the Child Tax Credit, designed to reach those who needed it the most.

The Canadian Senate has just finished their own study on poverty in Canada, that took 2 1/2 years to complete, but the Harper government barely even gave it a passing glance before spending our tax dollars to tour the country promoting more corporate tax cuts instead.

They braced for a disappointment, but the brush-off was more callous than they anticipated. This week, the government delivered its response to the Senate’s 2009 report, In From the Margins: A Call to Action on Poverty, Housing and Homelessness. It rejected every one of the report’s 74 recommendations. It ignored the senators’ evidence that Ottawa is spending $150 billion a year on social programs that merely perpetuate poverty. It concluded with these all-too-familiar words: “The best long-term strategy to fight poverty is the sustained employment of Canadians.”

The glimmer of hope that anti-poverty activists, people with disabilities and overburdened charities had nursed since last December when the Senate’s social affairs committee released its comprehensive plan to eradicate poverty, went out.

Senator Croll also compiled a report on aging in Canada, and his recommendations were adopted by the government of the day. But statistics show that there are now more children living in poverty in Canada than seniors. But in Harperland corporations come before both.

I guess when you have a prime minister who once said, “These proposals included cries for billions of new money for social assistance in the name of “child poverty” and for more business subsidies in the name of “cultural identity”. In both cases I was sought out as a rare public figure to oppose such projects.” (Stephen Harper, The Bulldog, National Citizens Coalition, February 1997)

I thought he was just blowing smoke. I mean who is callous enough to brag about being a rare public figure who opposes money going to child poverty? It boggles the mind.

The late senator Croll also claimed that he was not left wing, but growing up in Windsor he empathized with the working class. Later, serving as their mayor, he'd say that he would rather walk with auto workers than drive around with GM executives. And he meant it, spending his entire life in public service, when being in public service meant something.

In their new book Persistent Poverty, Voices from the Margins, Jamie Swift, Brice Balmer and Mira Dineen discuss Senator Croll and the problem of child poverty.

Much has changed since Senator Croll's 1971 report on poverty, but much remains the same. Other nations, notably those in Northern Europe and Scandinavia, have in the intervening years tackled and almost eliminated rates of poverty among seniors, working-age adults, and young families. Canada has had success with seniors, but largely ignored the plight of the disabled, unemployed, working poor, Aboriginal peoples, and children ...

Poverty among children leaves the longest legacy and saps the future potential of societies and economies alike. And it is among children that it becomes devastatingly clear that fighting poverty requires more than strong labour markets alone. (1)

Of course Stephen Harper who once called Canada a 'Northern European Welfare State in the worst sense of the term", wants us to be more like the United States where their child poverty rate is a whopping 22%. And while Canada's situation was improving, the latest corporate greed induced recession "promises to undo that slow and wholly inadequate decline in child poverty."

I don't know about you, but I'd rather emulate a Northern European welfare state, where they have "almost eliminated rates of poverty among seniors, working-age adults, and young families", than the U.S. with a 22% child poverty rate, and a Tea Party holding their president hostage, to make sure he does nothing to change that.

Since the recession we have seen not only unemployment rise, but underemployment, which used to be a term that applied to professional immigrants, and recent university grads, having trouble finding positions in their field.

Now it applies to those who lost good paying jobs with benefits, and now work two or three part-time, minimum wage jobs just to make ends meet. The ranks of the working poor are growing, while our wealthy continue to get wealthier.

And our government would sooner ride around with executives, than walk with the rest of us.

I've never considered myself to be left-wing, but I care about things like that, and feel that in a country with such vast natural resources, no child should have to go hungry if it can be prevented. I don't know where that puts me on the political scale, but it sure no longer defines conservatism.

Next election we have to put eradicating poverty on the table. There is a new grassroots group called Dignity for All, that is striving to bring this back into the Canadian consciousness. They have a list of all federal politicians who have pledged their support. If your MP's name isn't there, call them and ask why. (If they're Conservative, you already know why)

This is something we all need to get behind.

Sources:

1. Persistent Poverty: Voices From the Margins, by Jamie Swift, Brice Balmer and Mira Dineen, Between the Lines Toronto, 2010, ISBN: 978-1-897071-73-1, Pg. 15

Neoconservatism is Like Living in a Parallel Universe

“Poverty is the worst form of violence.” - Gandhi

I was drawn to a headline on the CNN site:
Why tax cuts for the rich make no sense, written by Drew Westen, author of The Political Brain.

I expected to agree with the piece because it's something I absolutely agree with.

He starts out by saying that both the Republicans and Democrats, rather than simply stopping the proposed tax cuts to the wealthy, promised by George Bush, should instead extend the tax cuts to the middle class.

People who are already struggling to get by do not want to see their taxes go up on January 1. The question is how to define middle class and whether to give tax breaks to the rich that would add nearly three-quarters of a trillion dollars to the deficit.

There should be no question regarding the tax cuts for the rich. They need to be cancelled period. But Westen takes kind of a bizarre turn here in his attempt to advocate for the middle class. He redefines "rich" when discussing Sen. Chuck Schumer proposal to extend the tax cuts to families earning less than $1 million (????).

That is a serious proposal and a serious compromise. It would cost American taxpayers about $8 billion a year, but it has two advantages. First, it eliminates any concern about raising taxes on small business owners or people who live in large metropolitan areas, where $250,000 a year (the cutoff for tax cuts vs. tax hikes under Obama's proposal) is arguably not "rich." Second, it draws a clear line in the sand: As a nation, we are going to cut the taxes of working and middle-class Americans -- and we will even make sure we don't raise taxes on the 3 percent of small business owners who could get caught in the $250,000 net.

A similar alternative would set the ceiling for tax cuts at half a million, which would accomplish many of the same goals and allow Democrats the same advantage of being able to hold Republicans accountable if they try to cut the taxes of millionaires and billionaires, since anyone who has made $500,000 a year for a couple years or more has either put away more than $1 million (and hence is a millionaire)

What the hell? Why are we having this conversation? Earning $ 250,000.00 a year and you are not rich? Extending the tax cuts to those earning less than one million dollars a year?

"A serious proposal and a serious compromise"????

Westen says:

Given the more than 60 percent disapproval rates for both parties, it's clear that this election was a mandate for helping solve the problems of the millions of Americans who are out of work and the two-thirds of American workers who are now living month to month. It was not a mandate for more gridlock, ideological battles or a continued transfer of wealth from the ordinary Americans ....

I doubt those "ordinary Americans" earn $250,000.00 a year and certainly earn under a million.

None of this makes any sense.

Those Americans out of work don't care about tax cuts. They want a job and the corporate sector is not delivering on that. The first sign of trouble, they lay off employees, while still giving themselves enormous bonuses, many of them paid for by the very Americans who are now out of work.

Tax cuts to the wealthy should be at the very bottom of the list of priorities for both Republicans and Democrats. The only thing that will get the economy moving is job creation.

Stephen Harper is adamant that he will go through with his proposed corporate tax cuts in January, despite the fact that many "ordinary" Canadians are struggling. Errol Mendes asks: So which programs will be cut, and which Canadians will pay the price? A very good question.

I wonder how Harper defines Canada's "rich". We already know how he defines Canada's poor. "Lazy".

There is a good in depth article in the Globe and Mail, discussing the feasibility of a guaranteed income, but the headline sets the tone: To end poverty, guarantee everyone in Canada $20,000 a year. But are you willing to trust the poor?

Are we willing to trust the poor? The question should be are we willing to trust the rich? So far they have definitely failed us. And yet those are the only Canadians the Harper government is paying attention to.

He completely ignored a senate report on poverty.

The corporate sector is currently going after Michael Ignatieff for vowing to put a stop to these additional corporate tax cuts:

Canada's business community launched a full-scale lobbying effort Monday urging MPs to support corporate tax cuts, which runs contrary to Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff's plan to cancel them if he wins the next election. Perrin Beatty, president of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, says there is concern Parliament might block the next cut to the corporate tax rate — scheduled to take effect Jan. 1 — and such a move would stifle Canada's economic recovery.

"Parliament voted for this," he said. "Some people are proposing they reverse course and rescind it; we're saying it's the wrong thing to do if you want to create jobs and growth in the economy and that Parliament should keep its word."

Horse feathers.

We can no longer depend on the corporate sector to keep our economy afloat. They have become far too greedy, and instead have us up the creek without a paddle. According to the Economist: The recession has made employers more cost conscious, this may make them more apt to outsource jobs. These are both structural factors brought on by a bad recession.

We need to revive The Committee for an Independent Canada and start going after these "Corporate Welfare Bums" ... again. How dare they ask for more money when they've squandered everything we've given them. Let's shorten their leash.

It worked before and it can work again.

Because earning less than a million dollars a year does not make you poor until you are earning less than $ 20,000.00 a year. That is the real world.

Stephen Harper Looks Down on the Poor While Looking up to Those Who Helped to Make Them Poor

“These proposals included cries for billions of new money for social assistance in the name of “child poverty” and for more business subsidies in the name of “cultural identity”. In both cases I was sought out as a rare public figure to oppose such projects.” - Stephen Harper (1)

We have already established that the entire platform of Stephen Harper has come from the American Republicans and their Religious Right. He left nothing to chance. He took their ideas and replicated them here, right down to Fox News. Safe given their unwarranted success, but stupid given their insanity.

In a piece entitled Luntz of Luck With Newt, Dalton Camp discussed Preston Manning's appearance on an American program with Newt Gingrich and Frank Luntz in 1995.

Also present as interlocutor, and lending a little verisimilitude, was Frank Luntz, president of Luntz Research, who, according to Higgins [the host], was very much involved" in helping the Reform Party in its recent Canadian electoral success in 1993. Luntz is something of an overachiever in the polling and consulting business; his clients have included not only Gingrich and Manning, but also Ross Perot and Pat Buchanan.

As made clear in a recent magazine piece, Luntz is a neo-conservative of Gingrichian proportions. He favours the immediate elimination of public funding for the arts, the humanities, and the Public Broadcasting Service. Before eliminating farm subsidies, Luntz would prefer them to be included in a wider range of cuts. "If everyone is giving up something at the same time, it's okay," he is quoted saying. "But if we make the farmers go first, we're going to get killed in the farm community. We've all got to go together." (2)

And while Harper prefers an incremental approach, so as not to "spook the electorate", there's no argument that Frank Luntz and his Republican pals are running the show. "elimination of public funding for the arts, the humanities, and the Public Broadcasting Service...". And Luntz was just getting started.

Grover Norquist, another Republican hack who speaks for corporate America, was behind Jason Kenney's Canadian Taxpayers Federation. He wants government [regulation] to be reduced to the extent that it can be drowned in a bathtub.

They simply want to eliminate taxes for the rich and transfer them to the poor, believing that if the rich can get as rich as humanly possible, they will be sure to throw a few crumbs to the less fortunate. Just don't touch their stuff, because Stockwell Day is building American style prisons, and praying he can keep them filled.

Which brings us to the Harper government's refusal to address poverty in this country, ignoring every single recommendation of a senate committee.

There is ample evidence that far too many Canadians are falling through the cracks of existing income support and housing programs; yet Harper’s government evidently prefers not to think about new ways to help the 3.4 million Canadians the report identified as still living in poverty. Worse still, the Senate report concluded that, far from lifting people out of poverty, many of our existing programs are so badly designed that they hold people down.

Fighting poverty ought not to be a partisan issue. Indeed, the Senate subcommittee was notable for its bipartisanship, with Art Eggleton, a Liberal, as chair, and Hugh Segal, a Conservative, as vice-chair. That makes it doubly disheartening that Harper’s government has ignored the committee’s call for a comprehensive anti-poverty plan. (3)

And Hugh Segal, the PC Party sellout, was only concerned that Harper and his caucus might say something stupid, so advised that they "temper their message of austerity with compassion." Words that work.

They braced for a disappointment, but the brush-off was more callous than they anticipated. This week, the government delivered its response to the Senate’s 2009 report, In From the Margins: A Call to Action on Poverty, Housing and Homelessness. It rejected every one of the report’s 74 recommendations. It ignored the senators’ evidence that Ottawa is spending $150 billion a year on social programs that merely perpetuate poverty. It concluded with these all-too-familiar words: “The best long-term strategy to fight poverty is the sustained employment of Canadians.”

The glimmer of hope that anti-poverty activists, people with disabilities and overburdened charities had nursed since last December when the Senate’s social affairs committee released its comprehensive plan to eradicate poverty, went out. (4)

But if you believe that Stephen Harper is concerned about the state of economy, and that the only reason for his cutbacks and callous disregard for human suffering, is for the greater economic good, guess again.

This man has given more gifts to the corporate sector than Brian Mulroney or George Bush ever thought of, and has also given more gifts to himself in an ever increasing commitment to his narcissism.

Doug Draper asks "where is the public outcry" over this self-promotion orgy, which included 50 million dollars for bloody signs?

Those signs posted across the Canadian landscape – a few of them highlighted here – make up a good chunk of a record $130 million Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Conservatives spent on advertising themselves in the 2009/2010 fiscal year ending this past March, according to a wave of recent stories in The Globe and Mail and other mainstream media. And God, or maybe only Harper, knows how much more of our money will be spent on federal government ads in this 2010/2011 fiscal year with an election looming sometime in the not-to-distant future. (5)

He's right to ask: Where is the public outcry?

And while the Harper government ignores the poor, Tony Clement spends 50 million dollars of our money to help a buddy flip a property.

Where is the public outcry?

The scandalous spending during the G-20 weekend from hell included $ 85,000.00 at a mini bar, while Canadian children go to bed hungry.

Where is the public outcry?

More than $ 100,000 to drain a quarry so the RCMP have a place to sleep (??????)

Where is the public outcry?

Image consultants and first class travel, while the rest of us are told to fend for ourselves.

In September of 2007, Michael Ignatieff visited Peterborough to present a speech. His topic was the desperate need in Canada to fight child poverty.

He didn't criticize the city's MP, Dean Del Mastro. In fact he never mentioned him at all. And yet Del Mastro saw fit to write a letter to the Peterborough Examiner.

"Doesn’t it warm your heart when a wealthy person of extreme privilege drops by to speak about how he wants to tackle child poverty! Such was the case when we were graced by the presence of long-time U.S. resident, deputy Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff." (6)

Despite the fact that Mr. Ignatieff only taught at Harvard for five years, and most of his professional career was in Great Britain, where he not only taught at Oxford and Cambridge but worked as a journalist for the BBC. And the notion of him being a "wealthy person of extreme privilege", is rich coming from a man who is known not only for driving the country's biggest cars, but who lives very well on the taxpayer dime.

But seeing as how Mr. Ignatieff was there speaking of child poverty, you might expect Del Mastro to defend his party's position or offer alternative wisdom on the subject.

But nope! Nothing but a partisan rant.

Michael Ignatieff has seen suffering. He's covered wars in places like Kosovo and Sarajevo. He visited Kurdistan after the genocide and travelled to Rwanda with Boutros Boutros-Ghali to examine the skeletal remains of a population. He didn't have to. He could have just enjoyed his "extreme privilege".

But as a man who has dedicated his life to human rights issues, he saw suffering in his own country and wanted to gain support for an initiative to help eradicate it. He deliberately made it non-partisan.

But if Dean Del Mastro, Stephen Harper and the rest of this party, can choose to spend our money on themselves and their corporate buddies, and deny help to those who really need it, I'd like to know one thing:

Where is the public outcry?

Sources:

1. The Bulldog, National Citizens Coalition, February 1997

2. Whose Country is This Anyway? By Dalton Camp, Douglas & McIntyre, 1995, ISBN: 1-55054-467-5, Pg. 186

3. PM prefers to look away, The Toronto Star, October 2, 2010

4. Not even a crumb from Harper, By Carol Goar, Toronto Star, October 2, 2010

5. Canada’s Federal Government Spends Record Amount of Our Money Marketing Itself. Where Is The Cry From The Public? Niagra at Large, October 1, 2010

6. Letter to the Editor, Dean Del Mastro, Peterborough Examiner, September 26, 2007

Gerald Keddy Apologizes to Homeless, But is it Enough?

Gerald Keddy's remarks yesterday, calling the unemployed and homeless "no-good bastards', actually speaks to a much larger problem, and one that will not be addressed with the Reform Conservatives. It's their belief that anyone down on their luck is that way because of their own lack of determination.

Stephen Harper once stated that we shouldn't feel sorry for the unemployed in this country, because they don't feel sorry for themselves, as long as they can sit at home drawing generous benefits. Mike Harris called them "welfare bums", and Jim Flaherty wanted to put the homeless in jail, as if being poor is a criminal offense.

I find it alarming when I see the projects that received the stimulus funding. 4 million dollars for a library for a private religious school, $ 500,000.00 for an indoor soccer field for another. And countless rink upgrades. Those are things you invest in when times are good, but we needed a legitimate attempt at job creation, and that simply didn't happen.

Billions of dollars wasted, and yet the Ref-Cons still demanded that municipalities put up signs, promoting the party; before they could would get a dime. Between $ 4,000 and $ 7,000 each. Many simply couldn't afford it.

Canada needs a national housing strategy. We need a minimum wage and we need a guaranteed income, so that all citizens can benefit from our vast natural resources, not just a chosen few.

And Gerald Keddy needs to be fired. This was completely unacceptable.

Keddy says he's sorry for referring to unemployed as 'no-good bastards'
By Alison Auld

HALIFAX, N.S. — A Nova Scotia Conservative MP who stunned the opposition and advocates for the homeless after referring to the unemployed in Halifax as "no-good bastards" apologized Tuesday for the comments.

In a statement, Gerald Keddy said he did not mean to offend Nova Scotians who are out of work.

"I would like to offer a sincere apology for remarks I made regarding the unemployed in Halifax. These comments were insensitive, and for that I am truly sorry," he said.

"In no way did I mean to offend those who have lost their job due to the global recession, nor did I mean to suggest that anyone who is unemployed is not actively looking for employment."

Keddy, the parliamentary secretary for the minister of international trade, was quoted in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald on Tuesday as saying some farm operators hire migrant labourers because Nova Scotians won't do the work.

Keddy, who represents the riding of South Shore-St. Margaret's, then referred to unemployed Haligonians as "all those no-good bastards sitting on the sidewalk in Halifax that can't get work."

Michael Savage, the federal Liberal human resources critic, said the comments were particularly shocking given that they came on the 20th anniversary of an all-party House of Commons resolution to end child poverty.

"It indicates a real callous attitude toward our fellow Canadians who are most in need," Savage, who represents another Nova Scotia riding, said from Ottawa. "It's just completely unacceptable."

In the article, Keddy said some farm operators need to look to places like Mexico for seasonal workers because local labourers aren't interested in the work.

He was quoted as saying apple and other produce operations in Nova Scotia's Annapolis Valley have become so reliant on foreign workers that they would have to shut down if they couldn't use them.

Wayne MacNaughton, an anti-poverty advocate in Halifax, said Keddy's comments about the unemployed in Halifax reflect an ignorance about homelessness.

"I find they're very insulting and very uninformed," he said.

"It's a very broad generalization and I doubt that Mr. Keddy has spent any time talking to people on the street to find out what's going on."

MacNaughton said many of the people now without housing have physical or mental disabilities that make employment difficult if not impossible. "Some of the people with disabilities would not be able to do this work," he said.

John Hartling of Community Action on Homelessness in Halifax said the remarks reinforce a stereotype about the homeless that they are simply shiftless and don't want to work.

He estimated last year there were more than 1,200 people living on the street or using the services of a shelter in the city, adding that the majority had been diagnosed with a mental health disorder.

"To say that homeless people are just bums that are lazy and can't get off their butts to do anything is pretty offensive," he said. "There are a lot of things homeless people are dealing with in their lives."

Keddy's comments came on the same day Statistics Canada released data showing the number of Canadians collecting employment insurance rose by 54,300, or 7.1 per cent in September, after two months of declines.

This is the second controversy in two months involving the Tory politician. He was pictured last month presenting two separate mock federal stimulus cheques bearing the Conservative party logo, a flagrant breach of government rules under the Federal Identity Program.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Keddy acknowledged it was a mistake and wouldn't repeat it.

Jim Bickerton, a political science professor at St. Francis Xavier University, said the latest controversy might cause future headaches for Keddy, who didn't have large victory margins in the last few federal elections. "He hasn't gotten a safe sinecure there," he said.

"His election victories are not big ones. So it could well be his political downfall in the sense that it swings enough borderline votes against him next time around."

Megan Leslie, the NDP MP for Halifax, said the reference to the unemployed shows more about the Conservatives than Keddy alone. "They do think that people are staying home on EI making buckets of money and don't want to work," she said.

"This isn't just about Gerald Keddy. I think the prime minister is going to have trouble convincing people that he doesn't endorse Gerald Keddy's remarks."

Back to - The Gerald Keddy Story: An Insensitive Moron

Pay the Rent, or Feed the Kids. How Did we Let This Happen?

In part one of Mel Hurtig's lecture series, Who Killed Canada? based on his book The Truth about Canada, he gives an introduction to the infrastructure of the extreme right-wing movement; beginning with the hi-jacking of our media, to the many so-called think-tanks, that provide the 'facts' to that hi-jacked media.

In part two he discusses the reduction in federal revenue that weakened spending in important areas. We learned that we are 25th of the 30 OECD countries, in terms of spending on social programs.

Part three deals with our increasing poverty, that coincides with the increase in corporate profits. And though these 'free market' gurus try to convince us that we should throw in our lot with corporate Canada, they have done nothing to advance Canadian interests or protect this country's citizens.

Patriotism should be about more than war, but should also be about national identity. Sadly, our national identity is being erased. I don't even know who we are now, and as journalist Colin Horgan wrote recently; "With Barack Obama, anything seems like it might be possible. With Canada's Stephen Harper, barely anything does."

In his book Pay the Rent or Feed the Kids, Mr. Hurtig describes how many Canadian families must choose between the two. And yet successive governments have ignored this growing problem, listening to special interest groups like the National Citizens Coalition and the Canadian Taxpayers Association, who are funded by corporate Canada to keep their taxes low.

And while there are many advocacy groups that speak up for the most vulnerable Canadians, they are all but ignored. And how could we possibly expect Stephen Harper to do anything when he once boasted about the fact that he was often asked to speak on things like child poverty, because he didn't believe government should be putting money into eradicating it.

Under the Harper government these groups are now just deemed 'special interest' and have no voice.

We also learn from Mel Hurtig that Canada is the only G-8 country without a national housing strategy. Why is that?

Homelessness is increasing and people using food banks is on the rise. How did we let this happen?

We have a shortage of doctors and one of the highest infant mortality rates. This is Canada?

We have got to start paying attention. We deserve better than this. This beautiful country is being sold off piece by piece and we are lulled into complacency with a Beatles song.

Joining or starting advocacy groups is a step in the right direction. However, it is not enough. We must pick a team and stick with it. We must become involved in the political arena, and look for our Representatives based on who we think best represents our interests.

Mr. Hurtig gives some suggestions for our government, but since we know Harper would die before he would agree to any of them, we must demand that candidates in the next election make these things a priority:

1. Raise Minimum Wage - Canada should have a national minimum wage standard.

2. Provide an Earned Income Supplement - Instead of penalizing the working class as Jim Flaherty plans by increasing EI premiums, working families should be guaranteed a level of income that keeps them above the poverty level. This will decrease the need to tap into other social services.

3. Stop Taxing People With Low Income - There should be a standard of wage where income tax kicks in. Minimum wage employees should not pay income tax.

4. Revitalize the EI Program - The reforms initiated by the current government do not even come close to fixing the problem of unemployment insurance in this country. The Reform Conservatives lied and we allowed them to lie. They stated that the Liberal reforms would cost 4 billion dollars, despite the fact that the parliamentary budget officer claimed they would only cost about 1 billion. Allowing this government to lie and steal from us seems to the norm now.

5. Stop the provincial claw backs of child benefits - Ontario has already taken a step in that direction, but more needs to be done. No child should go hungry in this country when we have such vast and profitable natural resources. They should belong to everyone.

6. Create Affordable Rental Housing Programs - when Jim Flaherty was with the Ontario government he suggested that we throw the homeless in jail, so I guess we already know what his reaction would be to this.

7. Increase Social Assistance Benefits - Absolutely. The only 'welfare bums' in this country are corporations, always with their hand out for more subsidies or tax breaks.

8. Expand Job Training - This should be a no-brainer. As it states in the video, despite the fact that corporate profits have risen dramatically over the past four years, they have invested nothing in terms of upgrades or technological advances. A better trained population will benefit us all.

9. Develop a Workable Child Care Program - this is a must and I was so glad that Michael Ignatieff put that back on the table. I really like Jack Layton, but when we finally had a good plan presented, he voted with Harper, and it was scrapped.

10. Provide More Funds for University Education - We are falling behind other countries in this regard, and in turn are also falling behind in almost every other category.

We don't need less government, we just need a more responsible government. We can always find money for war, why can't we find money to wage war on poverty?

The libertarian or neo-conservative will tell us that if we prop up our corporations, we will all enjoy a trickle down effect. We know that this is not true, because they forgot to factor in greed. If a nation is healthy, well fed, and allowed to work there will be more of a trickle down effect than putting all of the country's wealth in the handful of only a few.

If we allow Stephen Harper to privatize everything as he plans, we won't get it back. Universal health care will be too expensive for the government to sustain. Scrapping Old Age Security will require creating a new system that could take years and will be devastating to seniors.

"If you ask what I want for Canada, it is this: that we surprise ourselves, astonish ourselves, and that we astonish the world!"--Michael Ignatieff

It's time to be astonishing.