Goodbye, Jim

The other day I wrote a post on Jim Flaherty and his 'legacy,' inspired by two columns published in The Star. On this day of his state funeral, it seems appropriate to offer the views of a few Star readers on Flaherty's record, and the posthumous accolades and state funeral offered him:


Re: Tale of two tragedies reveals Flaherty’s flaws, April 14
Re: Former finance minister made sacrifices for public, April 12

Decorum suggest that we be gracious in remembering long-serving parliamentarians such as Jim Flaherty. True, he was a talented politician who impacted many people in his professional life. And as a private citizen, friends and family will greatly feel his loss.

Unfortunately for myself and probably legions of other voters, his public persona didn’t quite match all the glowing private tributes. What stands out is a hyper-partisan politician willing to take no prisoners in dealing with the opposition, any opposition.

Who can forget his public brow beating of Dalton McGuinty regarding his belief in the need for lowering corporate taxes. And ultimately, what good did lowing corporate taxes do for the greater good of the country?

The facts are, he served prominently on two of the most mean spirited regimes in living memory — Mike Harris in Ontario and Stephen Harper in Ottawa. Once in Ottawa as finance minister, he presided over the dismantling of federal government fiscal capacity and has ultimately tied the hands of future governments in instituting programs that will actually help large numbers of people.

In this regard, he played a large role in radically reshaping this country. This is joy to Conservative supporters, but not so much to the progressive majority.

Pietro Bertollo, Brampton


The passing of Jim Flaherty has been notable for several reasons. While certainly condolences go out to his family and his loved ones, the sugar-coating of his record as a public servant has been awful.

First, the greatest accolades have come from the corporate class, and why shouldn’t they: he has cut their federal and Ontario taxes ferociously. But every day Ontarians and Canadians have paid dearly for these cuts and Flaherty’s own ideology.

He wanted to make homelessness illegal, but he laid off tens of thousands of public servants in Ontario and throughout Canada. He was a key member of the Eves government that lied outright about the “balanced budget” that was really a $5.6 billion deficit, as attested to by outside auditors.

He is killing the CBC with funding cuts, and has set in motion dramatic cuts to health care to take effect soon, even as Canada spends only approximately 11 per cent of GDP on health care compared to 16 per cent by the U.S., and he has done federally what he did provincially (by association at least) and put Canadians’ lives at risk by cutting back on those government services that protect Canadians by eliminating inspector positions in certain government agencies.
This radical right wing agenda has resulted in diminished standards of living for a large number of Canadians, frittered away hard won record budget surpluses he inherited from the previous government, and added tens of billions of dollars to our national debt. He has been a champion of the hidden far-right Conservative agenda to starve government of the funds it needs to operate our cherished social programs, only to declare later that they are unaffordable because government lacks the funds to pay for them.

It’s a con game Flaherty played a key part in. I am sorry he has died, and my sincere condolences go out to his family. But let’s look at his record with clear, cold eyes.

Tony Delville, Stoney Creek

Am I the only person in Canada who finds this hyper eulogizing of former Conservative finance minister Jim Flaherty over the top? It appears that the Ottawa beltway and the whole of the Canadian media are falling all over themselves to don sackcloth and ashes bemoaning the death of this man.

Maybe in life outside politics he was “a nice man.” But this “nice man” is, in part, responsible for the Conservative party’s attempt to balance the budget by their giving gigantic largesse to the big corporations right on the backs of the Canadian people.

He was present in the U.S., deliberating and consorting with primary financial elements of the Bush regime. He brought what he had learned back to Canada. With Harper, a willing disciple of the ultra-right-wing Fox News as his partner, he then proceeded to make life doubly difficult for the Canadian working people. He stuck to a right wing bullying Conservative political agenda to the bitter end. This has brought untold misery to a vast number people throughout Canada.

For the media to compare him to the great Jack Layton, a politician who really cared about the Canadian people and put his humanity into practice throughout his life, is absolutely stomach turning. And to waste the public’s money on a state funeral for this Robin Hood in reverse is a real insult to the people of Canada — and another slap in the face to Canadians who believe in honest democracy everywhere.

Laurence D. M. Marshall, Kelowna, B.C.

Click here if you would like to read more opinions of the late Finance Minister's legacy.

I Come Not To Praise Flaherty

I have thus far avoided writing about Jim Flaherty's passing for a very simple reason; it is difficult, if not impossible to keep separate his family's personal loss with the man's record as a politician. Yet two pieces I read in yesterday's Star convinced me otherwise, and they allow me to offer my own views without disrespect for the dead.

The first, a fine piece of writing by Jim Coyle, is entitled Jim Flaherty gave up so much to serve us. His thesis is this:

...our politics would ... improve mightily if the Canadian public saw politicians as human beings much like themselves, often making very large sacrifices, rather than as contemptible cartoon figures of vanity, greed and corruption.

His column goes on to describe the tremendous sacrifices Flaherty made in his 25 years of service: forgone remuneration, which would have been likely totaled in the millions given the lucrative law practice he left upon entering politics, and more importantly, the precious time with his family that was never to be recovered.

Coyle states:

But let’s be honest. A life in politics, and especially in its higher reaches, is inherently incompatible with the everydayness and unpredictable crises of family life.

The job, more than most, is all-consuming. By necessity, it demands living away from home part of most weeks. Even when not in Ottawa, the travelling through ridings, the out-and-abouting, the constituency work is unrelenting.

But his piece, which ultimately is an effort to remind us of how politics can still be seen as a noble calling despite the widespread public cynicsm that currently prevails, omits something crucial to any evaluation of Jim Flaherty in particular, and politicians in general. The sacrifices Coyle discusses, while no doubt real ones, become tainted, cheapened and debased when they are made in service to a dark lord. And Flaherty had two such masters: the hideous former Ontario Premier Mike Harris, who did more than any other Canadian politician in memory to disseminate dissension, disunity and class hatred, all of which Flaherty was a willing part.

His second dark master was, of course, Stephen Harper, whose myriad measures to unravel our social, economic and political frameworks need no recounting here.

So without question, Coyle is right in reminding us that Flaherty sacrificed much to be a part of public life. But surely an honest evaluation of that life cannot be made separate from his and his masters' records.

Which brings me to the second piece I read yesterday, by Thomas Walkom, entitled CBC cuts show other side of Jim Flaherty. While acknowledging the grievous loss suffered by his family and friends, the writer makes this key assertion:

... it was under Flaherty’s watch as finance minister that the latest cutbacks in federal government funding to CBC occurred. ....he was also an integral part of a government determined to smash or cripple much of what makes Canada a livable country.

His death is a reminder that good people can do bad things for the best of motives.

Walkom broadens his perspectives beyond those cuts that will untimately destroy the CBC:

Flaherty’s various budgets have called for more than $5 billion in annual spending cuts. Successive parliamentary budget officers have noted that the vast majority of these cuts are to come from as yet unspecified public services.

On top of these, the federal government has decided to dramatically scale back spending on medicare.

Those health-care transfer cuts, announced by Flaherty in 2011, won’t kick in until well after the next election.

The cutbacks in employment insurance, the decision to raise the age of eligibility for old-age security, the reductions in transfer payments to Ontario, the lessening of environmental enforcement — all were collective decisions of the Harper cabinet.

All ministers bear responsibility for them.

But to forget that the former finance minister was a critical part of this ministry is to do him no favours.

And surely, it does no favours to Canada if we bury Flaherty's questionable record along with his earthly remains.

A More Realistic Appraisal of Jim Flaherty

If, like me, you were rather appalled by the hypocritical yet predictable enconiums offered to Jm Flaherty by his political foes, you will likely enjoy this letter from Ottawa Star reader Morgan Duchesney, who renders a far more realistic appraisal of the departing Finance Minister:

Re: Chance for a fresh start, Editorial March 19

As Jim Flaherty retires to “private life,” I wish him a speedy recovery from his lingering illness. Missing from the goodbye accolades is any mention of Flaherty’s greatest failure. Whether sick or healthy: Flaherty lacked the will to take any serious steps to collect the billions in unpaid taxes that sit safely in foreign tax shelters.

Flaherty’s tired excuse about not wanting to punish “job creators and innovators” is a bit threadbare in light of abysmal levels of corporate investment in Canada. If Canadian corporations are operating overseas while shifting profits to low-tax jurisdictions, exactly who is benefiting and just how “Canadian” are these companies if they employ foreigners and only benefit arms-length stockholders?

I challenged Flaherty’s flimsy logic whereby pursing elite tax evaders will increase the likelihood of capital flight, higher consumer prices and corporate bankruptcies. The possibility of these eventualities raises an interesting question: what do corporations receive in exchange for their taxes?

Perhaps defenders of offshore tax shelters and corporate tax cuts forget that taxes pay for education, health care, infrastructure, public administration, law enforcement and the military. Without these programs there could be no business and large businesses benefit exponentially from tax-funded public services.

Beyond the fact that he has been busy turning Canada into a tax shelter; there is a more practical reason for Flaherty’s tax shelter reticence. I expect Flaherty, like his colleague Jim Prentiss; will resurface as a banking executive. To complete the circle; his replacement, Joe Oliver shifted from investment banking to the world of politics. Perhaps it is time for some fresh ideas at Finance?

The Harper Legacy: Empty Mantras And Empty Ideology

I hope readers don't think I have grown lazy or burnt-out when I reprint letters from The Toronto Star. It is just that their observations and ideas are frequently so nicely expressed that I think they merit some exposure in the blogosphere.

Today's offers a sharp rebuke to the tired Tory ideology of low corporate taxes as the path to prosperity, a mantra that has been repeatedly shown to be as devoid of value as the head of their leader and our Prime Minister is devoid of ideas and vision.

Re: Canada hit by unexpected rise in jobless rate, Jan. 10

When asked about the December job losses, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty lamely trots out his usual PMO-approved talking point that we must “keep taxes low to create the environment where job creation can flourish.” Translation: Slash government.

Not just hogwash, sir — stale hogwash!

Taxes are already low enough. It is the continual bleeding by mass employers that drive these kinds of losses, like plant closures announced by Kellogg in London, Heinz at Leamington, CCL Industries in Penetanguishine and others that have already occurred over the past several years, including the steel industry. True, many closures are in Ontario, but that’s because that province traditionally formed our industrial heartland.

Indeed, some jobs are lost because of technology but the majority are because U.S. head offices are taking jobs back to the U.S. or other firms are moving to low-wage countries that Canadians can never compete with, with labour rates as low as $1 a day, such as the garment industry.

If the Conservative government in Ottawa is serious about job creation, it will formulate and actively promote an industrial strategy for Canada, one that goes beyond the Alberta tar sands and the oil industry. Elsewhere, tinkering with a few high-tech projects may create a relative handful of well-paying work but not the thousands of jobs and steady wages that industry can provide.

The Tories demonstrated that they knew this sort of thing could work when they pumped life-saving public funding into GM of Canada and Chrysler Canada when those two industrial titans were threatened with bankruptcy. It’s that or reverse course on slashing government, the only other mass employment sector we have left.

In the end, it seems the Harper government is rendered impotent on jobs creation by its own narrow-minded ideology based on fantasy and blind to the reality of our preventable national decline.

Brad Savage, Scarborough

Pension Reform

More of the white stuff has fallen, and I can ignore the importunate call of the snow shovel no longer, so I will make this brief with two reading recommendations for your Sunday morning discernment.

In today's Star, Martin Regg Cohn writes convincingly on the need for real pension reform, but he predicts that the provinces' finance ministers, who will be meeting today and tomorrow, will get nothing from federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty. The latter will trot out the standard 'now is not the time- the economy is too fragile' line, but with more and more people destined to retire in relative poverty, the time for delay is over.

The fragility-of-the-economy-argument is given short shrift in another Star article by C. Scott Clark, a former Federal Deputy Minister of Finance, and Peter Devries, who was Director of Fiscal Policy when CPP was last reformed in 1998. The writers show how that tired argument has been used repeatedly to try to stop past measures:

The last significant structural changes to the CPP (and Quebec Pension Plan) were made in the late 1990s. At that time, CPP contribution rates were doubled, an independent investment board was established and the program was put on a sustainable basis. The arguments now being used by the government are not unlike those made by anti-reformers in 1997. Opponents argued that doubling the CPP premium rates would have a major negative impact on economic growth and job creation. This did not happen.

They go on to cite how the the economy was deemed too fragile when the government replaced the federal manufacturer's sales tax with the GST in 1991, and when the mid-90s saw the Liberals impose tough fiscal measures to deal with the deficit. In neither case did the economic sky fall in.

I'm convinced that we Canadians are far too passive, giving free reign to a government that makes its lack of responsiveness to the needs of Canadians a virtue. Until that changes, all we can likely expect is more of the same blather and inaction on the part of the Harper cabal.

For Your Sunday Reading Pleasure ...

Whether or not you live in Ontario, you may find Martin Regg Cohn's column of some interest in illustrating the fractured and uneven relationship that Federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty has with the provinces. Writing in the voice of Ontario residents responding to Flaherty's finger-wagging over the MetroLinx proposal to raise the HST one point to help meet the GTHA's transit needs, he observes,

Your latest letter takes federal-provincial pugilism to a new level of aggression — lecturing and hectoring [Ont. Finance Minister] Sousa by telling him what he already knows: That he cannot create a regional GTA sales tax, a tax he has neither imposed nor proposed.

He goes on to point out Flaherty's hypocisy as well as his intransigence in meeting with his provincial counterpart to discuss federal involvement in addressing transit funding, once more underscoring the rather limited 'skill-set' (divide and conquer seems to be their default position) the Conservative Party of Canada brings to the table in federal-provincial relations.

All in all, a rather good piece of writing to enjoy on a Sunday morning.

The Taint of Ideology

Although I'm sure that I frequently fall victim to it, I am deeply offended by lazy thinking, our seemingly endless capacity to fall back on ideological bromides as a substitute for careful and reasoned consideration of an issue. Instances of such defective cogitation abound, and are especially noticeable in online commentary, where, for example, those of a left-wing or progressive perspective will regularly denounce their ideological opposites as 'fascists', while those on the right frequently take great delight in dismissing progressive notions as the work of 'leftards' or other such idiomatically imaginative labels.

The challenge in overcoming these reflexive reactions is considerable, but I sometimes wonder if part of the problem lies in how we phrase the issue or ask the question. All too often, the choices are presented as grim absolutes. For example, we are told by our political leaders that any measures to improve our society can be achieved only at a great cost to the economy. Never is there a middle ground, where a tradeoff between the two polarities is presented as a viable option. But perhaps we are not asking the right question.

The following video is a brilliant example of how to reframe the question. The library of Troy Michigan, fighting a well-funded Tea Party campaign opposing a 0.7% increase that would keep the facility from having to initiate severe cutbacks, came up with this strategy:

Stunningly effective in its simplicity, the campaign perhaps suggests that there may be many ways in which to frame a question, many ways to engage people so that they think about the implications of an issue rather than simply dismiss it reflexively on ideological grounds.

My reflections are prompted by Martin Regg Cohn's column in today's Star. Entitled Time to put Flaherty on the spot, his opening sentence says a great deal:

When Finance Minister Jim Flaherty debates pension reform with the provinces Monday, he’ll be counting on Canadians to tune it out so he can wait it out — yet again.

He goes on to discuss something many of us are well aware of, namely that far too many of our fellow citizens do not have sufficient savings to ensure a comfortable retirement, and that the average pension afforded by the Canada Pension Plan is hardly adequate to bridge the gap. Real reform that would ultimately lift many retirees out of poverty is very achievable at moderate cost, as attested to by a 30-page discussion paper prepared by federal officials. Unfortunately, Finance minister Jim Flaherty, doubtlessly prompted by ideology and the financial community to which he pays obesaisance, claims that this is not the right time to act, as additional payroll costs would hurt employment in Canada.

Cohn dismisses this fatuous defence of inaction effectively, and I hope you will take a few minutes to read his piece.

As a retired teacher who enjoys a pension that provides for a decent standard of living, I am acutely aware than many others struggle tremendously in life. However, unlike those commentators who disparage and debase people like me for my good fortune and would like to see me brought down to a more hardscrabble existence, I am very much interested in seeing the opportunity of comfortable retirement living extended to as many people as possible. And that can only be achieved by confronting and challenging the conventional 'wisdom' of our political 'leaders'.

We have become a nation of complacent people, content to use our cynicism about the political process as an excuse for our inactivity, our refusal to advocate for an improved society.

We can do and be so much better than this.

The Sins Of The Father?

But then again, perhaps Peter MacKay is only modelling his behaviour after his elders.

Please Read This

It is a very eloquent and heart-felt rebuttal to Finance Minister Jim Flaherty’s observation that there are “no bad jobs.”

The Latest Threat To Financial Stability? Canadian Obstructionism

While we reflect on the concepts brought forth by the Occupy movement, namely that the many are ill-served by the control exerted by the few, we should also consider the role that our own government is playing in the world.

I have written extensively on the shame our government has brought to our name internationally by its unrepentant support of the export of asbestos to developing countries, going so far as to prevent it even being listed as a toxic substance under the Rotterdam Convention's Annex 111 classification.

Equally shameful is the obstructionist role Canada is playing at this weekend's pre-G20 meeting, when it tries to thwart a European proposal to add a minuscule tax on financial transactions that would yields billions in revenue to cash-strapped nations in Europe. In Canada, such a tax could generate more than $3.7 billion annually.

The proposal that our Finance Minister Jim Flaherty finds so threatening is as follows:

...a tiny tax of 0.1 per cent ($1 per $1,000) on transactions of stocks or bonds and only 0.001 per cent (1 cent per $1,000) on transactions of financial derivatives.

So a stock trade of $100,000 would cost an additional $100. Who is threatened by this?

And this isn't the first time the Harper government has worked against the interests of the majority. Prior to the 2010 Toronto G20 summit, he and his cabinet minister colleagues embarked on an international campaign to scuttle an IMF proposal for a levy on banks. As a result, the agreement by G20 leaders at the 2009 Pittsburgh summit to have the financial industry make a “fair and substantial contribution” for the costs of the crisis remains
unfulfilled.

Now what is it again that the Occupation movement has been saying about the 1%?

What Do Peter Mansbridge and Ed McMahon Have in Common?

In my younger days, I was quite a devotee of late-night television, my allegiance owed almost exclusively to The Tonight Show starring, as they used to say, Johnny Carson. The nightly ritual was the same. Ed McMahon would introduce the star, and Johnny would come out to perform his droll monologue, periodically assisted by the always-reliable Ed. For example, Johnny might make a declaration such as, “Boy, it was really hot in downtown Burbank today,” and Ed, the perfect second banana, would ask, “How hot was it? at which point Johnny would say, “It was so hot that....(followed by a punchline that usually elicited sufficient laughter to ensure that the routine would survive in one form or another for as long as Johnny wanted.)

Because of its importance in spotlighting the star, being a second banana in show business has a long and respected history. Being a journalist and behaving like a second banana does not.

Watching The National last night, I couldn't help but remember that relationship between Ed and Johnny. Peter Mansbridge's brief interview last night on The National with Finance Minister Jim Flaherty was, to say the least, disappointing, given that his questions were reminiscent of a second banana whose job it is to make the star shine.

Take, for example, the first softball question Mansbridge lobbed to Flaherty:

You've said all along that you didn't want an election. You reached out to the NDP, met with them, and today there was stuff in the budget for the NDP. Did you miscalculate what would be enough for the NDP?

This gentle query offered Flaherty the predictable opportunity to appear statesmanlike and beyond political games by saying he didn't know what it would take to satisfy the NDP (of course implying how unreasonable the party was being) and then talking about how it is the Finance Minister's responsibility to “look at the big picture,” consult widely and look out for “the best interests of the people.” He went on to talk about other things in the budget intended to meet some of the Liberal demands, but concluded that none of the measures seemed "good enough for the opposition parties" (at least he didn't say 'opposition coalition' this time).

Peter then threw another dainty slo-pitch, this one even more leading, by asking:

If it does end up in an election ... does that cause damage to the recovery program?

He could very easily have asked a much less biased question by inquiring how an election now might affect the economy.

Mansbridge's final question came when he asked Flaherty that if he didn't want an election, "Why didn't you try putting through an amendment?” Notice how he didn't make a much more hard-hitting query such as why Flaherty didn't ensure Bloc Quebecois support by including in the budget $2 billion for the harmonization of federal and provincial tax that Quebec undertook in 1992, a precondition for support already previously articulated by Giles Duceppe, an agreement, by the way, that most are saying is essentially already a done deal. In other words, Mansbridge allowed to stand the fiction that the Harper Government has done everything it could to avoid an unnecessary election, a fiction that will doubtless form a large part of the government's election narrative.

As frightened of offending the Harper regime as the CBC may be, I expect much much better from our national broadcaster.

To watch the entire 3:48 minute interview between Mansbridge and Flaherty, click here.