Though numbers show that the jobless rate is astounding, we have to remember that not all of those out of work are included in the figures. Those who haven't sought employment in the past month don't get counted.
Some have opted to simply live off their severance to wait and see if prospects improve. Others have chosen to accept part-time work or are doing odd jobs in an attempt to stay afloat.
However, all of these people are victims of this recession. The recession that Stephen Harper and his financial wizard, Jim Flaherty, said would not come.
There's jobless, and officially jobless When Statscan issues its jobs data today, it won't tally those who have given up or postponed their searches Tavia Grant Globe and Mail August 07, 2009
After John Peck was reorganized out of his job at Shell Canada Ltd. in April, he searched for work in communications or consulting for a few months. But few positions were open and the rare ones posted were swamped with applicants. So, he has stopped looking. The 56-year-old, who received a severance package, is spending a month on Deer Island, N.B., where he's diving, sailing boats and combing beaches.
"It's a good time to wait and see what's happening with the economy, see how things shake out," he explains. "There's a lot more competition right now, and that was part of my decision to take a good chunk of the summer off."
When Statistics Canada reports its monthly job count today, many unemployed people like Mr. Peck - who have either postponed or given up their job search - won't be tallied. That's because people who haven't hunted for jobs in the past month aren't counted as unemployed or as part of the labour force. The gap between the actual unemployment rate and the official statistics is likely to widen in the coming months, as more people give up their job search to go back to school, or wait until jobs are more abundant, economists say. Many more workers will settle for part-time jobs, even though they want full-time positions.
"Official numbers always understate how bad it is during recessionary periods," said Robert Fairholm, an economist at the Centre for Spatial Economics, a research firm in Milton, Ont. "Things will get worse before they get better for unemployed people." In a forecast this week, he predicted that Canada's unemployment rate would rise to 10.5 per cent by the first quarter of 2011 if discouraged workers were counted.
Today's Statscan report is expected to show about 15,000 jobs were lost last month (it actually ended up triple), sending the national unemployment rate to 8.8 per cent from 8.6 per cent, according to economists polled by Bloomberg. The economy shed almost half a million full-time jobs - 454,000 positions - between October and June, Statscan figures show.
When involuntary part-time workers are factored into the equation, Canada's unemployment rate would have been 11.3 per cent in June, according to Statscan's so-called R8 series on "underutilized" labour, which is not seasonally adjusted. That's well above the 8.1-per-cent level it showed in the same month last year, though down from the 12.4 per cent it reached in March. Canada's official unemployment rate is a more accurate depiction of reality than the U.S. measure, though, because it includes people who are both actively and passively looking for work, said Millan Mulraine, economics strategist at TD Securities. The U.S. criteria are more stringent - they stipulate that people have to be actively looking for work - and thus fewer people are counted in the jobless tally, he said.
Employment insurance is another indicator of joblessness; the most recent report showed a record number of Canadians are receiving jobless benefits. That, too, could be skewed in the months ahead as EI benefits run out.
Rick Newton, 46, is one of thousands of Canadians who have fallen out of the country's official bookkeeping. EI benefits for the information-technology specialist dried up last year. So the Burlington, Ont., resident put his job search on hold to go back to school to update his certifications. (my son recently received his permanent layoff notice after 17 years with the same firm. He thinks he may go back to school, so he won't be tallied despite the fact that the company he worked for has closed)
He said it was a "conscious decision" to leave the labour market after a fruitless job search. "I hope to be looking for work again in November." **** A numbers game Employment insurance is one indicator of joblessness. But that data could be skewed in coming months as EI benefits run out.
Number of people receiving regular Employment Insurance benefits May 2009: 778,700
Stephen Harper is in panic mode these days, back pedalling like hell trying to avoid an election, so he is once again pulling out his fall back 'coalition' threat, hoping to scare us over to his side.
Well it's not going to work this time, or at least it shouldn't. We may have been caught off guard during the Parliamentary crisis, and many Canadians believed that somehow the proposed coalition was undemocratic, but now in the light of day, we see just how hypocritical the Conservative campaign against it really was.
News of a similar plan in the works by one Stephen Harper in 2004, who wasn't ready to accept the results of the recent election, sheds a new light on the events. In an interview at the time with CBC's Evan Solomon, Harper skirts around the issue, but Mr. Solomon knew, as many did, that there was a coalition in the works. Though Harper repeatedly denies it, both Gilles Duceppe and Jack Layton have confirmed that they had teamed up with Harper to take down Paul Martin at the throne speech.
What else could Stephen Harper have meant? A military takeover?
It's important to bring this issue up now for three reasons.
1. So that we do not allow the Conservatives to gain sympathy or unwarranted support by having us believe that they are being threatened by a 'coup', backed by separatists, because his coalition included Gilles Duceppe.
2. That we are more accepting of a coalition government should the Governor General decide to take that route if the Conservatives are defeated in a non-confidence vote in the fall.
3. That we recognize just how hypocritical this government can be, because most of their campaign against the proposed coalition was flat out lies.
Evan Solomon: Parliament opens on Monday, and in a sense you're the most powerful Opposition Leader in a generation and people want to know how you're going to use your power. So the fundamental question is: under what circumstances would you call a vote of non-confidence?
Stephen Harper: First of all, I can't forget my first responsibility - which is to be the Leader of the Opposition and that's to provide an alternative government. We've always said we'll support the government when they do things that we can accept, which you know the health accord. I supported the health accord, I called for the government to end the pay increase, they're going to do that, I'll support that, but in general my obligation is to provide an Opposition. It's the government's obligation to look really to the third parties to get the support to govern.
Solomon: But providing an Opposition in this case is very different from what Canadians have understood because your opposition could bring the government down. Are there trigger points that would bring the government down?
Harper: Well there are lots of things that could bring the government down, but my opposition can not bring the government down. The government can only be brought down because it alienates several parties in the House. And the first obligation in this Parliament, if the government wants to govern, it has to come to Parliament and it has to show that it can get the support of the majority of members, through the Throne Speech, through legislation, and through budget and supply, and the government to this point has made no effort to do that, but that's its first obligation.
Solomon: But you are a key player at that, let's not make any mistake - courting Stephen Harper is very important if it wants to stay in power, no?
Harper: We'll support the government on issues if it's essential to the country but our primary responsibility is not to prop up the government, our responsibility is to provide an opposition and an alternative government for Parliament and for Canadians. What the government has to do, if it wants to govern for any length of time, is it must appeal primarily to the third parties in the House of Commons to get them to support it.
Solomon: Alright, Tuesday is the Speech from the Throne. You've gone on record saying you will oppose it, or at least make amendments to it. Now tradition is that the Leader of the Opposition often does that.
Harper: Always...
Solomon: Right.
Harper: We can't find an instance of the Leader of the Opposition either almost always moving an amendment, but in any case opposing the Speech from the Throne, with or without an amendment.
Solomon: But it's always been a formality because of a majority...
Harper: Same thing's true in minority parliaments. The Leader of the Opposition's constitutional obligation - the obligation to Parliament - it's the reason we did the merger! - is to make sure Canadians have an alternative for government.
Solomon: But when does an amendment, if you pass an amendment, when does it function as a de facto confidence vote?
Harper: Well that's a matter of some debate - but I think the short answer is when the government won't accept it. And what I've been trying to do in the last.. over the summertime, is talk to the other parties and think about what would be agreeable to a lot of people. I don't think - we're just not going to go in and say ‘take our amendment or leave it,’ because we know such a thing would be rejected anyway.
Solomon: So what amendments do you have?
Harper: We're doing what governments should do, which is examine the Throne Speech - if I were Prime Minister, what I would have done is I would have talked to all three other parties extensively to find out what would pass in the Throne Speech, and what might not pass, and what they would like to see. The government has not done such an exercise, at least not to my knowledge.
Solomon: So do you know what's in the Throne…
Harper: I don't know what's in the Throne Speech. I only know in the vaguest terms - we were told on, a couple of days ago after the Throne Speech had been printed, we were told generally what was in it. The general description was that it was the Liberal Party platform from the election.
Solomon: So what amendments... are you proposing?
Harper: Well, I'll look at the specifics. You can be sure whatever amendments we propose will be consistent with what we believe and are not in the Throne Speech.
Solomon: But I'm just trying because this is important a detail - are some amendments deal breakers? In other words, if you propose an amendment and the Liberals reject it - does that mean we could have a confidence vote on the Throne Speech?
Harper: If the Liberals can't pass their Throne Speech, then they aren't able to form an effective government. But I think the Liberals have every opportunity to do that - what they've got to do is consult with people and make sure they tailor their program so that the majority of MPs in the House of Commons will actually vote for it.
Solomon: But you're saying they haven't consulted with you.
Harper: Well, they haven't consulted me, and I wouldn't expect them to extensively consult me, because I think they understand that it's not going to be the Official Opposition that props up the government, but my impression is they haven't done a lot of consultation with anybody. I've consulted pretty regularly with Mr. Duceppe and Mr. Layton to get a sense of what they're looking for - it's up to the government to do the same thing. If you want to be a government in a minority Parliament, you have to work with other people. (He forgot his own advice)
Solomon: Would you describe this government's position because of its lack of consultation as precarious?
Harper: I'd describe it more as arrogant. And I think the real problem that we're facing already is that the government doesn't accept that it got a minority. The Liberals think the natural state of affairs is a Liberal majority - they're not happy about this, they don't accept it and quite frankly, they're going to look for any opportunity to call an election. I can tell you that our party and I'm sure Mr. Duceppe and Mr. Layton from our conversations want Parliament to work - it's in the interests of the Opposition for this Parliament to go on for a while and be effective. It is only the government that wants to end this state of affairs and go to have another election.
Solomon: Are you suggesting that the Liberals are baiting you to call a confidence vote because they want another election and you don't want another election?
Harper: I think the government's strategy will be to have an election as soon as possible. Maybe not this fall, but I think the government wants an election.
Solomon: And you don't!
Harper: They can't stand having a minority. We accept that it's a minority - for all the other parties we've been in a kind of relatively powerless position for a long time. I think we're looking forward to the opportunity of having some influence for the next few years. And I'm happy to do that and continue to take the time to build and organize my party which, as you know, is relatively new. I think it's only the government that just can't stand this situation and wants out of it.
Solomon: Alright, where will we see the Conservatives’ stamp on the Liberal agenda - if you have this power, and if you have the power to influence, show me where we're going to see your fingertips - on what pieces of legislation?
Harper: You can see a couple of fingerprints already. The health accord that the prime minister ended up signing looked a lot more like my platform than his platform.
Solomon: But it's a huge victory for him - you have to concede, he's waving the flag saying we delivered.
Harper: Well, we'll see. Look, I'm happy with the health accord. The prime minister said he had a fix for a generation he was going to tell the provinces how to run health care, the truth is all he did was transfer money. There's some in his party who don't think it's a victory but I think it's the only way we could realistically go. On the payer...
Solomon: Let's just talk about that for one second... you know the old saying that success has a lot of fathers and failure's an orphan. Is it a success that you say he did it because of us and he says we did it because we're delivering on our promise - who gets credit for the victory then?
Harper: He did it let's be clear he did it because he has no, he went to a First Ministers Conference but had no plan for health care - that's why he did it. He did a deal that the provinces can live with, a deal that we can live with - the ball's now in the provinces' court, but if Mr. Martin now tries to go into the next election saying I've fixed health care for a generation - people are going to laugh. Because everyone knows that's not what it is, it's a transfer of money that allow the provinces to try to improve the system but there's no easy fix there.
Solomon: He says that it's a victory - he claims that he's delivering a major platform. A lot of people are surprised that you played ball so much on that. You sort of cooperated.
Harper: But the agreement, I say we're not gonna switch our position on the public. We ran on a platform. The agreement he signed looked an awful lot, not a 100% but an awful lot like what we had said was realistic. It didn't look anything like what the prime minister said he was going to do and I think that's something he's going to have to explain.
Solomon: Special status for Quebec. Charest is saying we got special status on this deal - people say Stephen Harper has been a champion of provincial rights and OPPOSED to special status. Why did you agree with that kind of configuration?
Harper: Mr. Charest called me before the deal was signed a couple of times and I said would this deal be something where every province can have its own rights respected and its own deal, is it equal for everybody. Mr. Charest said yes, and that's what's in the deal. It says that every province has a right to exercise its own jurisdictions to ask for its own side deal. Only Quebec chose to do that. I can't blame Quebec for doing that.
Solomon: So you're saying that it's not a special status deal that anyone could have had that special status.
Harper: Remember also that this is provincial jurisdiction. The nature of our constitution is that everyone is supposed to be able to do their own thing in their own area of jurisdiction. I don't consider that special status - but obviously Quebec got a side deal.
Solomon: But does it hurt you in Alberta? And say hey Quebec got its... what's the difference between asymmetrical federalism and special status and the old distinct society?
Harper: I think the only question in Alberta people have is why the Alberta government didn't ask for its own deal. Because it could have done so.
Solomon: Interesting.
Harper: And I can't blame Quebec for that.
Solomon: What other pieces of legislation will we see the Conservative fingerprints on.
Harper: Well we've already seen one right away which is the Liberals were trying to get this pay increase through the back door of a judges salary and of course we called for that to be nixed and the government's now promised to bring in legislation on that - beyond that I don't know
Solomon: Marijuana legislation?
Harper: The government hasn't told us very much about what it's legislative agenda is, I know almost nothing in specifics about what it's legislative agenda is so I'm waiting to see...
Solomon: A lot of legislation died on the floor when the Parliament was prorogued, and I'm thinking specifically about decriminalizing marijuana - if that gets re-brought in will you kill that? try to?
Harper: We had some debate in our caucus about our position in caucus about that - I think it's unlikely that we would support that bill.
Solomon: Unlikely.
Harper: Yeah...
Solomon: Wednesday the Supreme Court will debate same-sex legislation again. It's a hot-button issue in your party. What happens, what do you do now?
Harper: Well really it is in the hands of the courts now - my strong view is that this should be decided by the personal opinions of the 308 elected people, not the personal opinions of 9 appointed people, but this is the route the government's going it seems to me now just as a practical matter, now that the hearing will start, it's very difficult now for Parliament to intervene. I don't think frankly we're under much of an illusion about what the courts are going to rule, their views on this are pretty well-known but I think then we'll just have to see and then the government will have to take a decision on whether it's going to table legislation on this or not. It has legislation, it's just refused to send it to the House of Commons.
Solomon: If you'd like to see elected officials determine that - you're an elected official, how would you vote on that?
Harper: I've always been clear, I support the traditional definition of marriage. I have no difficulty with the recognition of civil unions for non-traditional relationships but I believe in law we should protect the traditional definition of marriage. That's my personal view I would say most in my caucus agree with that but there are some who don't and I've always said that on these kinds of moral issues, people have the right to their own opinions.
Solomon: If you were prime minister and the Supreme Court ruled in a way that you didn't agree with what would your response be?
Harper: It depends on the issue. I think generally speaking we take court rulings pretty seriously but I've said there are issues where, I've pointed to the child pornography decision, Supreme Court rulings that have made pornography easier to obtain in this country - we would probably take pretty strong legislative matters against some of those rulings.
Solomon: We're starting back in Parliament, we followed you for the election, if we had one day to do over again in the election, what day would it be?
Harper: I don't get into that second guessing of myself publicly. I think that we had a lot better campaign than people thought we were going to. There were very few people who thought we'd be in contention to win that election, and very few people even six months ago who thought the Liberals would be facing a minority - in fact we had polls telling us Paul Martin would be winning a record number of seats...
Solomon: But then there was polling and you said you could win a majority...!
Harper: Well now, no, I didn't say we could I said that was my objective. I didn't say we could, I think we were never more than 2 points ahead in any poll.
Solomon: But you were preparing for a majority..
Harper: I always will. I'm preparing now.It's the obligation of the Official Opposition to be prepared to form a government. We've still got a lot of work to do on that. I think we had on balance when the dust settles on balance we did a lot better than people'd expect. And I think everybody thinks we're going to do better next time - I haven't read a single columnist who suggests that we will probably do worse in the next election so I think that we are on the way up, the Liberals are on their way down and time will tell.
Solomon: Last bit of business here - Parliament gets back in session, you're the Leader of the Opposition - is there any trigger issue in the first week that we could see the Conservatives bring a confidence vote to this government?
Harper: Well we're going to put an amendment to the Throne Speech that's almost inevitable because as I say the chances of the government producing a Throne Speech that's exactly the speech we want are pretty low and it's the obligation of the Opposition to show its alternative. Solomon: Could that be a confidence vote?
Harper: Yeah sure it could, absolutely...
Solomon: It could...
Harper:... But it will ultimately depend how the other parties vote including how the Liberals vote. The Liberals always have the option of endorsing something that we put forward.
Solomon: You met with the Governor General -
Harper: Yes I did
Solomon: You haven't commented much about that meeting...
Harper: By law I'm not allowed to, I'm a privy councilor, all my discussions with the Crown are supposed to be of the highest confidence until the day I die - I can't even tell my wife!
Solomon: Okay well let's skirt around the issue a little bit - are you preparing, do you have a plan in the event the government falls to form a government instead of calling an election? (yes this has been confirmed)
Harper: No such plan. Our plan is always to be ready to be an alternative government. But my assumption is the Liberals will make the compromises necessary to be a government in this Parliament.
Solomon: Now I've known you for a while, chance favors the prepared mind, no one would accuse you of not being a prepared mind. You're telling me you don't have a plan B in the event this government falls to a confidence vote - you haven't talked to other parties - Layton, Duceppe, anybody - about forming a government? (he did and his letter and the videotape prove that he was lying here. Remember when he said I wouldn't want the Prime Minister to think he can call an election everytime he loses the confidence of the House. Lies, lies, lies.)
Harper: I'm telling you that I've always my responsibility is to be prepared to form a government so we're always working at that.
Solomon: With who?
Harper: Well I've said I would not form a coalition under any circumstances (He already had) - I said that in the election campaign, nothing changes. I expect we're going to put forward our program for the country, how we would make the House of Commons work. I know that Mr. Duceppe and Mr. Layton don't want an election, I think the Liberals may have a different view. We'll just see. We'll do whatever's necessary but I think we're going to be the official Opposition in this Parliament, I think that's how things will work.
Solomon: I just want to clarify something - you won't work with other parties
Harper: No I said we will work with other parties..
Solomon: You will, but you won't form a coalition -
Harper: No. (Both Gilles Duceppe and Jack layton confirm that it was a coalition to take down Paul Martin. What else could he mean with the letter and tape?)
Solomon: You won't form a coalition, therefore in the event this government falls we cannot expect you to turn to another party and try to form a government, in other words it will be an election?
Harper: Well you're getting into a lot of hypotheticals...
Solomon: That's what this is all about!
Harper: I've said we wouldn't, we're not looking to form a coalition, the Bloc Quebecois has been very consistent that they're not going to form a coalition with anybody, so we wouldn't look to form a coalition - but the present government isn't in a coalition either.
Solomon: So why did you write that letter to the Governor-General with Gilles Duceppe and Jack Layton saying in the event of a confidence vote situation do not call a snap election - are we to assume that therefore you're working to form a coalition? (Mr. Solomon knew exactly what was going on)
Harper: (Changes the subject) There seems to be an attitude in the Liberal government - that they can go in, be deliberately defeated and call an election - that's not how our constitutional system works. The government has a minority - it has an obligation to demonstrate to Canadians that it can govern. That it can form a majority in the House of Commons. If it can't form a majority, we look at other options, we don't just concede to the government's request to make it dysfunctional. I know for a fact that Mr. Duceppe and Mr. Layton and the people who work for them want this Parliament to work and I know if is in all of our interests to work. The government has got to face the fact it has a minority, it has to work with other people.
Solomon: Other options meaning that you would have to govern though - don't you have to be in a coalition de facto - isn't that the implication?
Harper: The current government believes it doesn't have to be in a coalition and I share that view. There's a lot of options in the House of Commons - what I expect the Liberals to do is try to seek different allies for different pieces of legislation.
Solomon: This is a fascinating...
Harper: That's what I think they'll do but they're going to have to make some compromises to do that...
Solomon:This is fascinating because usually we think of the Leader of the Opposition in a minority government as trying to bring the government down - you're saying they want to bring themselves down and they want to continue the status quo! Which is a kind of ...
Harper: Canadians want the Parliament to work - but look we're not going to roll over to agree with the government just so they can stay in office. But as I say we've been away from minority government's for so long we've forgotten how they work. The government is still the government. The official Opposition is still the Official Opposition. And these two parties are still going to battle for govenrment in the next election. And that's how the system works. There's going to be other parties, the third parties and that's usually where the government's going to have to seek its mandate to try to get a majority in the House of Commons and it's - that's really their primary responsibility. They've got to get these other parties supporting them regularly or they can't command the confidence of the House. And the same would be true for me if I had the most seats, I would have to find a way of governing.
Solomon: Is there a similarity between this government and the Joe Clark government? Harper: We'll see. We'll see - time will tell - but there does seem to be an attitude that they can govern as if they have a majority. And as I've told you I think Joe Clark taught us I think that's the wrong attitude to have in a minority Parliament.
Solomon: They didn't consult...
Harper: It didn't work either.
I don't think a coalition between these three men would have lasted long. Gilles Duceppe is too smart, Jack Layton too caring, and Stephen Harper is ... well ... Stephen Harper.
That Stephen Harper does not believe in science is a given, but his drastic cuts to the community, has prompted more than one hundred Canadian scientists to draft an open letter to the Prime Minister, suggesting that Canada is taking huge steps backwards in important research.
Their near-sightedness in attempting to close a BC injection site, is more about their phony 'tough on crime' measures, than protecting vulnerable Canadians, or helping to cure drug addiction.
But that is only one on a long list of ideological driven measures that threaten to stall any progress toward scientific discoveries.
Harper manipulating the scientific process Toronto Star August 07, 2009 04:30 AM Evan Wood Director of the Urban Health Program at the B.C. Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS
The fate of Vancouver's medically supervised safer injecting facility, known as Insite, hangs in the balance as three B.C. Court of Appeal justices weigh arguments by the Harper government aimed at overturning an earlier ruling that provided the program a brief respite from the Tories' efforts to close it. In that ruling, Justice Ian Pitfield weighed the science and concluded: "I cannot agree with the submission that an addict must feed his addiction in an unsafe environment when a safe environment that may lead to rehabilitation is the alternative."
As someone involved in the evaluation of Insite, I have seen first-hand how the Conservatives continue to score major political points as a result of their determination to close the program. Early concerns about the Conservative party's policies under Stephen Harper emerged in the areas of reproductive technology and stem cell research. More recently, cuts to basic research in the Tories' stimulus budget as well as Conservative Science Minister Gary Goodyear's unscientific comments on "creationism" versus evolution prompted an open letter to Harper by more than 2,000 top Canadian scientists decrying "huge steps backward for Canadian science" under the Conservatives.
With the closure of the office of the National Science Advisor – the independent and arm's-length position created to provide non-partisan recommendations to the federal government on scientific matters – even the prestigious scientific journal Nature recently had harsh criticism for the Harper government. Topping the list is the Tories' handling of Insite, which constitutes this government's most blatant contempt for science.
Among the most egregious examples of the Tories' manipulation on this file are their apparent efforts to suppress and cloud research, and their unwillingness to accept scientific findings. When initially faced with the decision whether or not to allow Insite to continue to operate legally, then health minister Tony Clement stated that "more research is necessary."
Ironically, as part of this announcement he declared a moratorium on injection site research trials and intervened to halt funding to an Insite research grant, which had already been externally peer-reviewed and recommended for funding by the Public Health Agency of Canada. Rather than promoting "more research," his interference with the recommendations coming from this transparent peer-review process was in clear violation of international scientific standards.
In fact, Insite is undoubtedly the most highly studied health clinic in Canadian history with almost three dozen studies now published describing the program's positive impacts. These are not consultants' reports but rather rigorous peer-reviewed studies published in the most prestigious medical periodicals, including The New England Journal of Medicine.
Ironically, the Conservatives have responded to this volume of research by clouding the issue and stating that the research has actually "raised questions" and that there is a "growing academic debate." These statements are highly disingenuous.
The published research has answered many questions, not raised them. Furthermore, rather than academic debate, a near unanimous academic consensus has emerged in the mainstream scientific community.For instance, more than 130 prominent Canadian scientists recently published an open letter to Harper charging that his conduct surrounding Insite was putting ideology before the protection of public health.
In the United States, when the Bush administration was faced with pesky scientists concerned about various areas of public health, such as climate change, the Republicans appointed "expert" committees and embraced "scientific" information produced by right-wing think-tanks.
In 2006, the Harper government took a page from the Republican handbook when it selected an "expert advisory committee," giving the members no more than six months to solicit and conclude definitive research on the impact of Insite. The government also stipulated that researchers conduct this work in secrecy and agree not to present their research at scientific meetings or in medical journals until six months after the committee's final report.
Any scientist would agree that this is an unrealistic timeline to prepare and complete in-depth public health research, and the gag order was a shock to many. While several well-meaning Canadian scientists participated on the advisory committee, the flawed process the Tories set up was well described in an open letter signed by several of Canada's leading addiction researchers: "We see no possibility whatsoever that any data or information which does not yet exist in some fashion can be collected in such a time frame" and decried the fact that the work had to be conducted in secrecy, stating that "scientific knowledge be openly accessible to the public realm."
Despite the constraints placed upon it, the Conservatives' committee concluded that Insite had a range of benefits and there was no evidence of harm. Having failed to discredit the scientific evidence, the Tories then embraced purchased "critiques" of Insite that later disclosures revealed actually were funded by the RCMP and posted on a website hosted by the conservative law enforcement lobby group known as the Drug Free America Foundation. With Insite's future in doubt, the decision now before the B.C. Court of Appeal has profound implications for the role of science in Canada's approach to addiction. Regardless of the outcome, those sitting in the court of public opinion should be aware of the lengths the Harper government will go to ensure that the scientific process is sufficiently manipulated to suit its ideological needs.
Evan Wood is an associate professor in the department of medicine at the University of British Columbia.
Dr. Arthur Laffer was the author of the famous 'Laffer Curve' that promotes the theory that lowering taxes will increase spending, thereby keeping the economy afloat.
Those great economic wizards, George Bush and Jim Flaherty followed the Laffer curve, but no one's laughing now.
However, the good doctor appeared on an episode of Bill Mahr this past winter, and when hammered about his theory, which many believe contributed in part to the economic crisis; he defended himself by saying that the Bush Administration (and Harper Government) only followed his theory in part.
You need to reduce taxes, but you also must reduce government spending, he stated. OOPS! I guess they should have read the rest of the book.
Another economist's name that is being bandied about recently is John Keynes, and the term 'Keynesian' has become part of our vernacular. However, again only a portion of his theory is being used. That of borrowing to spend on infrastructure to create jobs and stimulate the economy.
But Mr. Keynes also said that war should be largely financed by higher taxation, rather than deficit spending. Another OOPS! Modern wars are being funded with massive debt, because heaven forbid a Conservative would swallow his pride and bring out the 'T' word.
And speaking of the 'T' word, Dr. Laffer is also promoting a Carbon Tax, as the best solution to fight climate change. He is a conservative, who believes that all conservatives should be on board with this because it puts money back in their pockets, rather than taking it out with a hidden 'Cap and Trade' tax, that only helps big business.
CONSERVATIVES don’t support tax increases that are veiled as “cap and trade” schemes for pollution permits. But offer us a tax swap, and we could become the new administration’s best allies on climate change. (Mr. Dion offered a tax swap called the 'Green Shift' and our so-called Conservatives made him out to be the devil)
A climate-change bill withered in Congress this summer because families don’t need an enormous, and hidden, tax increase. If the bill’s authors had instead proposed a simple carbon tax coupled with an equal, offsetting reduction in income taxes or payroll taxes, a dynamic new energy security policy could have taken root.
Even if the United States extracts more of its own oil — something it needs to do — it will still have only 3 percent of the world’s known oil reserves, and OPEC will still be the cartel with 70 percent of the world’s known oil reserves. Conventional discoveries and unconventional extractions (like shale oil) would improve our standing somewhat, but OPEC’s easily extracted oil makes its members the undisputed kings of crude. If they’re the kings, we’re the vassals. As long as national security risks aren’t factored into the cost of gasoline and as long as carbon dioxide can be emitted without penalty, oil will continue to have an advantage over emerging fuels in the marketplace, and we’ll continue our ruinous addiction to it.
We need to impose a tax on the thing we want less of (carbon dioxide) and reduce taxes on the things we want more of (income and jobs). A carbon tax would attach the national security and environmental costs to carbon-based fuels like oil, causing the market to recognize the price of these negative externalities.
Nuclear power plants would then compete with coal-fired plants. Wind and solar power would have a shot against natural gas. Trains would compete with trucks. We would clean the air, create wealth and jobs through a new technology boom and drastically improve our national security.
The market-driven innovation that brought us the Internet and the personal computer could quickly bring us new, cleaner fuels.A carbon tax that was fully offset (with payroll or income taxes cut by a dollar amount equal to the revenues generated by the new tax) would be as bold as the threat that we face.
Conservatives do not have to agree that humans are causing climate change to recognize a sensible energy solution. All we need to assume is that burning less fossil fuels would be a good thing. Based on the current scientific consensus and the potential environmental benefits, it’s prudent to do what we can to reduce global carbon emissions. When you add the national security concerns, reducing our reliance on fossil fuels becomes a no-brainer.
Yet the costs of reducing carbon emissions are not trivial. Climate change may be a serious problem, but a higher overall tax rate would devastate the long-term growth of America and the world.
It is essential, therefore, that any taxes on carbon emissions be accompanied by equal, pro-growth tax cuts. A carbon tax that isn’t accompanied by a reduction in other taxes is a nonstarter. Fiscal conservatives would gladly trade a carbon tax for a reduction in payroll or income taxes, but we can’t go along with an overall tax increase. (Not our Conservatives)
The good news is that both Democrats and Republicans could support a carbon tax offset by a payroll or income tax cut. Former Vice President Al Gore has argued for eliminating all payroll taxes and replacing them with “pollution taxes.” He said in aspeech at New York University’s law school two years ago: “It would be, in other words, a revenue-neutral tax swap. But, instead of discouraging businesses from hiring more employees, it would discourage business from producing more pollution.” The United States can’t solve climate change alone. The Kyoto climate treaty was rightly rejected by the Senate because China and India weren’t subject to its provisions. If China and India join the United States in attaching a price to carbon, their goods should come into this country without a carbon adjustment. But if they do not, every item they place on our shelves should be subject to the same carbon tax that we would place on our domestically produced goods, again offset by a revenue-neutral tax cut.
If World Trade Organization rules entitle members to an unwarranted exemption from such a carbon tax, then we should change them. Outliers should not be allowed to frustrate the decision-making of the countries that are trying to prevent the security and environmental train wrecks of this century.
As president, Barack Obama, by working with conservatives as well as the members of his own party, can at once clean the air, create jobs and improve the national security of the United States — a triple play for the next American century.
Bob Inglis is a Republican representative from South Carolina. Arthur B. Laffer was a member of President Ronald Reagan’s Economic Policy Advisory Board from 1981 to 1989.
Apparently it's not just the top Public Servants who have had enough of the Harper government, but his communications staff (he has a communications staff? ... he doesn't communicate) are also making an exodus from the Hill.
Does this have anything to do with Ryan Sparrow coming back? Differences of opinion on how to re-package themselves? (Can't wait to see what Harper's going to dress as next campaign) Maybe they just hate those damn attack ads.
Nobody knows for sure but they are leaving. Hopefully, Harper will soon join them on the unemployment line.
OTTAWA — Another high-profile member of Stephen Harper's inner circle is leaving the Prime Minister's Office as the minority Conservative government readies for a possible fall election.
Carolyn Stewart-Olsen, a veteran of Mr. Harper's office, has worked for him for more than seven years - ever since he ran for the Canadian Alliance leadership - and the most recent PMO post for this senior adviser was director of strategic communication.
One of Mr. Harper's longest-serving aides, the intensely loyal Ms. Stewart-Olsen functioned as a gatekeeper for her boss for many years as other staff came and left.
"Stephen is not the easiest guy to work for. He takes a lot of handling sometimes. And Carolyn, she was good at that," said University of Calgary political scientist Tom Flanagan, a former Conservative campaign adviser.
Ms. Stewart-Olsen, a former emergency room nurse, is the second senior communications staffer in recent days to prepare their exit from the Prime Minister's Office. Director of communications Kory Teneycke is also leaving for a job in the private sector after more than a year in the post.
Her departure further reduces the number of long-time Harper aides still serving with the Prime Minister. One of the remaining few is principal secretary Ray Novak.
Conservative insiders played down the timing of these departures, saying that midsummer - among the quietest periods on Ottawa's political calendar - is an ideal time for exits because it minimizes disruption. The government is also using this relative lull in the volatile schedule of a minority Parliament to shuffle ministers' offices and fill job vacancies for chiefs of staff.
"In minority parliaments, people transition in the summer. It's the one time of year you can do it and not screw over the government," one senior Conservative said.
Nevertheless, the Tories are heading into choppy political waters and will require a full complement of veteran staffers. Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff, sounding hawkish last week, gave every indication he wants to bring down the Harper government this fall.
One disincentive for Conservative political staff to stay on the job is the uncertainty of minority government and the relatively weak prospects for any change in this situation.
Polls currently suggest that the Tories have little hope of winning anything beyond a third minority government, an unstable situation that forces aides to be in a constant state of election readiness.
It's not yet clear what Ms. Stewart-Olsen will do next. She has worked for the Conservatives and predecessor parties, including the Canadian Alliance and Reform, since the early 1990s.
Her name has been bandied about as a possible candidate for a Conservative Senate appointment. Ms. Stewart-Olsen could not be reached for comment last night.
Mr. Harper has eight Senate vacancies he could fill if he chooses - including one from Ms. Stewart-Olsen's home province of New Brunswick. He's expected to consider appointments in late August or early September before the political calendar gets busy.
The Tories are considering delivering the fall fiscal update earlier this year - perhaps in September - as they prepare for a possible defeat in Parliament. This update, which would coincide with the fall report on stimulus spending, will likely include funding approvals for already announced aid for pulp mills and loans to Air Canada.
The video reveals the scam of the Conservatives first environmental program; emission-intensity; but their expensive and confusing 'Cap and Trade' (fancy term for a hidden carbon tax) will be devastating both to the Canadian economy and the environment.
Yet they are once again trying to use the carbon tax against the Liberals, claiming that Michael Ignatieff is trying to run away from it. They use several quotes on their Ignatieff Me site:
“Taxes have to rise; there is no other way” — Ignatieff on using higher taxes as “solutions” for the environment (Kingston Whig-Standard, June 10, 1991)
He campaigned for leader on imposing a carbon tax:
“We’ve also got to have popular, practical, believable policies that may involve some form of carbon tax, for example, to increase the penalties on emissions. The time for action really is now” — Ignatieff during a Liberal leadership debate (Globe and Mail, June 15, 2006)
He took credit for pushing Stéphane Dion to embrace a carbon tax:
Craig Oliver:“Now you were the first leader, as a candidate [for] leader, to talk about a carbon tax and you took a little bit [of] heat for that. Do you still believe in a carbon tax? Of course you do.
Michael Ignatieff: “I do Craig. I learned that there’s no punishment more severe in politics than being the first guy with a good idea but I’m glad, I’m glad our party seems to be moving that way.” (CTV Question Period – May 25, 2008)
Well it seems that Mr. Ignatieff knew as long as 18 years ago, what experts are only now realizing.... "those who care deeply about climate change will find that a carbon tax system has become the last, reasonable policy standing."
Those are the words of Robert Shapiro, chair and co founder of the U.S. Climate Task Force and former Undersecretary of Commerce for Economic Affairs, who has lent his voice to countless environmental experts who say that the 'cap and trade' tax will not work. Energy prices will soar and corruption will abound.
April 2009 updates: Robert Shapiro, chair and co founder of the U.S. Climate Task Force and former Undersecretary of Commerce for Economic Affairs, makes a compelling political case that “the costs and lessons of the financial crisis may effectively swamp the prospects for cap-and-trade. If cap-and-trade has become a dead policy walking, those who care deeply about climate change will find that a carbon tax system has become the last, reasonable policy standing.”
CTC regards carbon taxes as superior to carbon cap-and-trade systems for six fundamental reasons:
Carbon taxes will lend predictability to energy prices, whereas cap-and-trade systems will aggravate the price volatility that historically has discouraged investments in less carbon-intensive electricity generation, carbon-reducing energy efficiency and carbon-replacing renewable energy.
Carbon taxes can be implemented much sooner than complex cap-and-trade systems. Because of the urgency of the climate crisis, we do not have the luxury of waiting while the myriad details of a cap-and-trade system are resolved through lengthy negotiations.
Carbon taxes are transparent and easily understandable, making them more likely to elicit the necessary public support than an opaque and difficult to understand cap-and-trade system.
Carbon taxes can be implemented with far less opportunity for manipulation by special interests, while a cap-and-trade system’s complexity opens it to exploitation by special interests and perverse incentives that can undermine public confidence and undercut its effectiveness.
Carbon taxes address emissions of carbon from every sector, whereas some cap-and-trade systems discussed to date have only targeted the electricity industry, which accounts for less than 40% of emissions.
Carbon tax revenues would most likely be returned to the public through dividends or progressive tax-shifting(this was Mr. Dion's Green Shift if the Conservatives hadn't made it the grim reaper),while the costs of cap-and-trade systems are likely to become a hidden tax as dollars flow to market participants, lawyers and consultants.
Carbon Taxes Will Lend Predictability to Energy Prices. With carbon taxes ramped up through a multi-year phase-in, future energy and power prices can be predicted with a reasonable degree of confidence well ahead of time. This will make it possible for literally millions of energy-critical decisions — from the design of new electricity generating plants to the purchase of the family car to the materials used in commercial airframes — to be made with full cognizance of carbon-appropriate price signals.
In contrast, a cap-and-trade program will exacerbate the volatility of energy prices since the price of carbon allowances will fluctuate as weather and economic factors affect the demand for energy. The vaunted advantage of cap-and-trade — that future levels of carbon emissions can be known ahead of time — is mostly notional, particularly if the cap-and-trade system includes a “safety-valve” for auctioning off additional carbon allowances if the price of allowances exceeds a predetermined level. And even certainty in future emission levels is of questionable value, since there is no agreed-upon trajectory of emissions for achieving climate stability and preventing disaster. The real target for which the U.S. must aim is to reduce carbon emissions as much as possible, and then more.
Carbon Taxes Will Provide Quicker Results. The taxes themselves can be designed and adopted quickly and fairly. Cap-and-trade systems, by contrast, are devilishly complex and will take years to develop and implement. Thorny issues must be addressed intellectually and resolved politically; the proper level of the cap, timing, allowance allocations, certification procedures, standards for use of offsets, penalties, regional conflicts, the inevitable requests for exceptions by affected parties and a myriad of other complex issues must all be resolved before cap-and-trade systems can be implemented. During this time, polluters will continue to emit carbon with no cost consequences.
Carbon Taxes Are Transparent and Are Easier to Understand than Cap-and-Trade. A carbon tax is transparent and easy to understand; the government simply imposes a tax per ton of carbon emitted, which is easily translated into a tax per kWh of electricity, gallon of gasoline or therm of natural gas. By contrast, the prices for carbon set under a cap-and-trade system will vary with market fluctuations and be impossible even for big business (let alone small businesses or consumers) to predict. A cap-and-trade system will require a complex and difficult to understand market structure in order to balance the many competing interests and ensure that the trading system minimizes abuse and maximizes real carbon reductions.
A Carbon Tax’s Simplicity Inoculates it Against the Perverse Incentives and Potential for Profiteering that Will Accompany Cap-and-Trade. In contrast to the simple and straightforward process of implementing a carbon tax, the protracted negotiations necessary to implement a cap-and-trade system will provide constant opportunities for the fossil fuel industry and other invested parties to shape a system that maximizes their financial self-interestsas opposed to an economically efficient system that maximizes societal well-being. If allowances are allocated based on some type of baseline reflecting past pollution (which has been the practice with NOx and SO2trading programs), rather than being auctioned, polluters will have perverse incentives to maximize emissions before the cap-and-trade system goes into effect in order to “earn” those pollution rights. (The voluntary carbon cap-and-trade system currently operating has already been criticized for questionable offsets that have produced huge profits but little environmental benefit. )
Carbon Taxes Address All Sectors and Activities Producing Carbon Emissions. Carbon taxes target carbon emissions in all sectors — energy, industry and transportation — whereas at least some cap-and-trade proposals are limited to the electric industry. It would be unwise to ignore the non-electricity sectors that account for 60% of U.S. CO2 emissions.
Carbon Taxes Can Produce a Far More Equitable Result than Cap-and-Trade. As discussed in our Issue Paper, Managing the Impacts, carbon tax revenues can be returned through dividends or can be used to fund progressive tax-shifting to reduce regressive payroll or sales taxes. (Again the Liberal Green Shift) The costs of cap-and-trade systems, both implementation and the costs incurred as more expensive technologies replace older and less expensive coal-fired combustion, are far more likely to be imposed upon consumers with less possibility of rebating or tax-shifting. Moreover, because cap-and-trade relies on market participants to determine a fair price for carbon allowances on an ongoing basis, it could easily devolve into a self-perpetuating province of lawyers, economists, lobbyists and other market participants bent on maximizing their profits on each cap-and-trade transaction.
General Electric, DuPont, Alcoa, Caterpillar and other industrial pigpens this week endorsed cap-and-trade limits on carbon dioxide, which would turn their established habit of using the atmosphere as a free waste disposal into a property right, worth billions. Talk about a low-hanging fruit. They are accustomed to treating carbon dumping as a gimme. Now they’d at least be in a position to get paid for dumping less.
The dollars that will be funneled into making the market work could be better spent reducing regressive taxes, protecting poorer households and/or helping consumers use less energy.
The Conservatives 'cap and trade' is a hidden tax which will only benefit industry; while consumers will pay the bulk of the costs. Gee. Where do I sign?
Consumer guru Ralph Nader and Canadian environmentalist Toby Heaps, co-authored a piece for the Wall Street Journal, discussing why Michael Ignatieff's and Stephan Dion's and just about everyone who knows anything about the environment's, carbon tax is the only solution to address climate change.
We Need a Global Carbon Tax The cap-and-trade approach won't stop global warming Wall Street journal By RALPH NADER and TOBY HEAPS
If President Barack Obama wants to stop the descent toward dangerous global climate change, and avoid the trade anarchy that current approaches to this problem will invite, he should take Al Gore's proposal for a carbon tax and make it global.
A tax on CO2 emissions -- not a cap-and-trade system -- offers the best prospect of meaningfully engaging China and the U.S., while avoiding the prospect of unhinged environmental protectionism.
China emphatically opposes a hard emissions cap on its economy. Yet China must be part of any climate deal or within 25 years, notes Fatih Birol, chief economist at the International Energy Agency, its emissions of CO2 could amount to twice the combined emissions of the world's richest nations, including the United States, Japan and members of the European Union.
According to the world authority on the subject, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), it will cost $1.375 trillion per year to beat back climate change and keep global temperature increases to less than two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit).
Cap-and-traders assume, without much justification, that one country can put a price on carbon emissions while another doesn't without affecting trade or investment decisions. This is a bad assumption, given false comfort by the Montreal Protocol treaty, which took this approach to successfully rein in ozone-depleting gases.
Chlorofluorocarbons are not pervasive like greenhouse gases (GHGs); nor was the economy of 1987 hyperglobalized like ours today.
Good intentions to limit big polluters in some countries but not others will turn any meaningful cap into Swiss cheese. It can be avoided by relocating existing and new production of various kinds of CO2-emitting industries to jurisdictions with no or virtually no limits. This is known as carbon leakage, and it leads to trade anarchy.
How? The most advanced piece of climate legislation at the moment, the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act, contains provisions for retaliatory action to be taken against imports from carbon free-riding nations. Married with the current economic malaise, the temptation to slide into a righteous but runaway environmental protectionism -- which Washington's K Street lobbyists would be only too happy to grease -- would almost certainly lead to a collapse of the multilateral trading system. This scenario was presented to the world's trade ministers last December at the United Nations climate talks in Bali by David Runnalls of the International Institute for Sustainable Development.
True, trade anarchy might reduce emissions via a massive global depression. But there would be a lot of collateral damage. Because of the sheer scale of the challenge and the state of the hyperglobalized economy, we will need the same price on carbon everywhere, or it won't work anywhere.
President Obama can define his legacy in the first 100 days by laying the groundwork for a global tax on carbon dioxide emissions that is effective, efficient, equitable and enforceable. An effective, harmonized tax on C02 emissions must stabilize the growth of atmospheric concentrations of GHGs by no later than 2020. The tax must also be adjusted annually, by a global body, according to this objective.
The IPCC has crunched the numbers and says this means a tax of about $50 levied on every metric ton of GHGs, or carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e to use their terminology). In the short-term, consumers would feel the pinch. But the tax would pave the way for cheaper, cleaner energy and ways of getting around.
The most efficient way to apply a carbon tax is at a relatively small number of major carbon bottlenecks, which cover the lion's share of GHGs. The key points where flows of carbon are the most concentrated include: trunk pipelines for gas, refineries for oil, railroad heads for coal, liquid natural gas (LNG) terminals, cement, steel, aluminum and GHG-intensive chemical plants.
Collecting and spending the bulk of revenues from a carbon tax must remain the sovereign right of participating nations. For instance, nations could decide to make the tax revenue-neutral (Dion's Greenshift would have done that) by reducing taxes on income or helping finance industrial retooling for a green economy.
However, we in the rich world must recognize our culpability for creating three-quarters of this global warming mess, as well as our greater capacity to finance industrial retooling. Thus, there could be a carrot for developing-world nations which commit to applying the phased-in carbon tax: Access to a portion of the carbon tax levies from rich countries to help preserve forests and to prepare for climate change through flood walls, improved irrigation, drought resistant crops, desalination facilities, and the like.
This is no small change: 10% of $50/metric ton CO2e carbon tax levied in all rich countries would be $100 billion per year. The stick for carbon free-riding countries would come in the form of incrementally severe penalties, leading up to countervailing duties on carbon-intensive imports.
A global carbon tax levied on a relatively small number of large sources can be monitored by satellite and checked against the annual surveillance of fiscal and economic polices already carried out by IMF staff. Thus, the accounting involved is much more precise and much less subject to the vagaries of corruption and conflict over which industries and companies get their free handouts of carbon credits -- carbon pork -- than in a cap-and-trade system.
There are three reasons why countries, such as China and India, that have traditionally resisted any notion of a common responsibility to make current polluters pay would do well to enlist in this effort.
First, while there is no limit on the downside for missing a hard cap, with a carbon tax you just pay as you go. If a fast-growing country like China accepted an emissions cap and then overshot it, they would have to purchase carbon credits on the international market. If they missed their target by a lot, carbon credits would be scarce, and purchasing them would suck dry their foreign exchange reserves in one slurp. That's why a carbon tax is much easier to swallow and, anyway, through the power of the price signal, it would produce the same desired result as a hard cap.
Second, administering billions of dollars of carbon credits in a cap-and-trade system in an already chaotic regulatory environment would invite a civil war between interest groups seeking billions in carbon credit handouts and the regulator holding the kitty. By contrast, a uniform tax on CO2 emissions levied at a small number of large sites would be relatively clear-cut. During the Montreal Protocol talks in the 1980s, India smartly balked at a suggestion to phase out CFCs in certain products and not in others because of the chaos that would result from the ambiguity.
Third, key people in China read our newspapers. They see the ominous clouds of protectionism under the guise of environmentalism in bills like Lieberman-Warner and they don't want to be harmed; neither should we, given the trillions of dollars of Treasury bills they hold. Showing compliance with a harmonized carbon tax at a small number of large bottleneck points would be child's play compared to the chaos of cap-and-trade.
If President Obama hits the ground running fast in the direction of a global carbon tax, he can usher in a new dawn that might finally make peace between man and climate.
Mr. Nader is a consumer advocate and three-time presidential candidate. Toby Heaps is the coordinator of Option 13, a campaign to help broker a successor to the Kyoto Protocol that includes all major nations.
So the Conservatives might say that Ignatieff can't run from the carbon tax on their ridiculous Ignatieff Me website, but why would he want to run from it? Harper and Prentice might want to put on some running shoes, because soon they'll have to escape from their 'Cap and Trade' taxthat would "....disproportionately hurt working families and seniors living on fixed incomes".
Though numbers show that the jobless rate is astounding, we have to remember that not all of those out of work are included in the figures. Those who haven't sought employment in the past month don't get counted.
