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/INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS:

NO TO COLOMBIAN/CANADA FREE TRADE BILL ON MONDAY:

This coming Monday, September 14, the House of Commons will be voting on a proposal to set up a free trade deal with Colombia. Colombia is a country of massive human rights violations, and it would merely encourage the government there on its present course to give its good most favoured nation status. There are indications that Liberal MPs will support the government on this bill. The Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) has launched a email campaign to Liberal MPs and their leader Michael Ignatieff, asking that they vote against the Bill. Here's the appeal.

CPCPCPCPCPCPCP

Vote coming on Canada Colombia Free Trade:
The Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement is to be the first order of business when the House of Commons reconvenes on Monday, Sept. 14. There are strong indications that Liberal MPs will support the bill.

We managed to back them off once before - we need to do it again.

Send a message to Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff and his leading MPs. Urge them to oppose the CCFTA.

Ask your friends and family to do likewise.

CLCLCLCLCLCLCL

THE LETTER:

Please go to THIS LINK to send the following letter to Michael Ignatieff and other members of the Liberal caucus.

CLCLCLCLCLCLCL

I am writing to urge you to reject the Canada-Colombia trade deal.

I've heard it's to be the first item of business when parliament reconvenes Sept. 14.

Under the government of President Alvaro Uribe, the Colombian people are living in a constant state of poverty and fear.

The Uribe government has one of the worst human rights records in the world.

Under Uribe’s watch, an estimated 5 million Colombians have been forcibly displaced through land seizures, trade unionists and civil society activists risk death simply for advocating basic labour rights.

More than 2,500 have been killed by the state and its paramilitaries since 1986, including 40 in 2008.

And yet the Harper Conservatives have tabled legislation to implement a free trade agreement with Colombia.

Human rights must come before trade.

I hope the Liberal Party will put the well-being of 45 million Colombians first, and oppose ratifying the impending trade deal with Colombia.

CANADIAN POLITICS:
CHANGING IGGY'S MIND:
It's been a little while since I passed on the appeal for Colombian city of workers who were forced out of their jobs by the repressive government of that country, one that the Harper Conservatives plan to impliment a free trade deal with. Here is a follow-up, also from the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) asking you to put pressure on Michael Ignatieff, the leader of the federal Liberal party to refuse to support Harper's plans. The plan agreement will not pass without Liberal support, and this would be a good time for The Ig to show that he has a smidgeon of conscience rather than being one more calculating politicians. Is such a thing possible ? Qualms of conscience have come about in the strangest places in human history. Maybe they can here as well.
%%%%%%%%%%%%
We have two weeks to change Iggy's mind on Colombia 2 semaines pour convaincre Michael Ignatieff‏:
I'm writing because the Harper government has tabled a bill that would implement a free trade agreement with the Colombian government. The same government that privatized the Cali workers' jobs, the same one that has watched over the deaths of 2,500 trade unionists, human rights activists and community leaders since 2006.





Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff could stop this bill when it comes to a vote in the next few weeks. The Conservatives need the Liberals' support to pass it. Right now, they have it.
Send Ignatieff a message that will change his mind.
%%%%%%%%%%
Je vous écris parce que le gouvernement Harper a déposé un projet de loi visant l’entrée en vigueur d’une entente de libre-échange conclue avec le gouvernement de Colombie. Il s’agit du même gouvernement qui a privatisé les emplois des travailleurs de Cali, le même gouvernement qui, depuis 1986, s’est fait complice de la mort de 2 500 syndicalistes, militants des droits de la personne et dirigeants des mouvements communautaires.





Le chef libéral, Michael Ignatieff, peut bloquer ce projet de loi lorsqu’il sera proposé au vote d’ici quelques semaines. Les conservateurs ont besoin de l’appui des libéraux pour que la loi soit adoptée et en ce moment, ils peuvent compter sur leur appui.
Faites parvenir un message à M. Ignatieff en espérant qu’il contribuera à le faire changer d’idée.
%%%%%%%%%%
Here's more on the situation as it stands today.

%%%%%%%%%%
Michael Ignatieff can halt free trade with Colombia:
Michael Ignatieff can stop free trade with Colombia. Harper's Conservatives have tabled a bill that would implement the deal they negotiated with the Uribe government. But they need the Liberal's support.





The Liberal leader supports the deal even though the Uribe government has the worst human rights record in Latin America.





He needs to re-think that and you can help him.





Under Colombian President Alvaro Uribe’s watch, an estimated 5 million Colombians have been forcibly displaced through land seizures, and trade unionists and civil society activists risk death simply for advocating basic labour rights.





More than 2,500 have been killed by the state and its paramilitaries since 1986, including 40 in 2008.
%%%%%%%%%%
THE LETTER:
Please go to THIS LINK to send the following message to Michael Ignatieff.
%%%%%%%%%%
I am writing to urge you to you and the Liberal Party to reject the Canada-Colombia trade deal.





Under the government of President Alvaro Uribe, the Colombian people are living in a constant state of poverty and fear.





The Uribe government has one of the worst human rights records in the world.





Under Uribe’s watch, an estimated 5 million Colombians have been forcibly displaced through land seizures, trade unionists and civil society activists risk death simply for advocating basic labour rights.





More than 2,500 have been killed by the state and its paramilitaries since 1986, including 40 in 2008.





And yet the Harper Conservatives have tabled legislation to implement a free trade agreement with Colombia.





Human rights must come before trade.





I hope the Liberal Party will put the well-being of 45 million Colombians first, and oppose ratifying the impending trade deal with Colombia.

CANADIAN POLITICS:

HARPER'S BUDGET FALLS FLAT:

Molly has presented several other opinions, and made her own ideas known, on the subject of the recent federal budget. Michael Ignatieff, the leader of the federal Liberals, has decided to give Harper a pass, and thus what you see is what you get in terms of Canada's response to the economic crisis. Here's yet another opinion on the matter from the pages of the Public Values website.

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

Half-hearted budget won't help the hard-hit:
by John Baglow
The just-tabled Conservative budget resembles a magic show. It's all about appearance and psychology, the fostering of illusions in the public mind. Stimulus packages are like that, of course: they are intended to inspire confidence in consumers and investors by injecting a little oil into a seized economy. But some packages are better than others.

The heavy emphasis on tax cuts — the voluntary renunciation of tax revenue — means less to spend on childcare, education, health and social security, all of which need more, not fewer, resources in a deep recession.

And the actual spending program, which as one commentator puts it "attempts to scratch every political itch," scatters the money so widely that its local effects may be minimal.

There is $200 million this year and next, for example, earmarked for social housing for low-income seniors. Nicholas Gazzard, of the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada, said he was pleased to see money for this sort of thing, plus social housing retrofitting and the like. But at $50 K per unit, this amounts to a mere 4,000 units each year, in a country of 35 million with an aging population.

Education and research are also ill-served by the budget. Katherine Giroux-Bougard, speaking for the Canadian Federation of Students, was "underwhelmed." While the new US president is busy unveiling a wide and comprehensive plan to support post-secondary education, she said, this budget focuses narrowly on graduate students and summer jobs.

James Turk, Executive Director of the Canadian Association of University Teachers, agreed. For him the budget overall was "very disappointing, filled with half-hearted measures." Funding for post-secondary education doesn't meet the needs in that sector, he said. There is no core funding for colleges and universities, and no new money for the provinces to provide it.

And, in contrast to Obama's planned expenditure of $12 billion on research, Harper's budget offers a paltry $137.9 million over three years. The net result, says Turk, will be a brain drain, as talented academics head to the US, encouraged by Obama's research-friendly approach.

Student debt is now a staggering $13 billion, yet there's no new money for undergraduates. And the money for 500 doctoral and 1,000 master's students ends in three years.

$2 billion is set aside for post-secondary educational infrastructure. But projects will require matching funds from the provinces, which are getting no additional money for post-secondary education, while experiencing shrinking revenues, or from the institutions themselves, which simply have no money to give.

The public sector is not faring well either. True to form, the government is engaging in a little union-bashing, suspending collective bargaining with imposed wage settlements. Unsurprisingly, PSAC National President John Gordon, many of whose members settled just a few days ago, isn't happy. 30,000 of his members, employees of the Canada Revenue Agency, may find themselves subject to an actual wage rollback, while other groups are still in negotiations.

Canadian Labour Congress President Ken Georgetti was exasperated, wondering aloud how cutting back on wages will encourage people to spend, one of the objectives of a stimulus budget.

The President of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, Michele Demers, was more sanguine. She liked several aspects of the $40 billion stimulus package. The extension of EI support will ease things for the unemployed, she said (although nothing has been done to relax eligibility requirements — most people paying into EI still won't be able access it when they need it). She believes that some of the proposed infrastructural stimulus project money will be injected into government departments, and her members will benefit.

Yet, she says, those very members, who will be instrumental in helping these projects along, are under attack yet again on the collective bargaining front. "We're still being treated as part of the problem, not part of the solution," she said. "We need respect and the tools and resources to get the job done." More of her members' jobs are on the line with an on-going "strategic review." 1,500-2,000 of them face an uncertain future. Layoff? Relocation? No one knows.

The budget is not kind to women. Pay equity in the federal public service is being gutted. The current complaint-based system will disappear: to be replaced by union-employer negotiations, in a framework yet to be determined.

Unions have, certainly, been frustrated by the lengthy delays under the present system. But there is little cause to celebrate its demise. Pay equity, once a principle enshrined in the Canadian Human Rights Act, will now be something to be negotiated, with one side holding all of the legislative cards. And even that promise of negotiation may be an illusion. Gordon points out that job classification, the source of so much of the historic pay inequity in the federal public service, cannot legally even be brought to the bargaining table.

His Program Administration group, 85,000 strong, did win some contract language recently that allows pay equity issues to be addressed in a joint classification review. If that doesn't pan out, the matter can now be grieved. But to a neutral third party? Maybe, maybe not. Other members involved in on-going pay equity disputes have even less hope to cling to.

Beverley Jacobs, President of the Native Women's Association of Canada, pointed out that Aboriginal women aren't even mentioned in the budget. She foresaw an uphill battle trying to access any of the funds set aside for First Nations to use in projects and ventures that will benefit women on the reserves.

Jody Dallaire of the Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada noted that women need a comprehensive national childcare program to allow them to access training and participate in the job market.

Yet the budget, she said, allows Canada to remain in last place among industrialized nations with respect to early childhood learning and childcare.

Contrary to recent comments by former Clerk of the Privy Council Mel Cappe, the budget is indeed a political and ideological document. Its emphasis on "tax relief" and corporate handouts at the expense of social spending, and its light sprinkling of minor benefits to all and sundry, combines classic Conservative doctrine and political expediency in an uneasy mix. Whether the concoction proves to be stable and curative is, at this point, anyone's guess.

John Baglow is a former Executive Vice-President of the Public Service Alliance of Canada. He is currently pursuing an advanced degree in anthropology, and works in his spare time as a writer and a consultant in the fields of public and social policy [www.firstwrite.ca]. You can read his blog at the URL below.
Links and sources

Dr Dawg's Blawg

Firstwrite.ca

CANADIAN LABOUR:

OTTAWA TRANSIT STRIKE ENDS:

Faced with back to work legislation due to be introduced in the federal parliament the City of Ottawa and Local 279 of the Amalgamated Transit Union have agreed to a deal, yet to be ratified by the union membership, to enter into negotiations via an arbitrator. This ends a 51 day long strike and to return to work. Only last week the City rejected a similar offer on the part of the union to take the dispute to arbitration. The events of today may, therefore, be seen as at least something of a victory for the union. Yet, it is far from an unqualified success. Please note one salient fact in the following story from CTV Toronto. Both the federal Liberals and the federal NDP was in agreement with the back to work legislation proposed by Conservative Minister of Labour Rona Ambrose. This says something, at least about the NDP.

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

City, union reach deal to end Ottawa transit strike:
Avoiding federal back-to-work legislation, the City of Ottawa and the Amalgamated Transit Union have reached a tentative deal to let an arbitrator end the public transit strike that has paralyzed the nation's capital for 51 days.

Ottawa Mayor Larry O'Brien told CTV Ottawa that all issues - including the contentious scheduling question - will be sent to arbitration.

"Both parties realized that the moment the federal government agreed to take this to legislation, it was over," O'Brien said.

"We agreed very quickly that we could go around all of that, and simply go back to the process of getting those buses on the streets for our citizens."

O'Brien said the arbitrator would find a balanced approach between the two sides, who have clashed on dozens of issues ranging from scheduling control to wages.

"I know citizens have been through a lot, but I think this is the best way to get a fair and reasonable offer," he said.

"It was absolutely the only way we were going to reach a deal, and I'm very comfortable we're moving ahead this way."

Although an agreement has been announced, it will still take at least one week to get the first round of buses serviced and back on the roads.

O'Brien said the city will make announcements over the next three days on how and when OC Transport will gradually return to the streets.

City council will hold a special meeting on Friday to discuss the developments.
Agreement forgoes emergency House of Commons debate
The deal comes one day after federal Labour Minister Rona Ambrose threatened to introduce back-to-work legislation to end the strike, which would have also resulted in binding arbitration. An emergency debate in the House of Commons scheduled for Thursday night was cancelled after the deal was announced late in the afternoon.

Transport Minister John Baird, the MP for Ottawa West-Nepean, said it became clear on Tuesday that the city and union were "not going to put politics aside and come together" once talks collapsed.

The federal government had the back-to-work legislation prepared to enact immediately, Baird added. Marjory LeBreton, the government leader in the Senate, planned to keep the upper chamber in session late Thursday night in case the legislation passed through the House of Commons.

More than 2,300 bus drivers, dispatchers and mechanics walked off the job on Dec. 10. They had been working without a contract since April.

Ottawa South MP David McGuinty said the arbitration agreement reflected the fact that right to collective bargaining had to be balanced against the public good: missed medical appointments, lost jobs, and stranded students.

"Both sides (had) lost perspective," said McGuinty, a Liberal whose party, along with the NDP, supported the back-to-work legislation.

"The city and the union became very ideologically entrenched. I think they began to understand they lost perspective and that people were suffering."

Craig Watson, an OC Transport driver and a scheduling representative with ATU Local 279, told CTV Newsnet that the public had every right to be frustrated.

"Both parties need to collectively shake their head," Watson said, but added he thought the city "did a lot more wrong than we did wrong."

CANADIAN POLITICS:

HARPER BUDGET FAILS THE POOR:

The long awaited federal budget has been delivered. The short lived 'Coalition' is dead, replaced by what the leader of the federal NDP describes as a "new coalition", one of the Conservatives and Liberals. While the smaller parties have declared their intent to vote against the budget the Liberals, under Ignatieff, have given their support. Their only real condition- that regular accounts of the progress of the plans be given regularly to Parliament. This, of course, is pretty well what is already done anyways. It was no surprise that the Conservatives, almost breathlessly, announced their support for the meaningless Liberal "amendment".

Meanwhile there is much to criticize in the budget document. Would increased spending rather than a tax cut have been more stimulatory ? Would a cut to the GST have been a better option than than minor cuts to income tax ? Has access to EI really done enough to protect those who will be losing their jobs in the recession. Molly has discussed various approaches to the federal budget before on this blog, including those of labour, economists and her own ideas. Here's a press statement from the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty (OCAP) reflecting on what is missing from the budget in terms of Canada's poorest citizens.

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

Statement on the Federal Budget‏:
Today’s budget will do little to help low income Canadians. Harper’s government has made some attempt to placate the opposition, but his efforts will only help a shrinking fraction of the population. The spending strategy is described as Timely, Temporary, and Targeted. Indeed it is. It’s too little, too late, for too few. While 75 billion dollars are given to the financial sector, there are only scraps left for the poorest in our society.

In line with the ongoing Harper agenda, the budget emphasizes tax cuts, instead of making real investments in housing, infrastructure and people. He crows about investing in social housing and unemployment insurance. The budget says that it will invest 2 billion into social housing. Sounds great. But the cost of repairs to Ontario's housing are estimated at about $1.2 billion. And 60,000 people are on the waiting list for social housing in Toronto alone. Given that much of the infrastructural funding is dependent on cost-sharing with the cash-poor provinces and municipalities, the figures are misleading. Harper claims that he’s making things easier for laid off workers by adding 5 weeks to employment insurance. Given that 60% of Canadians aren’t eligible, this will do little for the majority of those suffering in the economic downturn.

As factories close and businesses go bankrupt, more and more Canadians will need help. Unfortunately the tax cuts, benefits and incentives will do little for them when they’re evicted, unable to obtain employment insurance, or scraping by on welfare and food banks. A budget that would really address the needs of the increasing ranks of poor Canadians would raise the welfare rates, expand employment insurance in a serious way, build new and quality social housing invest in transit, education and health care. This budget doesn’t even try.

An economic recession that leads to layoffs, evictions and poverty is not the time for bailing out the corporations and playing political games. It’s the time to organize in our communities to support one another, and to fight to ensure that the poorest, the most vulnerable, are not abandoned yet again.

CANADIAN POLITICS/AMERICAN POLITICS:

CONSERVATIVE STATISM:

The following is from the Public Values website, and it points out an important fact-so-called conservatives are hardly the shining knights of freedom from government that their rhetoric would imply. What they actually are champions of another form of government interference, and they are just as vigorous in its pursuit as left wingers are in theirs. Molly doesn't necessarily agree with the "it's inevitable so lay back and enjoy it and pick a different partner" implications of the following, but it's important to note just how statist conservatives are.

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

Deregulation? No such thing.:
The only question is, who benefits from government intervention?
by Dean Baker, Boston Review
The extraordinary financial collapse of recent months has been commonly described as a testament to the failure of deregulation. The events are indeed testament to a failure — a failure of public policy. Blaming deregulation is misleading.

In general, political debates over regulation have been wrongly cast as disputes over the extent of regulation, with conservatives assumed to prefer less regulation, while liberals prefer more. In fact conservatives do not necessarily desire less regulation, nor do liberals necessarily desire more. Conservatives support regulatory structures that cause income to flow upward, while liberals support regulatory structures that promote equality. "Less" regulation does not imply greater inequality, nor is the reverse true.

Framing regulation debates in terms of more and less is not only inaccurate; it hugely biases the argument toward conservative positions by characterizing an extremely intrusive structure of, for example, patent and copyright rules, as the free market. In the realm of insurance and finance over the last two decades, calls for deregulation have been cover for rules tilted starkly toward corporate interests. And the recent change in bankruptcy law, hailed by conservatives, requires much greater government involvement in the economy.

False ideological claims have circumscribed the public debate over regulation and blinded us to the wide range of choices we can make. Without these claims, what would guide regulatory policy? What kinds of choices would we have?
* * *
Patent and copyright protection are good examples of government policies obscured in the debate. They are forms of regulation, not elements of a "free market.". . .
To read further. . .
Dean Baker is Co-Director of the Center for Economic and Policy Policy Research and author of The Conservative Nanny State.
Links and sources Free Market Myth, by Dean Baker, Boston Review, January 2009

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:

LIBERAL-NDP COALITION PROSPECTS GROWING MORE DISTANT:

What a difference a few days can make in politics. Ever since Sneaky Stevie, our beloved comrade leader Prime Minister, provoked Canada's political crisis by a bald faced partisan attack on the other parties while he should have been paying attention to the economy the Liberal-NDP coalition that was formed to oppose and possibly replace him has done more for its own destruction than the Conservatives have.

It didn't take long for various rats of the Liberal persuasion to start abandoning the ship at the first sign of a leak. Within days MPs such as Irwin Cotler, Keith Martin, Scott Simms, Frank Valeriate (the first rat into the lifeboat) and Jim Karygiannis began expressing public doubts about the advisability of the coalition and whether it was better to compromise with the Conservatives. Realizing how much dead weight that leader Stephane Dion represented the Liberal Party moved with unseemly haste to ditch him. This, however, was rather like seeing that the ship was listing to fall upon the "solution" of opening a hole in the other side of the hull. Who was to replace him ?

The two front running candidates took quite divergent positions. Like Don Quixote the underdog Bob Rae set about the stump Liberal faithful across the country, valiantly trying to sell the idea of the coalition as the only way to slay the Conservative Dragon. The caucus favourite, Michael Ignatieff, took his cue from another fictional character, and like Achilles he sulked in his tent, keeping as low a profile as was humanly possible about the whole idea of the coalition. Rumours had it that he had already provoked hostility within the caucus by opining that it would be better to wait and see what the New Year's Conservative Budget contained before deciding whether to oppose it.

In the end it was Ignatieff who was the most realistic, and Rae's quixotic crusade to reach the ordinary Liberal members floundered on the rocks of one great unshakable fact- in the end the Liberal party is one of the furthest things from a democratic organization, and it doesn't matter one iota what the "grassroots" want. As the Liberal caucus made its choice of Ignatieff plain Rae was forced into what must be one of the greatest craven capitulations in Canadian political history. Tonight he withdrew from the race for the Liberal leadership, and pledged his full unconditional support for the beloved comrade leader Michael Ignatieff.

With "The IG" in control the presumed coalition is quite clinically dead. It only awaits a decent burial. It would take a massive act of suicidal stupidity on the part of Harper and the Conservatives to revive it. No doubt the original "mini-budget" was an act of arrogance and somewhat stupid, but I don't think you can trust Harper to make the same mistake twice, especially as the Conservatives have all but abandoned any near term prospect of majority government by playing the "Québec card". Besides being something near to the apotheosis of hypocrisy (how often have the Conservatives and the Alliance before them relied on and plotted with the Bloc, and who was the major figure behind the formation of the BQ ?) this tactic has no guarantee of being useful in anything but the short term. Hence the uncharacteristically conciliatory tone of Sneaky Stevie as the battle for control of the Liberal Party reached its end stage. To listen to his speech tonight you would think that he was proposing a 'Conservative-Liberal Coalition', and maybe that was exactly what he was doing.

As the weeks before the next sitting of Parliament drag on look to the leaping of Liberal rats from the sinking ship of the coalition to become a full flood. If the anti-coalition forces in the Liberals could not be restrained before their boy became leader don't expect them to do anything but grow now. In a sense it is a shame. If the NDP-Liberal coalition could have stuck together they might have been able to unseat Harper come January. That won't happen now. Not that the Coalition would have done anything but blunder their way through the economic hard times ahead, but blundering is probably better that what even a halfway contrite Harper will do. Harper harbours many ideological beliefs that will actually worsen the effects of the upcoming recession/depression.

So, let's sing a dirge for the comely corpse of the Coalition and its plans. Canada would do far better with permanent minority governments and coalitions than it does under any majority, either Liberal or Conservative.

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