A Day Well-Spent

There is something both restorative and energizing about spending time among people who are politically engaged, and that is probably the best way to describe those in attendance at both the Toronto Star Tent and the Amazon.ca Bestsellers Stage yesterday at Toronto's Word On The Street. As much as I have a strong aversion to Toronto's congestion, it has an energy that so many other cities lack.

It was, weather-wise, a perfect day to go down to Harbourfront Centre, the new home of the annual celebration of the written word. And for the first time, I got there early enough to snag a decent seat (actually, it was front-row) at the Toronto Star Tent, where Tim Harper, Thomas Walkom and Bruce Campion-Smith held forth on the current federal election campaign. That alone was worth the trip.

Hilariously hosted by Dan Smith, who described himself as "a recovering journalist," the format this year lent itself to far more questions from the audience than did last year's event. Here are a few highlights:

While none of the journalists was able or willing to predict the outcome of the election, Thomas Walkom said that its outcome depends on the answer to this question: "How sick are you of Harper?" Assuming the majority of Canadians are very fatigued of the current regime, the outcome will depend upon how the vote splits. He would not even rule out the possibility of a majority government.

Tim Harper said the two things were a surprise to him in this campaign, one being the fact that Justin Trudeau is still very much a contender, having brought control to his messaging after having had an earlier propensity for speaking off the cuff and getting himself into trouble. The other surprise is the Mulcair campaign having adopted a very cautious strategy; it is, in fact, something he writes about in today's Star.

All three journalists were rather dismissive of polls as merely being "snapshots in time" rather than predictors of election results. What surprised me was that the 'free polls' made available to the media are what were described as "cheap polls," ones with shallow samplings that pollsters provide for the free publicity it brings their companies. Parties' own commissioned polls, which are not released to the public, are much deeper and expensive. Were I able to have a real conversation with these fellows, however, I would question the relatively benign cloak they cast over polls; I have always been of the opinion that they not only reflect public sentiment but also influence it.

Disheartening for me was the assertion by Tim Harper that the niqab is an election issue, and not just in Quebec. The banning of it at citizenship ceremonies has widespread support judging by the email he gets, and it could cost Mulcair support. Walkom has no doubt that it is simply Harper playing upon anti-Muslim sentiment. Writer Michael Harris has some interesting things to say today about the issue in iPolitics.

Despite my repeated efforts to be recognized by the host to ask a question, it was not to be. I therefore approached Tim Harper at the end of the session to ask him what he finds most disappointing about this campaign. His answer echoed what I think many of us feel - the fact that big issues like climate change and pharmacare are not really being addressed, attributing it to the caution the two opposition parties have adopted owing to the closeness of their standings in the polls. He did add that this campaign is hardly unique in that failure, which reminded me of what Robert Fisk said the other night about the lack of statesmanlike vision afflicting contemporary politicians.

The afternoon session I attended was interesting as well, featuring Kevin Page and Bob Rae speaking about their respective new books.



Addressing the general dysfunction of our politics, Rae observed that its hyper partisanship, and the fact that campaigning seems to go on year round, 24/7, is a major problem and has debased discourse. He said that it is incumbent upon both citizens and the media to ask the hard questions and hold the parties responsible, a prescription I usspect is far easier said than done. I was able to get myself recognized to ask him a question, which basically revolved around whether or not the Canadian soul has been too debased these past several years to be able to recover to the point where a healthy democracy is now possible.

Rae answered by saying he did not think that was the case, and he cautioned against laying all the blame on the Harper regime, as it is far from the only party responsible for our sad state of affairs. Had I been permitted a follow-up question, I would have asked him that since all parties have contributed to the problem, what are the chances of any kind of rehabilitation of the Canadian psyche taking place?

While still trying to maintain a certain objectivity that, I suppose, comes from the years he spent as a civil servant, Kevin Page, who has a surprising facility for deadpan humour, lamented the loss of nobility that once came with being an MP out to serve the public good and to hold the executive to account. He observed the loss of values and vision that echoed what Tim Harper alluded to, but he also said that decision-making has become debased (that is my word, not his).

Page says that spending information has to be made available to the entire parliament, but he relayed his frustrating experiences while serving as the Parliamentary Budget Officer seeking such information from deputy ministers only to be told that he couldn't have it. Decisions are therefore made in a fiscal vacuum; the cost of a politicized public service has been high.

Beyond the monetary considerations, however, Page observed that there is no discussion on what kind of institutions we want, be they military, parliamentary, or what have you. This is an ideological government bent on enacting legislation on that basis alone. It used to be that civil servants, for example, would present three options for a decision. Now they are told those options are not needed if they don't fit into the government's 'vision.'

I will end this rather lengthy post with an anecdote Bob Rae told about talking to a cab driver. Rae asked him who he favoured, and he replied, "Rob Ford and Donald Trump." When asked why, he said that they speak what is on their minds. In other words, to this man they had 'authenticity.'

A sharp and perhaps bitter reminder of what mainstream politicians seem so sorely lacking in today.

Bob Rae's March toward Coronation

In a development that will likely surprise few, it seems that steps are being prepared to permit Bob Rae, the Liberal Party's interim leader, to run for the permanent leadership. I have little doubt, despite his initial denial that he was seeking the position, that this was Rae's plan all along.

His messiah complex, so evident in his efforts to blame everyone (unions, Buzz Hargrove, the economy) except himself following his loss after one term as NDP Premier of Ontario, is obviously very much alive.

Should they choose Rae, I think the Liberals will find that something else is very much alive as well in Ontario: people's memories of his disastrous rule in which he quite blithely abandoned many of the principles that had guided the NDP for a very long time, choosing instead to placate business interests at the expense of the common good.

The Timidity Of The Ontario NDP

I wrote earlier this month about the growing call from certain monied sectors for an increase in their personal taxation rates, arguing that they are not paying their fair share to support the country in which they grew and prospered. That plea, as noted earlier, is being egregiously ignored by all political parties, including Ontario's NDP, led by Andrea Horwath, a politician who is becoming increasing difficult to distinguish from the leaders of the other parties.

My observation, and I don't think it is a particularly startling or perceptive one, is that slowly and inevitably, the party, both at the federal and provincial levels, is becoming very 'mainstream' as the prospects for increasing their electoral success improve.

Take, for example, Ms. Horwath's position on corporate taxation. As reported last May in The Toronto Star, the NDP would raise corporate taxes by a mere 2%, to 14% from the current 12%. As well, as reported in today's Star, the party would cancel the entertainment tax breaks enjoyed by corporations, such as being able to write off some of the costs of a corporate box at the Air Canada Centre.

While I do not dispute that these would be useful measures that would hardly send corporations fleeing to other jurisdictions, they also strike me as extraordinarily timid, a kind of nipping around the edges of fiscal policy. I do realize there is an argument to be made for proceeding slowly in a compromised economy, but I worry that the stated policy direction suggests that should they ever regain power, the NDP would once again make the same kinds of mistakes that were made during the disastrous Bob Rae years, when the now interim federal Liberal Leader bent over backwards to placate business at the expense of party policy and principles.

Until I hear someone talk about raising the personal income tax rate on the ultra-wealthy, I shall remain dubious of the integrity of NDP principles.

Please sign this petition urging Prime Minister Harper to stop threatening Michaela Keyserlingk and to stop exporting asbestos.

Bob Rae's Political Judgement

Having lived in Ontario during Bob Rae's tenure as Premier, I do not regard him with any degree of esteem (a polite understatement). The latest confirmation of the correctness of my opinion came recently when a friend sent me the following email:

Subject: Bill # C-428 THANKS TO RUBY DHALLA AND BOB RAE

It will receive second reading at the next sitting of parliament...

Please read the bill and make your own decision..if you disagree with the bill, please send this to every Canadian of voting age in your address book..

Hopefully by letting your member of parliament know your feelings on the bill, it will be defeated.

If you agree with the bill, you don't need to do anything..


Bill C-428 An Act to Amend the Old Age Security Act (residency requirements)


Bill C-428 will allow recent immigrants to apply for OAS (the CPP) in 3 years instead of the existing 10.

This bill had first reading in the house on June 18, 2009. It was seconded by Bob Rae!! MP Ms. Ruby Dhalla who introduced the bill represents the riding of Brampton whose population is mainly East Indian. Right now you have to have lived in Canada for 10 years in order to qualify for Old Age Security (CPP). She wants the time reduced to 3 years. Thousands could come to Canada when they are 62 years old, never having worked or contributed to this country's tax system etc, and qualify for full Old Age Security (CPP) benefits. 10 years minimum is reasonable. 3 is not!

Look this up - Google C-428 and you will see this bill has only one purpose, to featherbed a select group of people for votes.

I certainly hope this bill does not get passed. It is about time we called our elected MP's to ask them to NOT support this bill. Their response may be one factor in helping us determine who gets elected in the next election.

What Can You Do?

1. Spread the message
to family, friends and email buds.

2. Write letters, send emails to all your list, and call Members of Parliament

It is time Canada looked after it's Vets and long-term citizens before tossing OUR hard-earned money around on people who have no right to this money, never having paid taxes or contributed to our economy. If a family wishes to bring elderly relatives here and are willing to waive their own right to collect these funds in order that the elderly relatives can receive them...fine...otherwise, look after them yourself and do not expect the Canadian taxpayers to do it.

There are too many people abusing the generosity of the Canadian people. We need to stop the madness....NOW!

While I do not agree with the rather inflammatory tone in part of this message, I do think it shows a key Liberal, Mr. Rae, badly out of touch with the sensibilities of many Canadians, especially with regard to their sense of fair play. While it is probably no mystery as to why Ms Dhalla authored the bill, given the bad publicity she weathered about a year ago over her treatment of Phillipino nannies, as well as the fact that her riding houses many immigrants, I find it hard to understand why Mr. Rae would have seconded the bill.

In my view, should Michael Ignatieff ultimately be deposed as Liberal leader, the worst mistake the Party could make would be to select Bob Rae as his successor.

It's Too Early for The Federal Liberal Party to Start Celebrating

Despite the fact that the latest poll shows the federal Liberal Party virtually tied with the Harper Government, may I suggest that it is far too early for celebration?

While I have generally voted Liberal throughout my life, I have, over the past year or so become increasingly disenchanted with the party's performance under the stewardship of Michael Ignatieff, the main reason being that he has displayed very little leadership and provided almost no reason for support.

Whether accurate or not, historically the Liberals have been seen as the party of the centre, incorporating policies from both sides of the political spectrum but usually avoiding the kind of polarization that has been so characteristic of the Harper Government. Unfortunately, since being in opposition in the latest minority situation, they have emerged as the Opposition Party that wants to form the next Government because ….. well, because they crave the power that comes from being the Government.

Absent, as far as I can see, is any overarching vision that would inspire people to trust them with governing this vast country. Time and time again, either through House of Commons votes that support the Government or by engineering the absence of sufficient House numbers to allow them to vote against confidence measures without bringing down the Government (which would force an election), the Liberals have shown themselves to be hypocritical and without consistent principle.

The most recent example, although I could cite many, is the Conservative's American-style budget omnibus bill which the Liberals rightfully strenuously opposed and voted against, carrying as it did many items that had nothing to do with the budget, including reductions in environmental assessments, selling off parts of Canada Post, selling Atomic Energy Canada without Parliamentary approval, etc. However, because it was a vote of confidence, and because polls showed that the Liberals wouldn't benefit were an election called, the party ensured that 30 Members were absent from the House so the Government wouldn't fall.

At the time, Liberal Bob Rae said that the Senate was the best venue for amending the budget bill. Those amendments were made, with the contentious items removed; however, shortly before the Senate vote on the amendments, a spokesman for the Conservatives said that any Senate amendments would be viewed as an election issue by the Government. So what happened? Predictably, the vote on the amendments saw an inadequate number of Liberal Senators in the Red Chamber (12 were absent), and the bill was sent back unamended.

Michael Ignatief, Bob Rae, and the rest of the Liberal Party will have to do much better than that if they are to have my vote.