CANADIAN POLITICS:

SOME LATE LATE NIGHT THOUGHTS ON THE RECENT CANADIAN ELECTION:

It's been decades since I voted in any governmental elections (the associations that I belong to don't count). Still, like a reformed smoker, I find myself glued to the TV as election results pour in. The recent election results here in Canada were, if nothing else, interesting. It's been almost two weeks so far, and I have yet to hear the 5:00 am knock at the door that signals that Stephan Harper's friends have come to take me away to the re-education camp. Not that such a thing is beyond him or his buddies, but I give him more credit than that for intelligence.

This election was a do or die affair for Harper and also for the Conservative Party. Without a win Harper would be gone, and the next leader would have either been from the wacky fringe of Biblical literalists (think Stockwell Day) or would have had nowhere near the talent and vision of Harper. Make no mistake about it; Harper does indeed have what has been called his "hidden agenda", but he also has the realism that says that this horror should be imposed by a thousand cuts rather than a "revolution". Look to more of the same with, of course, a bit more corruption and a bit more arrogance in terms of corporate giveaways. In other words a slim Conservative majority will be about the same, though a bit sleazier, as a Conservative minority government. The sky hasn't fallen nor have the evangelical militias come to take your poor little scribe away.

It's true that to borrow the old and hoary Zen koan form, "before the election life goes on; during the election things become confused and after the election life goes on". Unless, of course, you are a Liberal or BQiste. For them the sky did indeed fall and rather spectacularly. To all intents the BQ is finished, and it would be better for them to fold up with as much grace as they can muster. They've always occupied a rather odd spot in the Canadian political spectrum anyways. As for the Liberals it is exceedingly hard to feel any sympathy for them. While in power they became almost as arrogant and crooked as the Conservatives...which takes some doing. Whether they remain as a rump of their past glory depends pretty well exclusively on what the NDP does with its new-found status as official opposition. Nothing !!!! the Liberals can do on their own matters very much.

The NDP. I think it goes without saying that nobody expected the surge in NDP support on election night, even the NDP themselves with their bluster about Layton as Prime Minister. Not that this new status is without its dangers. The natural tendency of a party like the NDP would be to swing right and vacuum up the Liberal support. There is, however, a limit to this in the fact that the majority of their sitting members come from Québec. Not all of these people are "symbolic candidates" who got elected on the party's coat-tails. A good number of them will want policy that is to the left of where the NDP is presently, let alone where they would have to go to sponge up Liberal support. I'm surprised that more people haven't noticed the historical parallels to the explosion of Social Credit support in Québec, and what happened subsequently.

So where does that leave us Canadians ? I can say that I wasn't disappointed by the NDP surge even though I have few illusions about the Party. They ran what has probably been one of the most effective campaigns in Canadian political history, carefully avoiding the over-the-top attack rhetoric of both the Conservatives and Liberals. They were also able to distract attention from the fact that they had little in the way of large scale vision and policy by making a few attractive promises and using the emotional buzz words to far greater effect than the old parties. I honestly believe that if you were to read the speeches of Layton as compared to those of Harper that you would find that Layton used the term "family" far more than than the 'Family Guy Harper'.

I can also say, however, that I was disappointed that we didn't have another minority government. That configuration sets much more comfortable limits on the damage that a political party can do. Which spins us back to Harper again. No doubt there is a selection of the so-called "radical" political class that is quaking in its boots over the removal of the petty funding it has been provided with for many years to pretend to be an opposition. The main result of Harper's first (and one hopes only) term will be a redivision of the spoils as debts are collected so to speak. I have little doubt that Harper does indeed have a "hidden agenda", but he also has a public one that he has hardly been shy about expressing. What the guy wants to do is build a long lasting "conservative consensus" in the country. This doesn't preclude "paying off his buddies". I would expect an ever accelerating number of scandals as Conservative politics seems to attract a great number of people who are "down to the bone crooked". I think, however, that both Harper's friends and his enemies seriously underestimate both his cunning and his opportunism.

So, as I said, I expect very much more of the same in the days to come. I am not complaining too much. For a much more pessimistic view of Canada's politics I refer the reader to a recent item at the Porkupine Blog. On a personal note I am happy that the Greens got a member elected, but I wish it could have been somebody other than Elizabeth May. This isn't solely because her opportunism puts Harper to shame nor is it because she is the right wing favourite in a party whose ideological infighting supasses that of the NDP (Conservatives and Liberals, like countries, have no friends or beliefs...only interests). It finally came to me appropriately enough while I was taking a leak. The reason she inspires a visceral dislike in me is because her act could best be described as that of an elementary school teacher strung out on amphetamines.

CANADIAN POLITICS:
STRAIGHT FROM THE OTHER END OF THE HORSE-HARPER QUOTES:
To the tune of 'Those Were The Days'...things the Conservative leader would like forgotten. For the original sources of these quotes see this link.
Stephen Harper in his own words


Over the years, Stephen Harper has said a number of things that a great many Canadians would be shocked, and even appalled, to learn that they were said by someone who is now our Prime Minister. The following is just a sampling of those quotes:


"Canada is not a bilingual country. In fact it less bilingual today than it has ever been. ... As a religion, bilingualism is the god that failed."
Calgary Sun newspaper column, 2001


"You have to remember that west of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from eastern Canada; people who live in ghettos and are not integrated into Western Canadian society."
Report Magazine, 2001


"It's past time the feds scrapped the Canada Health Act."
"Firewall Letter", 2001


"That's why the federal government should scrap its ridiculous pay equity law."
Speaking as head of the National Citizens Coalition, 1998


"Human rights commissions, as they are evolving, are an attack on our fundamental freedoms and the basic existence of a democratic society. It is in fact totalitarianism. I find this is very scary stuff."
Interview with Terry O’Neill of BC Report


newsmagazine, 1999 "This government's only explanation for not standing behind our allies is that they couldn't get the approval of the Security Council at the United Nations - a body [on] which Canada doesn't even have a seat." CTV's Question Period, March 30, 2003


"I was asked to speak about Canadian politics. It may not be true, but it's legendary that if you're like all Americans, you know almost nothing except for your own country. Which makes you probably knowledgeable about one more country than most Canadians."
Speech to a Montreal meeting of the Council for National Policy, June 1997


"[Y]our country [the USA], and particularly your conservative movement, is a light and an inspiration to people in this country and across the world."
Speech to a Montreal meeting of the Council for National Policy, June 1997


"Canada is a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term, and very proud of it"
Speech to a Montreal meeting of the Council for National Policy, June 1997


"In terms of the unemployed, of which we have over a million-and-a-half, don't feel particularly bad for many of these people. They don't feel bad about it themselves, as long as they're receiving generous social assistance and unemployment insurance."
Speech to a Montreal meeting of the Council for National Policy, June 1997


"Canada appears content to become a second-tier socialistic country, boasting ever more loudly about its economy and social services to mask its second-rate status ..."
Op-ed article in the National Post, December 12, 2000


"Now 'pay equity' has everything to do with pay and nothing to do with equity. It’s based on the vague notion of 'equal pay for work of equal value,' which is not the same as equal pay for the same job."
National Citizens Coalition Overview, Fall 1998


"For taxpayers, however, it’s [pay equity] a rip-off. And it has nothing to do with gender. Both men and women taxpayers will pay additional money to both men and women in the civil service. That’s why the federal government should scrap its ridiculous pay equity law."
National Citizens Coalition Overview, Fall 1998


"Whether Canada ends up as one national government, or two national governments, or several national governments or some other kind of arrangement is, quite frankly, secondary in my opinion."
Speech made when he was a Reform Party MP, 1994

HUMOUR:

DARTH HARPER:

HUMOUR CANADIAN POLITICS: WHAT HARPER WANTS:

CANADIAN POLITICS:

DON'T LET THE CONSERVATIVES KILL CANADA'S CHANCE TO SAVE LIVES:

The following petition to the Conservative Party of Canada and our Conservative federal government comes from the Avaaz organization. Basically there is a piece of legislation, Bill C393, supported by all the opposition parties that would allow an exception to drug patent laws allowing generic drug manufacturers to make generic affordable versions of drugs for the treatment of AIDS in developing countries. In the service of big pharma the Conservatives are blocking the introduction of this bill. Here is the story and a petition asking that the Conservatives relent and allow lives to be saved even if it costs their corporate friend a bit of their profit..

☼►☼►☼►☼►☼►
Let Parliament Vote!‏

A bill is in Parliament that would make Canada a leader in the production of affordable AIDS drugs for developing countries. But the Conservative Party is trying to kill Bill C393 on a technicality, dashing dreams of affordable medicine for the world’s poor before Parliament even has a chance to vote.

The sponsor of the Bill resigned from Parliament last year. To move forward, Parliament has to unanimously approve a new sponsor. This is common, and usually happens without a fuss. But Conservatives are so determined to protect the profits of big pharmaceutical companies, they are refusing to agree to the sponsorship change.

A Canadian company, Apotex, has already pledged to produce and deliver affordable AIDS drugs for children across the world as soon as this Bill is passed. Let's raise a nation-wide call for Conservatives to respect democracy and let Parliament vote on Bill - C393. Sign the petition and forward to all of your friends:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/let_parliament_vote/?vl

The Canadian Access to Medicines Regime doesn’t work - bureaucratic hurdles make production of generic drugs too expensive. But the amendments proposed in Bill-C393 would allow Canadian companies to produce the AIDS drugs people need most, at prices that are affordable for those in developing countries. This Bill is the key to changing Canada’s role in world health provision.

So far, the NDP, Liberals, Greens and the Bloc have pledged to support the Bill’s sponsorship change - understanding that democracy requires honest and open debate in Parliament. Only the Conservatives have refused to support this necessary formality before the Bill undergoes rigorous debate and a fair vote.

Our outrage at this undermining of Canadian democracy - at a time when the legislation could literally save thousands of lives - can force the Conservatives to let Parliament vote fairly on this measure.

http://www.avaaz.org/en/let_parliament_vote/?vl

Canadian democracy has never been about quick tricks and technical maneuvering. Let’s insist Conservative politicians in Parliament support a fair and open debate about access to medicines. Call on the Conservatives to let Parliament vote.

http://www.avaaz.org/en/let_parliament_vote/?vl

With hope,

Emma, Ricken, Laryn, and the rest of the Avaaz team.

Sources:

Children Can't Wait, Dying for Drugs in Devloping Countries (Can. HIV/AIDS Legal Network)
http://www.aidslaw.ca/EN/camr/index.htm

Fighting to get cheap drugs to Africa at critical stage (Toronto Star)
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/930204--fight-to-get-cheap-drugs-to-africa-at-critical-stage

Procedural quagmire could kill dream of cheap AIDS drugs (Xtra)
http://www.xtra.ca/public/National/Procedural_quagmire_could_kill_dream_of_cheap_AIDS_drugs-9706.aspx

☼►☼►☼►☼►☼►

THE PETITION

Please go to this link to sign the following petition to the Prime Minister and the Conservative Party of Canada.

☼►☼►☼►☼►☼►

To Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada::
We call on you to pledge to support the sponsorship of Bill-C393. We urge you to stop undermining Canadian democracy and let Parliament vote on this important measure that would catapult Canada to the forefront of health provision for the world's poor.

HUMOUR:

A SENSE OF PRIORITIES:

CONSUMER AFFAIRS:

PETITION HARPER TO INVEST IN FOOD SAFETY:

The following is an e-petition sent out by the Care2 online community. For those unfamiliar with Care2, it is basically a "greenie" online network with a great number of online bells and whistles. The following petition is, in Molly's opinion, more than slightly vague. I have had items on this blog in the past dealing with food safety, including Canada and the recent Listeriosis crisis. It's all fine and good to say "invest more", but what does this actually mean ? Invest in what ? So, with those reservations, here is the petition.

.........................

TELL PRIME MINISTER HARPER TO INVEST IN FOOD SAFETY:

I'm sure you heard about the 20 people who were killed by tainted Maple Leaf cold cuts this summer. Since then, Canadian leaders have talked a lot about what they are going to do to improve food safety. But nothing has happened.

Tell Prime Minister Harper to invest in food safety now!

Ottawa has given food companies unprecedented power to police their own safety and sanitation practices. Now is not the time to risk our safety because of inadequate funding and a misplaced trust that food companies will protect the public interest.

Please take action today for the safety of your food. This is more than a worthy investment - it's your health.

Thank you for everything you do.
Sincerely,

Emily

Care2 and ThePetitionSite Team

..........................

Please go to one of the highlighted links above to sign the following petition.

..........................

THE PETITION

Dear Prime Minister,

I am writing to ask you to please invest in improvements to food safety and inspection.

After 20 people died over the summer from listeriosis food poisoning I'm worried that the food on my family's table could make us sick, or worse.

It's been months since this tragedy occurred and there are been dozens of products recalled from the marketplace in the last several months, but little has been done to improve consumer protection.

Please invest to improve food safety and inspection as soon as possible.

Sincerely,

[Your name here]

CANADIAN POLITICS:

HARPER AND IGNATIEFF-BETWEEN BEELZEBUB AND ASTOROTH:

Well, according to the CBC our reigning Prince of Darkness, Sneaky Stevie, has met the pretender to the throne, Michael Ignatieff last Friday in what is certain to be the first of several cordial meetings. The meeting lasted just short of an hour. Perhaps there was very little to argue about, unlike SS's meeting with the Governor General before obtaining permission to prorogue Parliament. Two peas in a pod dividing the spoils, to mix metaphors. Look to a new "coalition" in the months to come, a Conservative-Liberal one, without any formal deal signing of course. The same report mentioned that Liberal officials will be meeting with Finance Minister Jim Flaherty this coming week. Hey come on guys; the Liberal-NDP coalition may be dead, but its body has hardly cooled. It seems this is unsightly haste to bury it.

In any case the Liberals have chosen for their leader someone who may equal Sneaky Stevie for sheer distastefulness, if not for personal nastiness. What follows is one opinion on the IG from the pages of the Ottawa Indymedia. Not that Molly agrees with the author's politics, especially his sympathy for the Green Party, but what he has to say about the IG bears mentioning.

..........................

CANADA’S PRINCE OF DARKNESS ASSUMES LEADERSHIP OF THE LIBERAL PARTY:

John Chuckman

Since leaving the shaded groves of Harvard a few years ago, seeking as his second career the running of a country, Michael Ignatieff has been a prominent politician in Canada . He didn’t just pack his bags and come home – he grew up in Canada – he had the encouragement of some Liberal Party officials as a possible future leader.

While it’s true that the Liberals needed to do something to revive their fortunes – Ignatieff is their third leader in a few years – they have acted desperately both in selecting him and in their manner of selecting him.

Canada’s progressive vote is divided among four parties, and the largest of these, the Liberals, was hurt by a scandal in Quebec a few years back. The bright, relentless, frequently less-than-civil Stephen Harper has kept his new Conservative Party in power as a minority for two and a half years, making every measure before Parliament one of confidence, rarely consulting the opposition, and daring them to make his government fall.

Two weeks ago, shortly after an election no one really wanted and a loss of Liberal seats, tempers snapped with Harper’s provocative introduction of three anti-democratic measures described as economic ones – they involved government funding of parties, equity for women, and the right to strike – while holding off any genuine economic measures. Three opposition parties then formed a coalition to topple Harper, something for which there is little precedent in Canada.

Harper started backing off his insulting measures almost immediately, but all trust was broken. In a poor precedent, the Governor General accepted Harper’s request to prorogue Parliament until near the end of January. So on January 26, Parliament will return, Harper will likely introduce some genuine economic measures, and the Liberal Party will have a new leader to face a delicate situation.

The Liberal party executive sees Ignatieff as tough, the kind of attack-dog needed against Harper, and so, behind the scenes, his leadership opponents were pressured to withdraw – including the remarkably talented and highly experienced Bob Rae – leaving only Ignatieff and a party membership feeling it has been ignored.

Ignatieff spent years speaking for America 's global empire, allying himself with the Neo-cons in his enthusiasm for invading Iraq . He joined the ranks of ethical cowards by suggesting some modest role for torture. He since has blubbered something about changing his views, but it's what he did when it mattered that counts. Had he been in office when Bush invaded, Canadians would be killing and being killed in Iraq . Ignatieff has nothing in common with Canada ’s great Liberal tradition, which saw Pearson saying no to Lyndon Johnson over Vietnam and Jean Chretien doing the same to George Bush over Iraq .

Ignatieff’s way to the leadership is consistent with his past. After leaving Harvard, he got his nomination to run for parliament by being parachuted into a riding where he used some questionable tactics. Here is one Toronto newspaper columnist's description of Ignatieff's efforts about three years ago:

"And snookering one potential opponent, name of Shwec, on the grounds that he wasn't a party member, although he'd paid his dues, and another, name of Chyczij, who also happens to be the association president, on the grounds that he hadn't resigned the presidency when he filed. Not to mention locking the office door ahead of the deadline so they couldn't file in time."

It sounds a great deal like politics in Richard J Daley's Chicago or President Mubarak's Egypt .

He told his constituents he would live in the riding, a suburb of modest homes, but instead lives far away in an upper-class condo district, claiming to be "a subway ride away," less than true and certainly not the same thing as living among those he represents.

Arrogance comes with the territory of national leadership, but there is a limit as to what is palatable, and Ignatieff exceeds that limit. He spent most of his adult life in other countries, serving interests often inimical to those of Canada . He has three years of political experience, no organizational experience, no policy experience, in foreign or domestic affairs. But he has a name, and some of our political insiders have tripped over themselves to thrust him forward.

But he is aggressive, arrogant, and has demonstrated Machiavellian skills. I see him as a divisive and anti-democratic figure, much as Stephen Harper.

What a poor choice is left to the people of Canada for the next election. I’ll be throwing my vote to the Greens.

CANADIAN POLITICS:

CONSERVATIVE LIES:

Molly has been kicking this dog before. The following article from The Harper Index is almost 10 days old, but it is still topical despite the lull in Canada's present political scene. As has been mentioned before Sneaky Stevie decided to whip up public opinion against the NDP-Liberal coalition option by draping himself in the Canadian flag, as a "barrier to separatism".

To say the least it wasn't exactly that way at all, and Molly has mentioned previous dealings of the Conservative Party and their previous incarnation as the Reform/Alliance party with the Bloc Québeçois on this blog. Here's a little fleshing out of the details on one such incident.

..........................

Lies and name-calling blow up on Conservatives:
Separatist-bashing could undo all Harper's efforts to win Quebec over.
by Ish Theilheimer
OTTAWA, December 3, 2008: The Harper Conservatives got caught up today in their own bashing of Quebec sovereignists. Not a single government member missed a chance to denounce the "separatist coalition", as the Conservatives mockingly term the proposed Liberal-NDP coalition that would govern with the support of the Bloc Québécois (BQ).

This tactic blew up in the government's face when the Bloc circulated a draft agreement, from 2000, that it made with the Canadian Alliance Party, led by Canada's current trade minister Stockwell Day.

Day, who has been one of the most vocal critics of the Liberal-NDP coalition, angrily denied that he had anything to do with any such deal. "It would be against my very DNA(For a fundamentalist who imagines that the world was created 6,000 years ago this sort of statement doesn't mean much-MOLLY) to do a coalition deal with socialists, and it would absolutely go against my heart and the heart of Canadians to do a deal with separatists," he told the House on Wednesday.

The printed evidence circulated by the Bloc was damning, however. It included both the text of the agreement and a Globe and Mail article from July 29, 2000. It reported that "Canadian Alliance Leader Stockwell Day refused yesterday to rule out forming a post-election coalition with the separatist Bloc Québécois..."

CBC News reported that in July 2000, "Day indicated a willingness to form political ties with the Bloc if it meant ousting the federal Liberals from power. He said his party's position was 'to be open to anybody who's interested in a truly conservative form of government.' ... 'I'm not big on labels,' Day told reporters at the time when asked about a possible coalition to oust Chrétien's Liberals."

This evidence made Day's categorical denials unbelievable, and undermined the Conservatives' main argument, that the Liberals and NDP have betrayed Canada by dealing with the Bloc.

"They're always using us to throw names at one another," shrugged Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe. "That's their problem, not ours." The problem could grow especially acute for Conservatives, if all their separatist-bashing turns Quebeckers permanently against them, after Harper has worked so hard to attract them.

Former NDP leader Ed Broadbent, who helped engineer the coalition pact, is shocked by the number of untruths being told by the Conservatives. He told CBC News in an interview posted on YouTube, "I've never seen the leader of the Conservative Party lie the way Mr. Harper has."
Conservative lies that he listed included saying that: - there was no Canadian flag in the backdrop of the coalition-signing ceremony when, in fact, there were two; - the Bloc is part of the coalition; and - the coalition agreement included Senate appointment for Bloc members.

"They make it up," said Broadbent. "They're trying to change a serious economic situation into a political crisis."

The Bloc, he notes, supported votes of confidence for Harper 14 times.

Broadbent emphasized the importance of focusing on the main goal of the coalition, which is to take quick and decisive action to address the economic crisis by investing in infrastructure and environmental protection.

CANADIAN LABOUR/CANADIAN POLITICS:

RALLIES FOR A COALITION GOVERNMENT:

As Molly writes this tonight the likelihood is that Sneaky Stevie will ask the Governor General to prorogue Parliament when he comes a calling on her next morning. She has little opportunity to refuse. With this unprecedented move Harper will have bought the six weeks or so time that he can cobble together an economic policy that at least looks vaguely stimulatory. The smart money is betting on him stealing large chucks of the program of the coalition in waiting, making it very politically hazardous for the opposition parties to pursue their intentions when Parliament sits again in January.

Thus the following series of rallies may be something of a lost cause, but Molly presents the schedule from the website of the Canadian Labour Congress anyways as a public service.

This evening Harper went on national television to present his case, but nothing was said in his brief address about any plans he might have. Mostly it was an exercise in wrapping himself in the flag and giving dire warnings about the Liberal/NDP coalition being dependent on the Bloc. You know, those horrid separatists and what this dependence might mean. Who knows what it might mean. Probably about the same as the dependence of a certain Canadian federal party on said Bloc to prop up its minority governments over the last two years. Yes...the Bloc has indeed propped up a certain minority government in recent history, voting with it in over a dozen confidence motions and close to 150 other matters of legislation.

Yes, our present Conservative government has had the tacit support of the Bloc throughout its time in office. The hypocrisy of Harper is astounding. Ah, but it's even deeper than that. Who exactly founded the Bloc Quebecois ? Guess who ? The main founder of the BQ was the Conservative cabinet minister Lucien Bouchard who split with the Mulroney government in 1990 after the failure of the Meech Lake Accords. Gathering other Quebec Conservatives and some dissident Liberals around him he was the first leader of the BQ. Yup ! That's right ! Those dreaded separatists whom Stevie Stevie has relied upon to keep him in power during his term are actually a creation of the very party that Harper now leads. Love that flag waving.

Anyways, the prospect of a Liberal/NDP coalition would hardly have delivered paradise on Earth. It always was very much a lesser of two evils option in the face of stupendous arrogance and ideological blindness on the part of the Conservatives. The fallout from this affair is likely to be that Sneaky Stevie, somewhat chastened, will appropriate much of the coalition program. Insofar as the Canadian government can do anything about the coming hard times Stevie will do it by lifting the opposition's suggestions. Ah well, here's the schedule anyways.

.........................

Ottawa, ON
Thursday, December 4th
12 p.m.
Parliament Hill
St. John’s, NL
Thursday, December 4th
7 p.m.
St. Theresa’s Hall Mundy Pond Road
Halifax, NS
Thursday, December 4th
5:30 p.m. - 6:30 p.m.
Maritime Hall – Halifax Forum Windsor & Almon Street (enter off Almon Street)
Charlottetown, PEI
Thursday, December 4th
7 p.m.
Murphy’s Community Centre Richmond Street
Moncton, NB
Thursday, December 4th
7 p.m.
Moncton City Hall Front LawnMain Street
Regina, SK
Thursday, December 4th
7 p.m.
Education Auditorium University of Regina(Room for 650)
Edmonton, AB
Thursday, December 4th
6 p.m.
Winston Churchill Square Downtown Edmonton central
Winnipeg, MB
Thursday, December 4th
7 p.m.
Marlborough Hotel 331 Smith Street Ballroom (Room for 600)
Vancouver, BC
Thursday, December 4th
Doors open @ 5 p.m Speakers @ 6 p.m.
Vancouver Trade & Convention Centre Ballroom “A”
London, ON
Thursday, December 4th
4 p.m.
Victoria Park, North East Corner
Yellowknife, NT
Friday, December 5
12 p.m.
Dennis Bevington MP Constituency Office 4908 - 49th Street
Trail, BC
Thursday, December 4th
7 p.m.
Steelworkers Local 480 Hall 910 Portland Street
Nelson, BC
Thursday, December 4th
7 p.m.
Nelson United Church 602 Silica Street
Sudbury, ON
Saturday, December 6th
1 p.m.
Tom Davies Square 200 Brady Street
Thunder Bay, ON
Friday, December 5
1 p.m.
Labour Centre
Toronto, ON
Saturday, December 6th
12 p.m. 1 p.m.
City Hall Nathan Phillips Square
Sudbury, ON
Saturday, December 6th
1 p.m.
Tom Davies Square200 Brady Street
Montreal, QC
Saturday, December 6th
1 p.m.
In front of the Complexe Guy-Favreau 200 René-Lévesque West

CANADIAN POLITICS/CANADIAN LABOUR:

CANADIAN LABOUR CALLS FOR A COALITION GOVERNMENT:

The following article is from the website of the Canadian Labour Congress. As the federal Conservatives mount their desperate attempt to hold on to power with a massive public relations campaign funded by their overflowing war chest many labour and other progressive organizations are also gearing up to fight and demand a coalition government to replace the Harperites. It has to be admitted that Molly, as an anarchist, has no horse in this race. I haven't supported any political party for decades. Despite this the disgraceful behavior of the Harperites may already have done great harm to the Canadian economy and, thereby, to ordinary Canadians, and it would be "the lesser of two evils" to have them replaced. What they have demonstrated is that, either because of ideological blindness or because of pure political opportunism, they have zero or less concern about the ordinary Canadian and what they may face in the coming hard times.

What our present Governor General has in front of her when she returns to the country is basically three options. If the present government decides to try and prorogue the present sitting of the House of Commons she can either agree or disagree to the request. By Canadian constitutional precedent she is pretty well restricted to the former option. Disagreeing with the request would say bluntly that Harper and his government are attempting to dishonourably dodge the usual parliamentary procedure. To say the least this is unlikely. There is no precedent for this in Canadian parliamentary procedure. Whatever the truth of this statement the actual precedent is on the side of the Conservatives on this. By law Parliament is only required to meet once a year. they've met. case closed. Also, the likelihood of the Governor General making a blunt and truthful statement on the ethics of the government of the day is exactly zero. That has never been done. So...option one, if Harper decides to prorogue the sitting Jean has little choice but to agree.

There's another option that I saw proposed in our local newspaper, the Winnipeg Free Press, today. The columnist, Roger Gibbons of the Canada West Foundation, has proposed what is basically much more of a coup than anything that the Conservatives have claimed in their frenzied propaganda. What he, as an obvious hard core Conservative supporter, has proposed is that the parliamentary rules of Canada be abolished, that the GG "refuse" (cough, cough) the resignation of Harper should he be defeated in a Commons vote and that the government of Canada become an open dictatorship that no longer has to abide by the rules. This is not an option to any reasonable person, and, given that Harper has sent the best portion of the Canadian Army to serve American interests in Afghanistan it is not even an option for the most vicious Conservative. What the presentation of such an option shows is both the desperation of Conservative supporters and just how microscopically thin their commitment to democracy is. Scratch a Conservative and you uncover a Pinochet.

But there are other options. They follow a possible defeat of the Conservatives in the upcoming week if they decide not to try and dodge the bullet by proroguing Parliament. If the Harperites are defeated then Jean's options are either to 1)accept the inevitable call for a new $300 million election in the depths of winter just weeks after the last one and in the middle of an economic crisis or 2)to accept the proposal of the Liberals and NDP to form a coalition government with the support of the BQ. The latter course of action has precedent behind it, especially as the parties to the proposed coalition have presented a plan that gives at least a prospect of governmental stability for the next year and a half.

Those are the three options: 1)prorogue Parliament, 2)call a new election or 3)let the coalition govern. In the meantime there are lingering questions about how the Harperites are attempting to frame their attempt at rousing the population to their side. According to a recent poll reported on CTV they are going to have a hard time. This Angus Reid poll said that, Canada wide, only 35% of the Canadian population want the Conservatives to continue in power (less than their popular vote in the last election) while 40% want change. If the government does fall 37% want the opposition coalition while only 32% want a new election. 24% aren't sure. It seems that the Harperites have a high hill to climb.

Another thing that Molly has noticed, though it has hardly been mentioned in the mass media, is that the Conservatives have very bluntly abandoned their chances at ever becoming a majority !! government by deciding to frame their public attack ads as an "anti-Quebec" campaign. The rhetoric about the NDP's supposed "socialism" is there, those it is understandably muted because the proposed coalition agreement gives the NDP essentially no input about serious financial matters. In any case the "socialism" of the NDP is about as dilute as if one were to drop one drop of red dye into Lake Superior. The Republicans tried the same tactic in the recent US elections, and that penguin failed to fly as well. It is even less likely to have resonance up here in the frozen north where "socialism" is often more of a compliment rather than an indication of the object of the "insult" wearing horns.

Ah, but then we get to the idea of the Conservative hard core that they can revive the "French on cereal boxes" troopers to rally to them. This may have some quick and easy resonance as the same Angus Reid poll mentioned above says that 57% of Canadians in general are concerned about the BQ support of the coalition while only 30% are not concerned. Yet...in Quebec only 36% are concerned. Forty seven percent don't care at all. Kiss your remaining Quebec seats goodbye Harper. How well this immediate attack will survive the obvious retort that separatism cannot be promoted by a federal party such as the BQ but can only achieve it goals via an election in Quebec itself ie provincially is hard to say. Success in such a matter can only depend on the Canadian population remaining as ignorant of their constitution as the Conservatives think they are and hope they remain.

What IS certain is that the present Harper anti-Quebec campaign is doing great damage to Canadian unity, and that the more vicious it gets the more it will alienate people in Quebec. If some of the supporters of the Conservatives are quite happy with dictatorship, as mentioned above, then it should come as no surprise that they would ALSO be quite happy to rule over a rump of a country....just as long as they could rule. The Conservatives are presently playing a dangerous game, and their false cover of "patriotism" should be seen as what it is. In the end game the Conservatives are not only willing to sacrifice ordinary Canadians' interests in the present crisis to their ideology and their power hunger. They are also willing to sacrifice the future interests of people in both Quebec and the rest of Canada to their power hunger as well. Few doubt that a divided country, in whatever configuration and whatever long period of uncertainty, would be less prosperous than it is today. All that Molly can say to this is, "are you willing to live on welfare (at 2/3rds of the rate today) just so you don't have to read French on your cereal boxes ? " Think about it.

This "introduction", however, has gone on and on, much longer than the article that follows below. Here's the statement from the Canadian Labour Congress. The reader will also note that I haven't, to this point, spoken as an anarchist but rather as an ordinary concerned citizen, appalled by the actions of our government. I hope to correct this omission in further posts.

............................

Coalition Government to Deal with the Economic Crisis:
The Economic and Fiscal Update released by Finance Minister Flaherty on November 27, 2008 demonstrates that the Conservative government has no intention of seriously dealing with the global economic crisis and the prospect of fast rising unemployment.

The recent G-20 Summit meeting called on governments to "take urgent and exceptional measures" to stimulate their economies in a co-ordinated way to stop a slide into a global depression.

The incoming Obama administration in the United States plans to invest $500 to $700 billion in January 2009 to create 2.5 million jobs over the next two years, with a major focus on public infrastructure, the environment and improved unemployment benefits.

The governments of Britain, Australia and China have already followed up on G-20 calls for investments of about 2% of national income, which would amount to $30 billion in the case of Canada. The European Union have just introduced a major package.

Instead of acting here, the Conservative Economic and Fiscal Update pretends that yesterday's tax cuts have already done the job and says that "the Government is planning on balanced budgets or better for the current and the next five years."

Instead of investing in jobs and people, the Conservative government plans to cut spending by almost $2 billion next year. That is on top of cuts to equalization payments to the provinces of $1.8 billion next year and $5 billion the year after. The government plans to raise more than $2 billion next year by selling off public assets (at what will be fire sale prices). It also signalled a move to shut down pay equity in the federal jurisdiction.

The Economic and Fiscal statement put forward a rose-coloured economic forecast which completely ignores the reality of large recent job losses and a looming recession. It forecasts economic growth of 0.3% next year, compared to the TD Bank's forecast of a fall in Gross Domestic Product of 1.1% in 2009. It forecasts an unemployment rate of under 7% next year, while TD Bank forecasts the national unemployment rate will rise from 6.2% today, to 7.6% in 2009, to 7.9% in 2010.

In short, the Conservative government has no positive plan to deal with the crisis and intends to respond to a downturn through cuts rather than needed investments in jobs and people.
Rather than work to bring Canadians together, they chose to use the excuse of a crisis to try and ram through a partisan and mean-spirited agenda.

The Conservatives are unwilling to make Parliament work and refuse to provide Canadians with the leadership they need to weather the deepening economic crisis.
We deserve better.
The Canadian Labour Congress has called for a major package including:
***A multi year public investment program covering basic municipal infrastructure, energy conservation, public transit and renewable energy, twinned to Made in Canada procurement programs;
***Investments in job creating public services like child care;
***Improvements to Employment Insurance benefits and increased investments in training;
Measures to protect workers' pensions and improve public pensions;
***Concrete action to save manufacturing and forestry jobs and to help hard hit industries restructure thorough new investments.

We are greatly encouraged that the Opposition parties are prepared to work together around a positive agenda and strongly support efforts to provide Canadians with an alternative that works in the country's best interests.

CANADIAN POLITICS:

ADD YOUR VOICE FOR A COALITION GOVERNMENT:

As mentioned before on this blog our dearly beloved comrade leader Sneaky Stevie has put off Monday's confidence vote into the week after. Whether this is an indication of panic at having one's bluff called or a more realistic move to try and split the opposition parties is anyone's guess. The sheer unmitigated arrogance of presenting a mini-budget at a time of worldwide finacial crisis that promises to do exactly nothing about it shows that perhaps the Conservatives are almost totally out of touch with reality. It may also, by its inclusion of a populist provision to cut off political funding, demonstrate a complete lack of concern about the issues that Canadians feel most strongly about at this time. An attempt to buy the pissed-off vote while doing nothing about the real crisis.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) has initiated an online campaign to ask the leaders of the opposition parties to set their differences aside and form a coalition government to replace the Conservatives. As I have expressed before on this blog I think that this is actually quite a good idea. Not that I think that it will bring a free society one second closer in reality. Not that I think that the opposition parties are anything stupendous either. All that matters is that in the near future our present Conservative rulers have the potental to do great harm either by ideological blindness of pure selfish partisanship. it's best they don't have the opportunity. Here's the proposal from CUPE, along with a link to the letter.

.................................

For a coalition government:

CUPE joins the CLC, other unions and civil society organizations in asking federal opposition parties to form a coalition government Add your voice.

Stephen Harper’s conservative government - in the face of the worst global economic crises in decades - chose to present an “empty” fiscal update and do nothing to prevent unemployment chaos across the country.

“People right across this country have been waiting patiently for their government to act on their behalf. But once more Stephen Harper has let people down,” said Paul Moist.

The Harper government gave themselves a week cancelling opposition day, where the Liberals could have introduced a no-confidence motion to defeat the government.

Harper has scheduled the next opposition day for Dec. 8.“Can we expect another week of conservative tv ads instead of good strong fiscal leadership. Don’t be surprised,” said Moist.

...............................

Here's the text of the letter that CUPE is asking you tos end to the leaders of the opposition parties.

...............................

Français suit
An Urgent Message to Stéphane Dion and Jack Layton:

Only a Coalition Government Can Provide the Leadership Canada Needs

Dear Leaders,

I write to you during this time of economic crisis to urge that you set aside all partisan considerations in favour of decisive action to help Canadians who are suffering and whose livelihoods are in jeopardy.

At this critical moment, a coalition government would be the most capable of delivering the kind of stewardship the economy needs, and the least likely to put partisan interests ahead of responsible government.

Time is of the essence. You have an unprecedented opportunity to deliver to citizens a coalition that is capable of putting aside partisan ploys and to work cooperatively and swiftly in the interests of all.

Thank You
+++
Message urgent à Stéphane Dion et Jack Layton : seul un gouvernement de coalition peut offrir le leadership dont le Canada a besoin
Chers dirigeants,
Je vous écrire en ce temps de crise économique pour vous presser de mettre de côté les considérations partisanes, et d’agir d’une manière décisive pour aider les Canadiens qui en arrachent et dont les moyens de subsistance sont en péril.

En ce moment critique, le mieux placé pour offrir le genre d’intendance dont a besoin l’économie, et pour faire passer la responsabilité gouvernementale avant les intérêts partisans… serait un gouvernement de coalition.

Le temps, ici, est essentiel. Vous avez une occasion sans précédent d’offrir aux citoyens une coalition capable de mettre de côté les ruses partisanes afin d’œuvrer ensemble, et rapidement, dans le sens des intérêts de tous.

CANADIAN POLITICS:

HARPER FIDDLES THE 'CHICKEN SONG' WHILE THE ECONOMY BURNS:

Sneaky Stevie has actually "out-Bushed Bush", his older brother in neoconservatism. While the outgoing American President has pretty well restricted himself to making religious sounding sounds about the ultimate virtues of the free market along with trying to set as many legislative traps as possible to preserve the vested interests he represents from evisceration once he leaves office our own dear beloved leader has actually gone against the collective wisdom of both the consensus of world economists and other industrial nation governments by refusing to see the need to put forward a stimulus package. The federal Conservatives rather have put forward a "mini-budget" that goes in precisely the opposite direction by purporting to cut expenditures.

The cuts are, of course, trivial, but they are well chosen for maximum populist appeal. The tying og the refusal to "prime the pump" via increased expenditure to the proposition of abolishing the electoral subsidization of federal political parties via the "money for votes" provision of our electoral act is particularly brilliant. Even though the amount of money saved will be trivial it puts the opposition parties in an unenviable position of appearing to be advancing merely their own interests when they oppose the do-nothing Conservative "budget". This little addendum, of course, hardly belongs in a budget. Its inclusion is an obvious manipulation. Sneaky Stevie is, if nothing else, well...sneaky. Few outside of party members have any affection for the idea that tax money should be spent subsidizing political parties. Abolition of this give away would even get my approval providing it was coupled to a cap on total political spending such that the Conservative Party's expenditures would be no more than that of the Communist Party of Canada, or ,better yet, the Marijuana Party. Good idea the latter...more dope, less dopes.

As I write this the backroom deals between ex-leaders of the Liberals (Jean Chretien) and the NDP (Ed Broadbent) are being negotiated. Conspicuous by his absence is ex-Liberal leader Paul Martin. Actually quite strange this way of making deals. Bloc Québecois leader Gilles Duceppe has made his feeling apparent. The idea of his party being an official coalition partner is, of course, absurd from both a federal and a Québec perspective, but he is a "kingmaker" who will extract more than the potential coalition partners will extract from each other in terms of policy and expenditure.

One actually has to hand it to Sneaky Stevie with this move- tying an obviously absurd economic do-nothing policy to a trivial but resonant populist measure. One wonders what is in his mind. Perhaps he is so used to playing chicken and winning from his time in minority government that he feels he can "bluff off" the opposition and change his policy to whatever is necessary next spring. Perhaps he actually wants to abandon power temporally either by provoking an election that he thinks he could win by dint of frustration or by putting a divided opposition into power during an economic downturn which will be much more serious than his Pollyanna projections say.

That is one of the things that Molly has noticed. While the Conservative government says that the present recession/depression will end next April 9an obviously absurd case of wishful thinking) they have proposed that federal civil servants should be prohibited from striking or receiving anything but trivial wage increases for three years. I would submit that the latter is a much more realistic time frame for how long we will be in hard times. Hopefully not longer, but that is possible as well.

The possibility of a coalition minority government may be the best thing that we could see at this time. The madder ideas of any one party would be inhibited by the need to satisfy the other coalition partners. The government would actually be more open to objective economic facts rather than ideology. Not a bad thing indeed. Most importantly the government would be much more open than what we have become accustomed to under the recent rule of the Conservatives. Molly is, of course, an anarchist, and she has no delusions that such a situation would be utopia. It would, especially, not safeguard us against future economic vagaries nor would it lead to the fastest recovery. A cooperative and localist upsurge, along with a redesigning of our industrial production via producer cooperatives would be best. . In the absence of this utopia, however, proper bargaining rather than ideological dictation is a better way.

Here's another view of the prospect of an upcoming coalition government from the Harper Index, a website devoted to keeping a microscopic eye on Sneaky Stevie's manipulations.

........................

Coalition push forces Harper onto the defensive:
Momentum - including open online letter grows to replace minority Conservatives.
OTTAWA , November 28, 2008: Momentum is growing for the replacement of the Harper Conservatives by a Liberal-NDP coalition. Two months ago, when the idea was first broached in StraightGoods.ca, almost all parties dismissed the idea. Now, a non-confidence vote could see the government fall as soon as Monday night.

All day today, negotiations took place between the opposition parties, with former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and former NDP leader Ed Broadbent taking lead roles. Then tonight, Harper took the extraordinary move of making a special address to Parliament and the nation. In it, he postponed a confidence vote on the economic statement finance minister Jim Flaherty made yesterday to a week Monday instead of Monday. And he attacked the opposition as undemocratic for wanting to replace his government without an election.

"While we have been working on the economy, the Opposition has been working on a backroom deal to overturn the results of the last election without seeking the consent of voters," Harper said. " They want to take power, not earn it." Ironically, the bulk of reaction to the economic statement was over widespread perceptions that the government's statement showed a lack of work on the economic crisis.

Harper has difficulty making the kind of compromises demanded of a minority prime minister. Instead of bringing Canadians together to fight the crisis, Flaherty's statement Thursday was viciously partisan. In it, he trashed longtime political targets like pay equity and labour rights in the public service, as well as political finance rules put in place to level the playing field.

Open online letter to Dion and Layton calls for a coalition government As political leaders huddle in Ottawa, activists across Canada are becoming involved in the push for a coalition. Canadians everywhere are being urged to sign an online open letter calling for coalition that began with a small group pulled together by the Rideau Institute. The letter urges the Liberal's Stéphane Dion and the NDP's Jack Layton to "set aside all partisan considerations in favour of decisive action to help Canadians who are suffering and whose livelihoods are in jeopardy."

The letter argues it was bitterly ironic for Stephen Harper to promise to work cooperatively with opposition parties, and then deliver such a partisan attack with no plan to fight the economic crisis and the stated intention not to run deficits, in the face of what other G20 countries are doing.

"Instead his Conservative government is using the crisis to attack the democratic process, violate the rights of public servants to bargain collectively and end pay equity," states the letter. "Canada now stands alone as the only government in the western world without a coherent economic stimulus plan. The Harper government talks of balancing the budget by selling off assets and restraining spending, the exact opposite of the stimulus response that virtually all economists and many others are arguing is necessary." The original signers of the letter are : Paul Moist, National President, Canadian Union of Public Employees

Ken Lewenza, President, Canadian Auto Workers

Dave Coles, President, Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada

Denis Lemelin, National President, Canadian Union of Postal Workers

Steven Staples, President, Rideau Institute

Bruce Campbell, Executive Director, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives

John Urquhart, Executive Director, Council of Canadians

Mel Watkins, Emeritus Professor of Economics, University of Toronto

Peggy Mason, Former UN Ambassador for Disarmament

CANADIAN POLITICS:

THE DEVIL YOU KNOW:

It's now 11:22 pm here in that throbbing centre of the universe known as Winnipeg, and the Canadian election has been decided. a tiny few seats may change hands as late polls come in or in later recounts, but the essential features of the new Parliament is pretty much obvious.

At the dissolution of the last parliament the standings were as follows: CONS: 124, LIB 103, BLOC 51, NDP 29, IND 1. The standings at this time are CONS 143, LIB 77, BLOC 49, NDP 37, IND 2.

The Conservatives increased their seat total but still fell short of the 155 seats they would need to form a majority government. This is Sneaky Stevie's second kick at the can, and in other parties the knives might be sharpened, but unseating Harper would be a task of the magnitude of unseating Stalin. Both are supreme masters of the art of the apparat. No doubt Harper himself was more or less to blame for the inability to reach a majority with his remarks on "youth crime" and "culture" that basically demolished Conservative chances in Québec. What was remarkable was the fact that the Conservatives held on to their 10 Québec seats, as indications were that they were likely to crash and burn entirely. Without the remarks it would have been likely that the Tories would have achieved their majority via new seats in La Belle Province. One wonders if Harper ever actually studied the career of Stalin, as his "centrist" (in the world of the Conservative Party) politics are almost a carbon copy of those of Uncle Joe. This even goes as far as his retinue of former Right and Left Opposition figures, now cringing before the Dear Leader and begging what political survival they can inside the party.

Harper's mastery of party conspiracy was actually what did him in. He calculated rightly that it was time to throw a bone to the lock-em-up and damn thet culture feller wing of his party, but he paid too much attention to them and failed to take account of the feelings of the general population in Québec. This arrogance will eventually be Harper's undoing, but not this time around. While the man is a true master of party conspiracy he has at least the same contempt for the ordinary citizen as displayed by a university leftist. One can even imagine that he has great contempt for his own supporters. So Stevie slide in by the skin of his teeth, but the fact that he couldn't win a majority even when facing a formless Liberal Party, riven by deep hatreds, touting an incomprehensible "platform" that was totally overtaken by international economic events and led by a man with all the charisma of vanilla pudding will eventually tell on him.

The Liberals are, of course, the great losers in this election, and it's quite appropriate that the vote was counted on a Full Moon night. The party wolves are howling for Dion's blood as we speak. Look for the other Stephan to be gone in less than a year. If anybody crashed and burned tonight it was "Canada's Natural Governing Party". They managed to avoid disaster in Québec, probably due to a last minute drop in BQ support, but they flamed out in Ontario, their other remaining base.

The NDP gained seats but with a minimal gain in the popular vote. Layton failed to achieve his actual goal, of becoming the official opposition, and it's unlikely the same opportunity will arise again in the near future. The NDP's future will depend upon how "painlessly" the Liberals can remove Dion and rebuild. Their success in this is anybody's guess, as there is no other Canadian party as deeply divided as the Liberals. As to the old ex-Maoist Duceppe his time has probably come as well. The BLOC had a great lead in the last two weeks of the campaign, and it essentially evaporated on election night. Duceppe has already expressed his desire to leave federal politics, and it's unlikely that he will stay on for long. The Greens also lost heavily by not winning anything, even though they got some respectable vote tallies in some constituencies. It's hard to say how long they can go on cruising on taxpayer funds for the votes they receive while never actually becoming a real party. Don't expect, however, any great recriminations against their leader, Elizabeth May. The present "state of the Greens" is the result of a long fought out struggle between their left and right wings, and the right wing won handily. The left wing of the Greens basically consists of those whose politics could be summed up as "fad following", and it is hardly to be expected that they could mount a serious challenge to the present ruling clique.

So that's where we are in Canada today. A minority government is actually the best of all possible outcomes. The need to cooperate and compromise will prevent Sneaky Stevie from trying to implement his wilder ideas. In perilous economic times no country needs to be governed ideologically, especially if the ideology is the same one that sunk the US economy. So keep on smiling. The world goes on, and so does the Ottawa circus.

CANADIAN POLITICS:

MORE SERVICES ON THE BLOCK IF HARPER WINS:

While, given the polls, it is becoming exceedingly doubtful that the Harper Conservatives will win a majority mandate (though it is still possible) one should look at what Sneaky Stevie has been able to "accomplish" with a minority. It is doubtful that even the present economic crisis will persuade the Conservatives to abandon their George Bush-like commitment to the same policies that brought the world's economy to its present state. Here's an article from the Public Values.Ca website about how the recent listeria outbreak is merely the "tip of the iceberg" in terms of what Harper's goals are.

..............................

CFIA problems are the tip of the privatization iceberg - food inspector Bob Kingston:
Seventeen other departments could face potentially deadly cuts like CFIA did due to a pro-privatization ideology.
OTTAWA, October 8, 2008 — The listeriosis outbreak that has killed 20 Canadians could be "the tip of the iceberg" both in terms of food safety dangers and risks from other federal cutbacks, according to Agriculture Union President and food inspector Bob Kingston.

At the official launch announcement of PublicValues.ca, Kingston said that CFIA cutbacks, which contributed to the outbreak, were more moderate than those planned by the Conservative government for other departments.

"I'd suggest there are 17 other documents floating around just like" the one detailing CFIA cuts that biologist Luc Pomerleau was fired for releasing.

"What the Harper Conservatives are all about is deregulation and privatizing," said Kingston. "But beyond the privatizing part of it, it's the self-policing. That nonsense — that it's in the company's best interests to put out good products, so basically, why do you need regulation! If that were true, we wouldn't even be in a financial crisis."

He predicted more tragedies ahead if the federal government goes ahead with across-the-board departmental cuts. "It really is the tip of the iceberg. It's a tragedy that 20 people had to die before this government even paid attention. They still tried to bury it as an election item, saying they were going to have an inquiry."

He says the Harper government is driven by extreme pro-privatization ideology, pointing to their actions to strip the Canadian Wheat Board of its marketing powers. Giant companies have been pushing for years to take these powers away from the Board.

"Along comes the Harper government. It's the first government that's actually listened to them," said Kingston, "and blindly followed what they said. We're seeing that sector by sector. They have a belief that corporations are intrinsically good and the profit motive will always lead you to ultimately the best result... I think it's deadly, obviously, when it's acted out in real life."

He said the government is driven by "pure ideology and they tolerate no resistance." He said Harper fired agriculture minister Chuck Strahl for saying the government needed to talk to farmers after the government lost a court ruling over the Wheat Board. "Within two hours he was fired and Harper had gone on national TV and directly contradicted him. That's how Gerry Ritz got the job."

Here is an excerpted transcript of Kingston's remarks at the launch of PublicValues.ca:

..........................

I mention this as the tip of the iceberg. I don't think that could be overstated. The whole issue around food safety and the deregulation - it's been going on for a while but it came to a head of course this summer with the listeria outbreak. Leading into it was the release of a document that outlined this government's plans for the slaughterhouses. What they have already done, in terms of the self-policing of the food industry, has taken place within the processing end of it. Their next target was the slaughter plants, where the risk is even greater.

That's the document that a member got fired for bringing to the attention of their union. That's the one you can still see on our website, that FoodSafetyFirst website. What people need to know, that was part of the strategic review at CFIA. CFIA was only one of 18 departments that was in the same boat. And CFIA was actually treated kinder by this government, believe it or not, than the other 17 departments that were being reviewed.

I'd suggest there are 17 other documents floating around just like it. And that was only year one of the strategic review initiated by the Harper government. Every year they take a quarter of the public service and they do the same analysis of their work and that means these strategic review documents are now in play for the second round of departments, and on and on it will go. They're not asking departments to justify what they do... What they're saying is, you have to identify the lowest 5 percent of what you think is your priorities. It's hard to tell that to CFIA, because of course what they deal with, everything they deal with most people would consider somewhat critical. But they had to identify their 5 percent lowest priority and reallocate funds. Treasury Board told them flat out, the Harper Treasury Board told them flat out that if they didn't it would be done for them. That's what all the departments are facing.

So it really doesn't matter whether the lowest 5 percent in a given department might be the top 5 percent in any other department. That's irrelevant. They just want to see cuts, cuts, cuts. I know they keep talking about pumping more money into it, but you can take a look at any year's spending plans that this government has in place and you will see the next two years always, always, without exception, are about cuts and cuts and cuts. No matter what kind of nonsense they keep saying about increasing spending.

What the Harper Conservatives are all about is deregulation and privatizing. But beyond the privatizing part of it, it's the self-policing — that nonsense that it's in the company's best interests to put out good products, so basically, why do you need regulation? If that were true, we wouldn't even be in a financial crisis.

It really is the tip of the iceberg. It's a tragedy that 20 people had to die before this government even paid attention. They still tried to bury it as an election item, saying they were going to have an inquiry...

We're doing everything we can to keep [these issues] in the public eye during the election. We hope that other people take up the issues of privatization, self-policing, etc., as well and hold these guys accountable. Because right now they are so ideologically bent toward this stuff it is scary. There's no rhyme or reason. There's no rational discussions you can have with these folks.

Take the Canadian Wheat Board, for example. They say they consult with farmers. Well, the Minister had a meeting here in Ottawa where he had what he considered industry representatives. It was something called Western Canada Barley Growers Association. When they had to file documents in court in Calgary, when the farmers took Harper to court, this Western Canada Barley Growers Association had about 140 something members and most of them were corporations, not even growers. And the 10,000 barley growers that are out in the west — I don't think would honestly feel this is a true representation of their interests.
But the National Farmers Union, which does represent about 10,000 members, were totally shut out of the meeting. They even showed up in town here and asked to attend, and it was a secret meeting. They wouldn't tell them where the address was. So this is the way Harper's government has been running. I mean, they're locked onto an ideological path and no amount of logic seems to sway them. So it's only public outcry that I think will eventually do the trick, and launching a site like this, I'm hoping, will help get us there.

We have legislation in place since 1912 - the Grain Act - to protect small farmers in this country and basically a way of life and to oversee a system where everybody could profitably exist. It was put in place, as I said, specifically to protect small producers from large international companies.

The companies we're talking about, Cargill, Dreyfus, etc., they're the largest private companies on the planet. Between a handful of them they control about 80 percent of the world's food supply. They have been lobbying successive governments since 1912 to change that act and get rid of it, because it protected farmers from them. And they couldn't control the farmers in Canada the way they do in many other countries.

Along comes the Harper government. It's the first government that's actually listened to them, and blindly followed what they said. We're seeing that sector by sector. They have a belief that corporations are intrinsically good and the profit motive will always lead you to ultimately the best result...

That seems to follow every decision they make with respect to deregulation — the profit motive will eventually get us to some perfect place. I think it's deadly, obviously, when it's acted out in real life and they just don't seem to get it. But we're convinced it's pure ideology and they tolerate no resistance.

As a matter of fact, when they lost their first court case in Calgary, before they appealed it in Winnipeg — this is when the farmers all took them to court when they tried to deconstruct the Wheat Board — and the courts actually said, this organization belongs to farmers. You need to talk to farmers. One of his ministers at the time, Chuck Strahl, was asked: what does this court case mean? And he said, maybe it means we need to talk to farmers. Within two hours he was fired and Harper had gone on national TV and directly contradicted him. We're not talking to farmers, period.

And that's how Gerry Ritz got the job. I mean, this guy will tolerate no opposition... I've been around for a while and I've never seen a leader of this country so ideologically bent in one direction.
Links and sources

Food Safety First website