Threatening to withhold strike pay, The United Steelworkers International is forcing the members at Nanticoke to vote on a contract demanding concessions to U.S. Steel. Surely this is an illustration of what Chis hedges has to say in his book, Death of the Liberal Class.
- it will severely circumscribe our ability to regulate our environment, since any such measures that lead to loss of corporate profit would result in compensation demands from the aggrieved businesses;
- lawsuits will take place in secret tribunals outside of Canada;
- the negotiations have been conducted in secret, completely devoid of transparency;
- as opposed to NAFTA, which can be cancelled with six months' notice, FIPA will have a lifespan of 31 years
- China will be able to circumscribe local preferences on suppliers and employment.
To be fair to Trudeau, the Liberals are on record as saying they oppose some of the provisions of the deal, but were not prepared to side with the NDP motion to definitively declare the deal dead, banking instead on the possibility of changing some of the treaty's terms.
Nonetheless, the reaction of disappointment toward Trudeau's vote got me thinking about his dearth of policy pronouncements and the fact that in the run-up to the leadership convention, so many were projecting their own hopes and interpretation onto the blank canvas that he touts as a strength, since he claims to want to talk to Canadians about their concerns and priorities. Indeed, all we know about where he stands comes from his announcements about concerns for the middle class, youth unemployment, and similar platitudes.
Which got me thinking about a book I read several years ago, later made into an outstanding film featuring the peerless Peter Sellers in his last performance. Entitled Being There, it told the tale of a simple man, Chauncey Gardener, a gardener who is forced out into the world upon the death of his employer. In some ways a savant, he knows nothing except the world of gardening, but is mistaken for a well-educated, affluent upper class man, and ultimately his 'counsel' is sought by the high and mighty of society, who infer deep meaning, never intended by the speaker, from his literal and simplistic observations.
Clearly, Justin Trudeau is no savant. But then, the movie was not so much about Chauncey than it was a sendup of the credulity and shallowness of the people around him, searching for meaning and wisdom where there was none.
Perhaps these two clips best demonstrate my point:
I reminded her of the literature we had studied that attests to those qualities. John Steinbeck, in his best-known novel, The Grapes of Wrath, explored the concept of Manself, his term for the human spirit, a spirit that may certainly suffer setbacks, whether through violence in its many forms, beaten strikes or economic injustice, but remains alive, even in defeat, as long as people continue taking the steps necessary to oppose oppression in its many forms:
... Fear the time when the bombs stop falling while the bombers live- for every bomb is proof that the spirit has not died. And fear the time when the strikes stop while the great owners live – for every little beaten strike is proof that the step is being taken.
And this you can know- fear the time when Manself will not suffer and die for a concept, for this one quality is the foundation of Manself, and this one quality is man, distinctive in the universe.
During the recent bombings in Boston, that spirit was very much in evidence. People, despite not knowing where or when the next bomb might go off, instead of fleeing to the safety of shelter, tended to those who had sustained such grievous injuries. Whether doctors, passersby or marathon watchers, they thought of others before themselves:
This is why, whether we are talking about evil on a large or small scale, whether we are talking about suffering that seems to arbitrarily visit us either collectively or individually, hope remains alive, reminding all of us that every one of these moments of grace point the way to something greater, something that some would call transcendent, or to paraphrase Steinbeck, distinctive in the animal kingdom.
It is from this perspective that I look skeptically at all of the parties, not the least of which is the NDP, which I shall likely vote for in the next federal election, despite grave misgivings over its drift toward the centre (perhaps even the centre-right?)
This morning's Star editorial cartoon is worth pondering:
Also worth consideration is this letter from Michael Dale, of Stratford Ontario:
NDP removes socialist language in its constitution, April 15
The recent choice by the NDP to discard the word socialism from its constitution comes as no surprise to those of us who genuinely strive for a better, more equitable system.
The NDP was born an opportunistic party and now it has openly shed any pretense of principle. I applaud this move. Now perhaps socialists within the party who have long made excuses for its behaviour will come to their senses and leave.
Some issue was made of the appearance of U.S. Democratic party functionaries at the recent NDP convention. This should not have been a surprise. The NDP derived its very name from that American institution as it opportunistically attempted to catch the wake of another flashy young U.S. president who lacked substance. History does repeat itself.
I ask only one thing of the NDP. Please stop claiming a lineage from the CCF. That historic party was a socialist party. The NDP in no way shares its goals or ideals.
It shows a lack of respect for the women and men who risked all to stand up against the established political and financial power of Canada. Let the CCF remain a noble historic symbol of working class determination. And may its torch someday be raised again by socialists across the country.
It may be that I am overly sensitive to the reactionary agenda that seems to dominate society today. It may be that I am misinterpreting a public statement made by a Canadian professor who teaches at both the Royal Military College of Canada and Queen’s University. It may mean nothing at all. Or it could have very dangerous implications.
Ever since the terrorist attacks in New York in 2001, there has been a steady erosion of civil liberties in the United States. Illegal renditions by that country, aided and abetted by many other jurisdictions, targetting American citizens for assassination, and denying suspects their Miranda rights are but three examples.
Lest we think we are beyond such practices in Canada, we need only think of the infamous case of Maher Arar, whose rendition to Syria for torture and imprisonment was aided and abetted by our government.
So it was with real interest that I read in this morning's Star the fact that two years ago, Russia warned the FBI that Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the 26-year-old bombing suspect killed earlier Friday after a firefight with police, was a follower of radical Islam” and that “he had changed drastically since 2010 as he prepared to leave the United States for travel to the country’s region to join unspecified underground groups.”
The question naturally arises, of course, as to why, with that warning, nothing was done to prevent the deaths and grievous injuries that occurred last week at The Boston Marathon.
Canadian professor Christian Leuprecht addresses that question in the following way:
“Is there anything in the way that the law is written that prevented intelligence agencies from doing the job they need to do?”
“It points to the difficulty we’ve put intelligence services in,” he said. “On the one hand we expect them to pick out all the radicals and rein them in and make sure they don’t do anything crazy. On the other, we live in a society where we agree that just having marginal ideas is not illegal.”
Again, I am perfectly willing to admit the possibility that I am misinterpreting Professor Leuprecht's comments, which may simply be observational in nature. However, if they are, instead, prescriptive, he and everyone else who may see our rights and freedoms as inconvenient or unnecessary fetters to law enforcement need to be reminded of one inconvenient truth: those rights and freedoms exist to protect citizens against abuses from the state; they are not there to make anyone's job easier, even for those charged with the responsibility of rooting out terrorism that may reside in our midst.
Coupled with the fact that two grad students detected a fundamental error in the spreadsheet calculations of the two Harvard professors upon whose shoddy work the justification for austerity largely rests, perhaps it is time for a larger consideration of its wisdom?
UPDATE: Here is solid evidence to support Mark Blyh's warning about the circular effect of widespread austerity efforts.
I hope to write an actual blog post on an entirely different topic later today, but since the latest poll shows a very strong reaction against the Prime Minister's puerile attack ads directed against Justin Trudeau, I can't resist reproducing a few of the letters from Star readers in this morning's edition expressing their thoughts on the issue. Be sure to check out this link if you want to read all of them :
Tories attack Trudeau on first day in new job, April 16
These ads are pathetic. What an awful was to instill the values of leadership to the youth of our country. When kids see it on after dinner you’re showing them that it’s OK to bully to get what you want. High school teens running for school council see that in order to win they should bash their opponents. And to think this cost upwards of $600,000 for production and media time?
As an undecided voter I find this absolutely disgusting and an awful waste of money and time. Get your stuff together. We don’t want a bully, we want a confident, bright leader with integrity who leads through respect and inspires us.
I was undecided about Justin Trudeau until I saw the Conservative Party attack ads. I’d like to thank Harper’s crew for making up my mind for me. They’ve pushed me right into Trudeau’s arms. Maybe they should revert back to a party name suggested a few years ago. The Conservative Reform Alliance Party. The acronym is certainly appropriate.
Lesley Chalmers, Toronto
Stephen Harper’s Regressive Conservative Party has truly sunk to new lows in its recent attack ad on Justin Trudeau. It is completely beside the point that Mr. Trudeau took his shirt off in the context of a charity function. Attack ads are contemptuous, juvenile tactics that we as Canadians should be disgusted with, period — especially in non-election years. Mr. Harper must feel terribly threatened to stoop to such levels.
Jenny Tsao, Thornhill
The prime minister should be ashamed of approving and standing behind such infantile, idiotic, grade-school bully style, expensive and totally useless attack ads against Justin Trudeau. Is this something an adult professional organization can be proud of?
I hope the people of Canada realize in the next election how absolutely shallow this political party really is!
Peter Buck, Coldwater
.jpg)
UPDATE: Unbelievable - now Duffy claims he repaid the money in March.
These Star readers seem to think so:
Tories attack Trudeau on first day in new job, April 16
It is fair to criticize opposing politicians for their political beliefs and policies. It is right to deplore bullying in all its forms. Now we find that the usual unfair, unjust and bullying attack ads of the Harper Tory’s are aimed directly at the new leader of the Liberal party.
They do not attack Mr. Trudeau’s politics but childishly attack him and only him. This takes the usual Harper cyber-bullying to a whole new level. Given the example this sets for other cyber bullies, we should no longer tolerate these unprovoked personal attacks.
Is it time for the Conservatives to find a new leader and a new path?
Bob Sture, Innisfil
Any survivor of sexual abuse knows that the effects last a lifetime. And then there are the victims who don’t survive.
Recently, young perpetrators of rape have added new horrors to their crime, taking pictures of their victim and circulating them in their community as if the photos were trophies celebrating a kill. No wonder the resulting name-calling and degradation lead some girls to commit suicide.
What is happening to our society when vicious attacks on individual integrity, physical and/or psychological, are celebrated as some sort of victory? We have to look to the highest levels in our society for at least part of the explanation.
I refer to the “attack ad” mentality of the Conservative Party in Canada, and of political strategists in other countries as well. They are not to be dismissed as merely tiresome or childish. These chilling, contemptuous, and arrogant messages are casting a shadow over the population that condones and even encourages brutality as legitimate self-expression.
Any society that fails to respect its own and protect its own, that tolerates a government bent on degrading and eliminating those honourably serving as the Opposition, will not survive for long. Our young are already reflecting the harm such a toxic political environment causes.
It’s time Canada’s citizens took more responsibility in demanding a better example from its elected representatives.
Dianna Rodgers Allen, Parry Sound
I am shocked by the Conservative attack ad on Justin Trudeau I just saw on television.
At a time when we are saddened by the suicides of teenagers who have been humiliated and bullied after demeaning representations of them have been posted publicly, at a time when we wonder how teenagers can be so cruel, at a time when we ask what we can do to stop this, we are faced with the same practice at the very highest level of our country.
Terribly sad that all those involved in planning, shooting, approving and subsequently running this ad thought it was OK.
Yvette Laezza, Mississauga
In his column this morning, The Star's Tim Harper points out something that I think many of us are all too aware of: Stephen Harper is a hypocrite. There really is no other way to describe the despicable partisanship that permeates our Prime Minister's deformed soul, most recently on display in London when he took the opportunity to exploit the tragedy of the Boston Marathon deaths and grievous injuries from a terrorist bombing.
As Tim Harper tartly observes, the usual protocol of not criticizing one's own country while abroad depends on who’s talking. There is one rule for Stephen Harper and another rule for everyone else.
The columnist reminds us of how Tom Mulcair, during his recent trip to Washington, offered some trenchant criticism when responding to questions by Canadian reporters:
When Mulcair questioned Canada’s commitment to fighting climate change, raising the Conservative decision to abandon Kyoto and its inability to meet its Copenhagen greenhouse gas emission targets, the government went apoplectic.
Mulcair was accused of “trash talking’’ Canada, killing Canadian jobs, ignoring Canadian interests, refusing to, as Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver put it, “leave politics at the border.”
Yet, of course, while in London on Wednesday to attend the Thatcher funeral, Harper refused to 'leave politics at the border'; even though he was not even asked by reporters about Justin Trudeau's remarks to Peter Mansbridge, our national disgrace launched into a broadside against him in an attempt to score a few political points.
While most of us were taught to show some respect when death and serious injury occurs, apparently Stephen Harper sees such occurrences as opportunities to promote his political 'brand,' one that, I sincerely hope, is becoming increasingly odious to more and more Canadians.
I have written about Allan Gregg on this blog before; probably his most noteworthy recent contribution to political discourse came in his speech to Carleton University’s School of Public Affairs, in which he denounced the Orwellian bent of the Harper regime in its promotion of ignorance in place information and knowledge.
Gregg offers his thoughts on attacks ads in this morning's Star. In contrast to the blood sport that it has become under the Harper regime, Gregg defines politics this way:
For good or ill, politics is the process by which we organize civil, democratic society. It is used to allocate a nation’s scarce resources. Through it, we confer a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. Because of it, we are able to represent the wishes of the majority and at the same time protect the rights of the minority. And at bottom, politics creates a state that has the potential to do immense good or infinite harm and, as such, we all have a vested interest that the best and brightest and only those who are motivated by the public good are encouraged to enter public life.
By this definition, the Harper government has abjectly failed the public whose interests and well-being they were charged with protecting and promoting. Gregg readily admits that attack ads do work because they play to people's innate cynicism about politicians. And as I have asserted before, I believe that the additional purpose behind Harper's 'politics of denunciation' is the discouragement of people from voting, thereby allowing the 'true believers' (whoever those benighted souls may be) to have disproportionate influence at the polls.
I consider Gregg as one who knows of what he speaks. The 'brains' behind the 1993 campaign ad ridiculing Jean Chretien's facial deformity, he must have at some point experienced a Damascene conversion, no doubt facilitated by the Harper regime's relentless practice of politics that bespeaks a depraved indifference to the health of our democracy, of which attack ads are only a small part. Gregg now seems to be spending much of his time trying to atone for those past mistakes, and today's Star article seems very much a part of that process of penance.
So I will leave the final word with the former pollster:
... those who believe that this (the public good) is “what politics are really about” have a responsibility to draw attention to its virtues and not just its shortcomings.
Apparently not to Stephen Harper, who used the tragedy of the Boston Marathon bombings to try to attack Justin Trudeau.
Apparently the Prime Minister discourages any rational consideration of crime in favour of his well-known modus operandi, knee-jerk reactions and demagoguery.
Watch the following and decide for yourself:
For those as weary of political attack ads as I am, The Star's Carol Goar has an interesting column in today's edition. Entitled Debating ‘dark arts’ of political campaigning, Goar relates her experience of moderating a panel over the weekend comprised of
... Jaime Watt, the primary architect of former Ontario premier Mike Harris’s two election campaigns in the ’90s; David Herle, co-chair of former prime minister Paul Martin’s two election campaigns a decade later; and Chima Nkendirim, the strategist behind Calgary Mayor Naheed Nenshi’s victory in 2010.
While each had his own definition of his role during a political campaign, Herle and Watts defended the use of what they called 'negative ads'. While averring their distaste for attacks on a person's personal life, and agreed that mocking physical appearances/disabilities, they both feel it is fair game to question a candidates motives and fitness for office, which, to me, despite their rationalizations, is tantamount to endorsing character assassination, probably in many ways much worse than mocking of physical attributes. Nkendirim was the only one who felt his prime duty is to defend his candidate vigorously.
Rather disingenuously, Herle professed to being deeply troubled by low voter turnout:
“When 40 per cent of the population isn’t voting, the results are wildly unrepresentative of the people,” he acknowledged. “But we don’t know what the driver of that is.” He suggested it might be the reduced relevance of government in an age of globalization and market economics.
I suspect a bit of willful ignorance on Mr. Herle's part. As political observers far more astute than I have observed, there is little doubt that political attack ads, by the very fact that they lower political discourse to the level of schoolyard taunts, are a disincentive to voter participation.
And as I have suggested before, that is precisely the outcome desired by those who have proven to be such adept masters of these dark arts, the Harper Conservatives.
The latest attack ad, this one against newly-appointed Liberal Party leader Justin Trudeau, serves as a timely reminder of the Harper government's seemingly endless capacity for hateful and divisive propaganda. In this, I make an all-too obvious observation. But I have, for some time, wondered about the audience for those ads, and searching my blog archive, I don't think I have commented upon this aspect previously.
No matter which Conservative attack ad one chooses, and there have been many, it seems that a standard template for the imagery and the narration predominates, both always out of context and derisive in tone. Designed to inspire fear, resentment and mockery towards their targets, they reveal something very significant about their collective architect, the Harper regime: a morally bankrupt and debased view of the electorate.
I have often wondered whether the target audience, the general electorate, has ever stopped to think about the implications of having a government that regards them as little more than Pavlovian dogs, deficient in intellect, general awareness, and sensibility, poised to respond to the latest offering from their 'master'. Consider the ad against Justin Trudeau, which I posted yesterday. There is a kind of carnival music playing in the background, suggestive of frivolity and lightness, the image they are trying to instill of Trudeau in the viewer's mind. The Liberal leader is shown doing a kind of striptease and behaving in an exaggerated, almost effeminate way. Cue the contempt.
The other ad released yesterday listed Trudeau's experience as a camp counsellor, rafting instructor and drama teacher for two years, the later delivered with particular derision (the message: a real leader has contempt for the arts). While its message is blunt and obvious, that very bluntness makes the intended audience manipulation more than obvious, something that Canadian citizens should be offended, outraged, and disturbed by, inasmuch as it is a bald admission that power is the regime's only raison d'etre.
And yet we are told that attack ads are very effective. I can only hope that more and more people begin to exercise their innate critical faculties and see these ads for what they really are: a blatant expression of contempt for the voters of Canada.
UPDATE: This Star editorial provides some useful context for and analysis of this attack ad.
Many years ago, the iconic writer and broadcaster Pierre Berton wrote a book entitled The Comfortable Pew. Yapdates gives the following summary of the book, commissioned by the Canadian Anglican Church in 1965.
... the author accuses the church of forgetting its main identity and what it first stands for. Broadly speaking, there are two main issues with church. Firstly, the church has become institutionalized in the sense that it is more concerned about conformity and keeping the status quo. Secondly, the church is in danger of being fossilized because of its inability to stay relevant to the people and the society at large. Both of these contribute to the crisis of the church.
Those who visit my blog regularly may be aware of how highly cynical I am about institutions. Whether we are talking about bodies that exist to protect us, educate us, spiritually revitalize us, represent us politically, etc., all seem to inevitably fall victim to a kind of self-promotion, complacence, conservatism and careerism that ultimately subvert their primary purpose. Indeed, such decay was probably best explored in Chris Hedges' Death of the Liberal Class.
I couldn't help but think of these things yesterday when I read a story in The Star entitled Sculpture of Jesus the Homeless rejected by two prominent churches.
Sculptor Timothy White created a piece depicting Jesus as a homeless person, an outcast, sleeping on a bench:
It takes a moment to see that the slight figure shrouded by a blanket, hauntingly similar to the real homeless who lie on grates and in doorways, is Jesus. It’s the gaping wounds in the feet that reveal the subject, whose face is draped and barely visible, as Jesus the Homeless.
Despite [the] message of the sculpture — Jesus identifying with the poorest among us — it was rejected by two prominent Catholic churches, St. Michael’s Cathedral in Toronto and St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York.
Initially it was enthusiastically embraced by the rectors of the two churches, but higher-ups in the New York and Toronto archdiocese turned it down, feeling that it might be too controversial or vague. The artist was told that “it was not an appropriate image.”
I can think of no more damning an indictment of institutional cowardice than the previous sentence. But perhaps the last word on how the message of Jesus has been so distorted and perverted over time should best be left to Wood Guthrie:
I'll probably have more to write later, but for now, here are some always reliable insights by Star readers on the 'apology' from RBC CEO Gord Nixon:
Royal Bank chief executive makes public apology, April 11
An open letter to RBC President and CEO Gord Nixon:
Don't outsource jobs at your Canadian operations at the expense of your Canadian employees. That's the message we RBC customers want you to get and act upon. Your Canadian customers and shareholders are the ones who made your bank rich enough to expand around the world. Show us and your loyal hard-working employees some respect by not jumping at every strategy to enhance your profits even further. It's not like the bank is strapped for cash. How much is enough for you?
John Bruce, Niagara Falls, Ont.
Businesses have a right to find ways to reduce operating costs, and if it means lowering labour costs, so be it. However, displacing local workers and shifting them onto the ranks of the unemployed will increase the number of recipients and the cost related to the EI benefits program. It is well known that governments in Canada have being gifting banks and many other corporations with all kinds of largesse at our expense. So perhaps now is the time for them to shoulder some of the responsibilities to support the resulting social and economic upheaval that their choices have caused. All levels of government should levy a hefty tax per job lost on those businesses that choose to farm out jobs.
Frank Arturi, Etobicoke
Why would anyone consider a formal apology from RBC acceptable when the jobs in question are still being outsourced? There is something morally wrong with a business model that financially rewards executives for taking good jobs away from Canadians under the guise of exceeding shareholder expectations. Outsourcing decisions to drive corporate profit and executive compensation come with a significant ongoing cost to our society.
Jean Binns, Burlington
The BBC has apparently been influenced in its decision by the howls of outrage from the British right-wing, upset by the implied disrespect of their patron, St. Margaret, that airing the full song, the usual practice of the show for rising songs, would demonstrate.
Compounding the craven capitulation is this disingenuous and self-serving remark by Tony Hall, the BBC's director general (italics mine):
"I understand the concerns about this campaign (the massive purchasing of the song to celebrate the week's major event). I personally believe it is distasteful and inappropriate.
"However, I do believe it would be wrong to ban the song outright as free speech is an important principle and a ban would only give it more publicity."
So in Mr. Hall's world, a little betrayal of public trust and integrity is okay. Hmm, sounds like just another politician ascending the ladder to me.
For those who cannot muster any sorrow for Maggie's passing, enjoy the following video which, I think, rather effectively captures the animus the Iron Lady was so adept at fostering:
With so many things of note to comment on, today is one of those days when, if I had the time, I suspect I would spend most of the day writing blog posts. Instead, allow me to direct your attention, if you haven't already read them today, to Alison over at Creekside, and Owen at Northern Reflections.
Alison has been doing an excellent job tracking the murky details surrounding outsourcing. In today's post, she lambastes the CBC's Amanda Lang for her enthusiastic and disingenuous endorsement of outsourcing practices in The Globe and Mail.
As I noted in my comment on her post,
Thanks for following this issue so closely, Alison. The fact that Amanda Lang is staunchly defending the bleeding off of Canadian jobs does not really surprise me, nor does it surprise me that hers is a voice given prominence on the CBC, which has capitulated to the forces of the right in a misbegotten effort at appeasement - all of course, under the rubric of 'balanced reporting.'
There is a similar apologia written by The Globe's Doug Sanders, who suggests xenophobia and wage fears are at the root of the opposition to these abominable practices, and laments the fact that foreign workers have no easy route to citizenship in our country.
Over at Northern Reflections, Owen does his usual excellent job, this time exploring the dark side of outsourcing, aided and abetted by compliant politicians, through an article by Michael Harris.
These are but two of the many excellent and conscientious bloggers who help me retain some hope for a better tomorrow.
As with so many others who have recently passed away, we shall not look upon his like again:
But wait. There's more! Here is his famous skit from an appearance on Jack Paar, here Winters extemporizes with a simple prop - a stick:
The question of personal integrity is one that is very near and dear to my heart. Since literature at its best is a reflection of some of the deepest truths about human nature, during my teaching career, it was a topic I explored with relish every time the curriculum permitted it. In so-called real life, questions of personal honour and adherence to principle become central to the conduct of our society, especially because of its presence or absence (the latter all too often the case), in public life.
Yesterday I posted a video from Evan Solomon's Power and Politics featuring the comments of Kellie Leitch, a physician before she embraced the Conservative banner, and now a Conservative M.P. and Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour. Like a good and faithful servant of Harper, Leitch, in response to Solomon's questions, was content to parrot the party lines about the Temporary Foreign Workers Program that has been so much in the news of late. This is the same Dr. Leitch who, after her election, staunchly defended the government's position that exporting asbestos to the developing world was just fine, much to the consternation of her former medical colleagues and millions of Canadians.
So the surrendering of principle for political expedience and power both fascinates and appalls me. In this vein, I am, with permission and thanks, reproducing an analysis of Leitch that The Salamander offered on yesterday's post:
Kellie Leitch is a dead end .. Her political psychosis is likely identical to that of Stephen Harper. She is a classic over achiever, with salt of the earth roots, in Manitoba and Alberta.. Fort McMurray fer gawds sake ! A medical and clinical exemplar, a pediatric orthopedic surgeon who fixes little kids injuries and broken bones. Probably a Mensa level brain or higher.
There's a huge lesson to be learned by looking at this woman's professional arc. But then there's huge lessons to learn examining other Conservative arcs.
At the risk of being extremely blunt.. she may be no different than ethical and moral losers such as Harper, Oliver, Flaherty, Kent, Clement, Ashfield, Baird etc ad infinitum. After all, she defended asbestos exports to construct third world schools, even when 300 fellow clinicians requested that she honor her Hippocratic medical oath to do no harm.
She comes across robotically on TV/Web like a female version of Pierre Poiievre but without the smug conceited sneer. But her pedantic defense and sidetracking evasions of un-defendable ethics and twisted policies is certainly common to all the anointed Harper spokespersons.
Do you want her in the emergency room when your child has a severe fracture or worse? Yes. Do you trust her to do what's right for Canada ? No .. There's that Conservative Conundrum .. the nasty aspect that makes any sane person question how these people get elected.
Ms Leitch is OK with asbestos, Grassy Narrows mercury poisoning, denying Fort Chipewayn's poisoned fish and water, good with exterminating boreal caribou, fine with electoral fraud, mingling with Rob Anders & defending Peter Peneshue or Dean Del Mastro, closing the Experimental Lakes Area, comfortable with gutting environmental laws .. Does she have an ethical or moral line in the sand ?? If so.. what is it ?
Does anyone in the Harper Government or Conservative Party have such a line in the sand ?
Apparently not ...
I'm not sure who is actually responsible for breaking down these outsourcing statistics according to province and company, but we certainly owe him or her a real debt of gratitude.
Somehow, I don't think this is what Judith Timson meant when she talked about authenticity.
H/t Sandra Harris
The other day, in my post on political leadership, I chose Toronto Mayor Rob Ford as the figure to contrast what I consider to be the much more mature and thoughtful approach of Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne. My exclusion of the more obvious figure of comparison, Progressive Conservative Leader Tim Hudak, was intentional, given that I have written so much about him in the past, each post essentially observing the same thing: his addiction to ideological bromides as substitutes for real policy.
That dearth of vision was much in evidence in Hudak's fundraising dinner in Toronto the other day. Saying all the 'right' things to those for whom real thought on policy issues is not an option, young Tim trotted out the usual 'solutions' to all of Ontario's woes, including:
...bringing unions to heel, getting rid of “expensive gold-standard” public pensions, new subways, introducing performance levels for bureaucrats, freezing public-sector wages for two years, and giving tax breaks for employers.
“We will modernize our labour laws so that no worker will be forced to join a union as a condition for taking a job. And no business will be forced to hire a company solely because it has a unionized workforce,” he said.
To regard Hudak as anything more than a tool of the business agenda is difficult, and I am only taking a bit of time to even refer to him here because of a column in today's Star by Judith Timson on how we crave what she calls authenticity in our leaders, which she describes in the following way:
Authenticity does not seem to be about being someone voters want to have a beer with, or even one with whom people always agree. It is about being a leader who comes across as authentically in his or her own skin, not spouting platitudes or panaceas, but one whose words and actions, in a very cynical age, people can believe.
While I don't agree with all of the candidates she cites for their authenticity (Rob Ford, Margaret Thatcher, Justin Trudeau), her other choice, Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne, resonates with me, for the reasons I gave the other day.
Here is what Timson has to say about her:
Ontario’s new premier, Kathleen Wynne, has brought a different kind of authenticity to her office. For one thing, she has an extraordinary voice — one that is intimate and knowledgeable. Asked about public transit during a CBC radio call-in show not long ago, Wynne first launched into an affecting anecdote about riding Toronto’s brand new subway system back in the 1950s with her grandmother, wearing her “little white gloves.”
It was not only touching but brave, because Wynne dared to come across first as an ordinary person with memories others might share and not as a politician with a spiel about transit. Mind you, she’s also not afraid to deliver the bad news — if citizens want better transit, they will have to pony up in taxes.
So while others are content to talk about gravy trains, union bosses and the need for the euphemistic workplace democracy in their appeals to the passions and prejudices of the masses, Wynne is trying to set a higher standard for political discourse based on reason, fact and guilelessness.
Let's hope she succeeds.
I recently wrote a post on Porter Air and its shameful treatment of its fuel handlers, most of whom start that crucial position at about $12 per hour and are currently on strike while the airline uses scabs in their stead. Its corporate arrogance was once again on full display in Toronto today as it announced its desire (intention) to begin flying jets out of the Billy Bishop (or as it is known regionally, the island) airport, despite this inconvenient fact:
an existing tripartite agreement, signed in 1983 by all three levels of governments, which runs until 2033. That agreement prohibits the use of jet aircraft at the island except in certain circumstances such as medical evacuation flights or during the CNE.
The above agreement was put into place for a number of reasons, not the least of which was to avoid having noisy jets flying directly over downtown Toronto. As well, the airport itself in its current configuration is too short to accommodate jets. And much has transpired in terms of extensive albeit aesthetically questionable condo development along Toronto's waterfront, the owners of which will be obviously negatively affected by an amendment to the agreement.
And yet that is exactly what Porter president and CEO Robert Deluce expects, saying that Porter will ask three governments “shortly” to amend the tripartite agreement — to allow jets and permit a “modest 168 meter” extension at each end of the existing main runway.
Predictably, Toronto Mayor Rob Ford, who has never met a development he hasn't liked (casino, casino, casino!) is enthused over the prospect, as is his always-present brother, Doug (he who explains away every criticism of Rob as 'a left-wing conspiracy'). Where the rest of Toronto's City Council stands on the issue remains to be seen.
Whether or not one cares about Toronto is largely irrelevant here. More germane is whether or not this situation will turn out to be just another rubber-stamp of the corporate agenda. Indeed, will the wishes of the taxpaying citizens of Canada's largest city fork any lightning at all? The answer could provide a template of things to come for the rest of us.
UPDATE: There are two columns in this morning's Star on the issue, one moderately in favour of Porter's plan, (Royson James), and one vehemently opposed, Christopher Hume. Each make some interesting points, but given my own bias against corporate arrogance, I find myself more disposed to Hume's piece. Take a look and see what you think.
I have a busy morning ahead, so for now I take the liberty of reproducing two letters from this morning's Star that make some excellent points as to how to apportion blame for the outrageous corporate practice of outsourcing Canadian jobs, most apparent in the current RBC imbroglio. As well, if you have the time, check out this column by Heather Mallick, who writes on the same topic.
Royal Bank faces heat over foreign worker plan, April 8
The outsourcing by the Royal Bank of Canada of work done by Canadians to foreigners is the logical outcome of the Conservative government's policy of allowing temporary workers into Canada and generally supporting the large-corporation agenda put forth by the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and their ilk. The bankruptcy of these policies is brought into sharp relief when one of the most profitable corporations in Canada enhances its already huge profitability a little bit more at the expense of Canadian employment.
The government's Economic Action Plan should be retitled “Corporate Welfare Plan.” The government has no coherent approach to dealing with the twin job-reduction forces of globalization and technology, other than tax cutting, cost cutting and making Canada safe for corporations.
As for RBC, shame on you. Their stated defence for their action is the usual meaningless corporate blather about “reducing cost to reinvest in initiatives that enhance the customer experience.” Really? When did any of the large Canadian banks put customers ahead of profits?
John Simke, Toronto
RBC's decision to replace Canadian workers with foreign workers under the faulty new federal legislation is an affront to Canada and Canadian workers. Profits at all costs shows a disrespect to Canadian workers.
Since RBC is doing quite well financially, this move is troubling. With five unemployed workers in Toronto for every job, many of them low paid, this is a further slap in the face.
It is clear that RBC shows no moral responsibility to the country and its people, who made them rich. While the executives of this company make millions, they have lost touch with the rest of the population.
Joan Dolson, Toronto
As fellow blogger LeDaro pointed out to me the other day in a comment on my post about the Royal Bank's outsourcing of jobs, such practices are common among all of our banks. Further research by the CBC has come up with ample evidence to verify LeDaro's observation. You can read the complete sad and ugly truth here.
H/t David Doorey
Inveterate cynic that I am, I have long believed that most politicians see us, to borrow a phrase that I think originated in The Depression, as 'easy marks,' people who are especially susceptible to manipulation and victimization. The fact is that as a species we are a mass of contradictions, at times incredibly weak and at times surprisingly noble; and it is a rare politician indeed who chooses the path less traveled by appealing to our better natures through logic, respect, and conviction instead of rhetoric that plays on our fears, prejudices and attraction to easy 'solutions'.
So it seems only fitting to use two quite disparate politicians to illustrate my thesis, and although both are from the Ontario political landscape, I believe what they represent has widespread application.
Let's start with Rob Ford, mayor of Canada's erstwhile world-class city, Toronto. While his buffoonish antics are well-known, why does he continue to be very popular with a significant proportion of Toronto's citizens? Clearly, his message of low taxes, the elimination of gravy trains and his simplistic and disingenuous promise of ending gridlock painlessly (casinos, casinos, casinos!) resonate with a substantial segment of the populace, no matter how absurd his 'vision' may be or how socially expensive it would be to implement. Indeed, Ford poses as 'everyman,' understanding the travails of the average person - he 'feels their pain.'
I think it is clear which side of human nature Rob Ford is appealing to.
Then we move on to another neophyte leader, Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne. Here is a lady I find myself liking and respecting more and more each day, and for one reason only: she is treating us like adults, not talking down to us, not talking to distract us, but talking to make us think, and in the process, appealing to our nobler instincts.
Despite the fact that an election is likely sooner rather than later, Wynne has taken the bold step of initiating a frank (and hopefully mature) discussion on how to pay for the infrastructure needed to deal definitively with the perennial problem of gridlock in the Greater Toronto-Hamilton Area. Her message is refreshingly frank: There are no free rides in improved transit. Billions in revenue are needed, and there is only a limited array of funding options.
No sugarcoating for the sake of political expedience. No promises of a painless panacea for gridlock. No shirking the responsibilities of real leadership.
A risky approach to take, as noted by Martin Regg Cohn in today's Star, one fraught with all manner of pitfalls thanks to a political opposition all too willing to continue offering platitudes rather solutions, rhetoric rather than substance.
I may very well not ultimately agree with the funding measures the Wynne government decides upon. But at least I will feel that I have been respected, I have been listened to earnestly, and probably most important of all, not been lied to.
In 'the corrupted currents' of this political world, that is as much optimism as an inveterate cynic can muster
Somehow, I don't think George Orwell would be too impressed by the RBC response to its public relations nightmare over the outsourcing of Canadian jobs:
Said Zabeen Hirji, RBC’s chief human resources officer:
“We recognize the impact of this situation on our employees and we continue to remain focused on assisting our employees through this transition. We are working diligently to find suitable roles for those affected and it is our hope over the next few months to transition them to other positions.”
My hope would be that RBC and the other banks making record profits immediately transition to a policy of employee retention instead of dismissal through outsourcing.
As noted in a previous post, many of our more prosperous citizens feel no obligation to the country that made their great wealth possible. Rather, they are quite happy to hide it in offshore financial institutions, which, while being ethically questionable, is not illegal. However, many of them are also committing crimes by not declaring profits that accrue to them in those faraway places, and tax evasion is most definitely illegal.
Today's Star readers weigh in on the issue in their usual insightful manner. I am taking the liberty of reproducing their letters below:
Rich can no longer hide millions; Crack down on tax havens, Editorial, April 5
Regarding the recent articles about tax havens and governments world-wide saying they will now put more effort into getting those public monies back from the super-affluent. Well, the world’s supposed democratic governments have been aware of these billions of dollars illegally absconded by the rich and powerful for a long time. It has only been through the efforts of private citizens (journalists, authors, the Tax Justice Network) that this information has become common knowledge. Why is it that, as the editorial states, “. . . until recently there has been little political will to crack down on the super-affluent”?
The U.S. Republican party, our own Conservative government and democratic governments world-wide have been crying their “austerity” mantra ad nauseam, claiming massive shortfalls in revenues as their reason for cannibalizing tax-funded social programs. Yet they cogently and deceitfully failed to mention or address the flagrant abuse (tax evasion) by the world’s 1 per cent in causing these monetary shortfalls. Collusion between our elected officials and the super-rich is common knowledge. So now the question is why do the super-affluent and their political lackeys seem so determined to undermine the finances, wealth, health and security of The People (99 per cent) in our democratic systems of society?
Al Dunn, Kingston
Any Canadian with money in tax havens should be treated like the holders of accounts in Cyprus banks — charge them 60 per cent when they are found out. Tax havens should be made impossible through international laws. They work to the detriment of society.
Tony ten Kortenaar, Toronto
H/t Kev
Today's Star has several letters of praise for the former Parliamentary Budget Officer, several of which I am reproducing below. Please be sure to check out the full array of them on the Star website. The respect accorded him in the letters suggests his example will be remembered long after Harper and his ilk are but historical footnotes.
The job no one wanted, Opinion April 1
Not only does this reveal a man of courage, but it highlights the courage we all need to resist “the consolidation of power at the expense of citizens” taking place in our time.
Whenever privilege becomes concentrated to a few, whether we are talking wealth, political power or mass communication, nations fail. Canada is failing because political, economic and educational privilege is being consolidated to a few rather than dispersed among many.
But the remedy doesn’t lie within Parliament, or with big business or with the media conglomerates. It lies as Kevin Page rightly diagnoses, in our “need to wake up.”
Not only is ‘Canada’s Parliament losing its capacity to hold the government to account” but we are losing our capacity to hold our markets to account for making a few wealthy at the expense of the many, and our capacity to ensure the vulnerable are provided for by our social programs and our institutions of care.
To speak up against this trend is a job nobody wants, especially if job security is threatened. But without that courage, our democracy and prosperity are at stake. Not just for the vulnerable, but for all of us.
We need to wake up.
John Deacon, Toronto
Wow! What a letter. I am blown away by Kevin Page. Now here is a guy who gets it. He understands his role and does so with integrity and professionalism and with the best interests of the Canadian taxpayer in mind.
One may reasonably think that the Conservatives would do everything possible to ensure he stays on board instead of showing him the door and replacing him with someone nice but “not so efficient.”
This reminds me of Dalton McGuinty balking at the rehiring of Ombudsman Andre Marin in 2010. It turned out fortuitous for the provincial leader as his government needed transparency after the G20 debacle and Marin’s office was there to help.
Maybe Prime Minister Stephen Harper should reconsider his tired cloak and dagger routine.
Jeff Green, Toronto
Kevin Page and the PBO have made a great contribution to Canada in the past five years. What Canada needs to succeed in the future are more Kevin Pages and fewer Stephen Harpers. On behalf of Canada, thank you Mr. Page.
Charles Campisi, Oakville
Thank you Mr. Page for sharing your thoughts with Canadians. In spite of continual stonewalling from the present federal Conservative government, you, as head of the PBO, were truly a very conscientious, thorough, “sticking to the facts” and “no axe to grind” type of civil servant and we all Canadians should be proud of you. Best wishes in your future endeavours. Aquil Ali, Toronto Kevin Page is one of my heroes. I copied his letter in the Star and sent it, along with my own cover letter, to 20 of my family and friends. I asked them to contact their MPs and demand that they support even more power to the position to the PBO’s position in the future.
I sincerely hope that we have not heard the last of Kevin Page. We need his courage, character, skill and sense of right in this country. I hope that his service to Canadians will be recognized with an Order of Canada. (It certainly won’t be given by the Conservative government with Harper as leader!)
Listen up Justin Trudeau! Kevin has gifted his sons with an amazing legacy and has given “We The People” an incredible example to follow. This is a wonderful example of turning a tragedy into something very positive.
Kathryn Walker, Toronto
My sincere thanks to Kevin Page for his dedicated service to Canadian taxpayers like me. Under difficult circumstances, he has shown himself to be a man of integrity, class, and principle. It’s a shame his political masters in the Conservative government couldn’t manage something similar. Bravo, sir.
Susan Sterling, Toronto
A detailed analysis of recently released spending reports conducted by the Globe and Mail suggests two things: thanks to cuts in the budget of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency we can trust the regime to render our food system less safe, and thanks to cuts to Aboriginal Affairs, we can trust that the concerns of natives will continue to be only a political irritation for Ottawa.
But hey, the regime is well on its way to keeping its promise to balance the budget by 2015, and as we should all know by now, our function is to serve the economy, no matter the unfortunate consequences that may ensue.
