Yet Another Failure of The Corporate Community

We hear everyday about the grim prospects that our young people face - protracted periods of unemployment, underemployment and contract work have become the norm, rather than the exception, even for those with extensive education. Even going back to school to pursue graduate studies or certificate programs offers no guarantee of gainful employment. Indeed, my own family has personal experience with this problem. My son, with a Master's Degree, had to move to Alberta for meaningful employment, and my daughter, also the holder of a Master's as well as a post-grad certificate, is still struggling to find her place.

We are told that the culprit is a weak economy, with businesses reluctant to hire and invest during times of uncertainty.

And yet we are also told that Canada has a shortage of skilled workers, so much so that the federal government is fast tracking applications from foreign workers to take jobs in our oil, our shipbuilding, our mining, and our construction industries, to name but four.

Clearly, something is very amiss.

An article in The Globe and Mail helps to illuminate the problem. Entitled Why training workers in Canada beats importing them from abroad, it argues that training a domestic workforce is the much preferable alternative to importing temporary workers, for some pretty obvious reasons. However, it asserts that there are several obstacles to the pursuit of such a sane strategy.

One of those obstacles is the Harper regime's attitude toward temporary workers. It recently announced "that it intends to bring in an extra 3,000 skilled tradespeople next year," a decision which may elicit great delight amongst employers but one that betrays the national interest if it is being used as a cover to import workers whose only asset is a willingness to work for a lot less than Canadians.

A recent example of the above is HD Mining International, a Chinese-owned coal mine in Tumbler Ridge, B.C. that has won approval "to bring in as many as 200 Chinese workers over the next few years, even though it is paying them substantially less than the going rate, with no benefits."

This corporate interest in exploiting cheap labour, abetted by a government that seems, at best, indifferent to workers' rights, is exacerbated by companies' refusal to train workers through apprenticeship programs:

Apprenticeship – the time-honoured tradition of experienced journeymen training the next generation – remains a foreign concept for the vast majority of employers. In spite of generous government incentives, more than 80 per cent of employers who use skilled workers don’t offer any, according to the Canadian Apprenticeship Forum.

A little research confirms that the government incentives described above are indeed generous and include the following:

Ontario Businesses looking to hire and train a new apprentice in a specialized skilled trade, may be interested in filing for one of the following government grants and tax credit programs:

Ontario Apprenticeship Training Tax Credit (OATTC) – A provincial refundable tax credit equal to 35% – 45% of the salaries and wages for a qualifying apprentice or $10K per year to a max of $40K over the first 4 years of applicable apprenticeships.

Federal Apprenticeship Job Creation Tax Credit (AJCTC) – A federal non-refundable tax credit equal to 10% of the salaries and wages for a qualifying apprentice to a max of $2K per year for each eligible apprentice.

Apprenticeship Employer Signing Bonus – A program providing $2K in non-repayable government grants for registering a new apprentice in a sectors with high demand for skilled trade workers.

Employer Bonus Program – A program providing $1K in non-repayable government grants for employers whose apprentices complete an apprenticeship program in any trade or occupation.

Despite these incentives, corporate Canada seems, as it always does, to look only at the very short-term, with no thought to any responsibility it has to the wider community. Even a company the size of Irving shipping, "which has a $25-billion deal to build 21 combat ships for the federal government", recently announced that it will spend the paltry sum of "$250,000 a year to train and recruit local students." It also promises to offer some apprenticeships, but given the fact that it will need to attract "1,500 [skilled] workers ... over the next decade," it seems like an anemic effort at best.

I will close by giving the final word to the Globe article's penultimate paragraph:

Training workers is a long-term investment. It requires patience. Research by the Canadian Apprenticeship Forum, which lost its federal financing this year, shows that companies get back $1.47 for every $1 they spend on apprentices. Over the life of a four-year apprenticeship, the gain can reach as high as $250,000 for a single heavy equipment mechanic as the apprentice becomes more productive and generates revenue.

An Editorial Recommendation

A bit of a busy day today, so I only have time right now to recommend today's editorial in The Star, a timely warning about the implications of increasingly popular anti-union legislation that has only one goal: to reduce the remuneration of workers.

One can only hope that Canadians will not believe that such regressive laws are good for anything other than corporate profits.

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.

With Some Ambivalence

In light of the unspeakable tragedy in Connecticut yesterday, in some ways it seems manifestly disrespectful to write a regular blog post today. Yet, to become paralyzed with despair over the evil in the world is not the answer either. Far better it is, in my mind, to try to confront and combat the evil that we actually have some possibility of mitigating.

Such is my feeling about the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party's exultancy over so-called right-to-work legislation now in effect in 24 U.S states, Michigan being the most recent jurisdiction to join the fold.

As reported in today's Star,

Tories are eager to follow in the footsteps of Michigan’s anti-union legislation ... and turn Ontario into a right-to-work jurisdiction where workers can opt out of joining unions and paying dues.

The move is near the top of the agenda for the Progressive Conservatives led by Tim Hudak should they be elected come the next general election.

Liberally quoting Christine Elliott, a Tory MPP and the wife of Federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, Richard Brennan tells us that Ms Elliott is confident that such legislation will be the answer to our economic woes since new businesses [will] pick Ontario because they will have the “flexibility” they need to get the job done without tangling with a unionized workforce.

'Flexiility' is always one of those words that sets my spider-sense atingle, since it is usually a euphemism for lower wages and working conditions. She then goes on to talk about the need for a 'nimble' workforce (spider-sense now on full alert!) so that businesses when they need to adapt to changing conditions in the workplace they have the flexibility to be able to do that.

With an apparently straight face, Ms Elliott avers that taking away the power of unions will result in higher wages “because we will have more businesses locating here. They will do well, they will be able to hire more people and pay higher wages.”

Only those who drink a certain brand of Kool Aid would accept such fatuous assertions without some research. Happily, the American site Media Matters has done the heavy-lifting on the subject, the full report of which I hope you will take some time to read. Its two most salient conclusions, supported by data, not empty rhetoric, are that right-to-work laws lead to lower wages and benefits for workers and that right-to-work" laws have little impact on employment.

As well, for those interested in the quite sordid provenance of the right-to-work movement, The Galloping Beaver has a post and a link that is most enlightening.

But I suppose Ms Elliott and her party of benighted souls are anticipating that people will simply react with Pavlovian salivation rather than reasoned discourse over her twisted version of a worker's 'paradise.'

The MacKay Mission

I really have nothing new to add to the sad spectacle of ministerial incompetence epitomized by Defense Minister Peter MacKay, whose ongoing mission and primary responsibilibilty seems to be never admitting to error or apologizing. However, the Star's Tim Harper does have some thoughts on the reasons for his intransigence in today's column:

For his part, MacKay has adopted the warrior stance of the men and women he represents in his ministry. No surrender, no weakness.

In politics, an apology is seen as a sign of weakness, a hole to be exploited by your opponents and, in MacKay’s case, it is far better to endure humiliation than to utter a mea culpa after more than two years of obfuscation, lowballing and attacks on the patriotism of anyone criticizing the F-35 fighter jet procurement program.

Perhaps the most compelling reason for his reticence lies in what an admission of error would really mean:

... it would cut to the core of the Conservative brand — its financial rectitude — and dredge up the charges that the government deceived the public during the 2011 election campaign.

Harper goes on to detail the internal humiliation that this proud soldier of the No Apologies PMO has had to endure:

He had his toys taken away. After the auditor-general’s report, the government created a fighter jet secretariat and handed the file to Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose.

He had to sit, mute, in the Commons while Liberals brayed for his resignation and surrogates answered for him.

His increasingly chippy parliamentary secretary, Chris Alexander, has an ongoing starring role in political talk shows trying to explain this failed process for MacKay.

He had to endure those Top Gun images, played on an endless loop, of him strapped in the cockpit in 2010.

All doubtlessly hurtful to Central Nova's favourite son.

I find myself curiously unmoved by his plight.

A Lesson From Egypt

The other day I wrote a post contrasting the fervent engagement of the Egyptian people as they pursue their demands for a representative democracy, contrasting that passion with our own seeming indifference to the deficits we face here at home.

This morning's Star has published a letter from James Quinn, a Hamilton area activist and biology professor at McMaster University, on the topic of what we can learn from Egypt. I reproduce it below:

Re: Morsi calls in the military ahead of constitution vote, Dec. 10

I think we can learn a thing or two from the protesters in Egypt.

They have won the right to elect their own government. They went through the election process. They did not face robocall scandals and ended up with what was deemed a fair election. They thought they were in a democracy.

But Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi has made decisions that were not part of his platform when he was elected. The protestors recognize that their elected leader should not be free to do as he chooses until the next election. They recognize that this is not democratic. Are they just being idealistic?

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has passed two omnibus bills, C-38 and C-45, that devastate our environmental and waterway protection in very dramatic ways. He has declared open season on nature. He has paved the way for dangerous rapid expansion of the Alberta tar sands.

I do not recall these dramatic changes being mentioned in his election platform. The people of Canada have not had any democratic input into these dramatic changes.

We have lost our democratic rights to this Conservative dictatorship. We should learn from our Egyptian colleagues and take to the streets.

Unions After Bill C-377

In my favorite Shakespearian play, Hamlet, there is a scene wherein his erstwhile friends, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, explain that an acting company that used to enjoy great popularity has fallen on hard times. Thanks to a new craze in which troupes of child actors have become the rage, and "are most tyrannically clapped for", adults have had to go on the road to earn a living. Hamlet wonders about the child actors' futures, because their current success means they are in fact "exclaim[ing] against their own succession", since they will be out of work once they grow up.

I can't help but think about human nature's shortsightedness when I read those lines. We pursue things that aren't good for us, while we denigrate that which, in the long term, is of benefit. Take, for example, the public's attitude toward unions. More days than nought, there are columns and letters published condemning unions and their well-paid members, envy and resentment seeping through the pages, seemingly in a senseless quest to bring people down to the lowest pay and working conditions possible.

It is, of course, this irrational impulse to which Bill C-377, the thinly-disguised union-busting legislation passed on Wednesday evening by the Harper government, plays. Clothed in the rhetoric typical of a workers' rights-hating regime, the law will require labour organizations to provide extensive details, such as the salaries of top union leaders, to the Canada Revenue Agency, which will publish the information on its website.

All designed, of course, to stoke even more public contempt for those enjoying better working conditions and pay than those in non-union environments.

And yet, as observed by Thomas Walkom and David Climenhaga, unions themselves must bear some of the responsibility for this current sorry state.

Writes Walkom:

What’s really killing unions is not the political right. It is that, for too many workers, organized labour is no longer relevant.

In 2011, federal figures show, 31 per cent of Canadian workers overall were unionized. Of these, the vast majority are middle-aged or older. For younger workers between the ages of 15 and 24, the rate of unionization is just under 16 per cent.

Compounding the problem, says Walkom, is the fact that union membership is concentrated in the public sector, with only 16 per cent of private sector workers belonging to unions, largely due to the collapse of manufacturing jobs and the proliferation of part-time and contract work in North America.

He adds,

Unions — which understandably pay attention first and foremost to their own members — haven’t lobbied hard enough to tighten up the employment standards legislation that allows these low-wage practices.

Nor have most unions figured out a way to deal with a new kind of workplace, where people no longer labour in large factories and where strikes can be circumvented by technology.

Echoing this idea, in The Rabble David Climenhaga writes:

Ironically, while most unions don't do enough to represent working people beyond their own membership, what little they do to fight for the powerless in society is why authoritarian neoconservatives like Harper have such a hate on for labour and other groups that speak out for traditional Canadian values.

So one worthwhile response to the effort by the Conservatives to smother unions in red tape is to fight harder for real progressive causes, not to mention never again signing a lousy two-tier contract that leaves young workers with the short end of the stick to preserve the past victories of older workers. No, an injury to one remains an injury to all, people!

Perhaps the final consideration should be given to those who "most tyrannically clap[...]' for the kind of repressive legislative agenda epitomized by Bill C-377. In a jurisdiction near you, you can probably look forward to more of this.

Workers of the World Unite- You Have Nothing to Lose But Your Union Shackles!

That perhaps might have been the call in Michigan yesterday, as it joined 23 other states in enacting so called 'right-to-work-legislation' that 'liberates' workers from mandatory union membership and union dues.

Passed by a Republican-dominated House of Representatives, the new law was proudly proclaimed by Republican House Speaker Jase Bolger in the following terms:

“This is about freedom, fairness and equality” ... “These are basic American rights — rights that should unite us.”

Ah yes, those famous rights that allow workers to sell themselves to the lowest corporate bidder, a foregone conclusion in Michigan and the other 'liberated' states, a fact tacitly acknowledged with a wink and a nudge by supporters of the legislation, who say it will boost the economy by creating jobs, attract new companies to Michigan and give workers more choices for employment.

But then again, perhaps I am wrong, and that surge of expected new employment will result from corporations being attracted to states where the workers are revelling in their newly-acquired 'freedom.' After all, a happy and contented worker is a productive worker.

Lest Canadian workers feel left out, our federal overlords are laying the groundwork for similar serf-like satisfaction in this country. As reported in today's Star, Bill C-377, an alleged private member's bill about which I have previously written on this blog, is to receive the full backing of the Harper regime and is expected to be passed today in the House.

Says Labour Minister Lisa Raitt:

“Our government is going to support (the bill), with the amendments that have been brought in. It makes a lot of sense” ... “Workers want to know how their union dues are being spent.”

Of course, there are always naysayers when it comes to such liberating legislation:

Liberal interim leader Bob Rae said Bill C-377 “is an exercise in bureaucratic overkill that has nothing to do with transparency and everything to do with simply trying to punish trade union organizations.”

Rae said the bill, if passed, could be part of “the pattern in the United States” of limiting union rights. The next step, he warned, could by an attempt by the Harper government to eliminate the so-called Rand formula, under which workers in a bargaining unit must pay mandatory union dues.

Such carping criticism aside, can it be long before we are all living in a worker's paradise?

A Canadian Success Story

Many years ago, campaigns urging people to 'Buy Canadian' abounded. A point of pride with many, patronizing our domestic suppliers of goods and services, although more difficult than in earlier times thanks to the corporate pursuit of ever-higher profits at the expense of domestic jobs, is still possible.

Today's Star has a piece about a very successful Canadian company whose products are prominently displayed in most grocery stores that we visit. The story of Chapman's Ice Cream, and the commitment that it has consistently shown to its workers, perhaps makes it something of an outlier; it also makes it an inspiring success story that I hope you will take a few minutes to read about.

A No-Cut Clause for Peter MacKay?

Readers of this blog may be aware that I am no fan of Harper Defence Minister Peter MacKay. The breadth of his ineptitude is stunning, and the concept of ministerial responsibility seems foreign both to him and his boss. Countless times he has proven to be an embarrassment, not only to Canadians in general, but undoubtedly also to the government he serves.

Yet like a kind of demonic Energizer Bunny, he keeps on going and going and going.

I have a theory.

Despite my depth of cynicism about our politicians, I am normally loathe to indulge in conspiracy speculations; however, McKay's long tenure as Canada's Defense Minister, his widely-demonstrated incompetence notwithstanding, has got me wondering.

First a little history. People may recall that MacKay became the last leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada in 2003, having secured the position on the final ballot after making a deal with rival David Orchard never to merge the party with the Canadian Alliance Party.

Well, of course MacKay quickly betrayed both his undertaking and the Progressive Conservative Party, and the rest, as they say, is history. Yet I cannot help but wonder whether the quid pro quo for this betrayal was conferring upon the unprincipled MP for Central Nova 'a no-cut clause' in his cabinet postings. The Minister of Defence since 2007, it seems that no matter how manifest his inability to competently discharge his duties, he wears a mantle of invincibility.

Probably the most consistent evidence that MacKay is singularly lacking in ability has been his staunch defence of and prevarications about the F-35 fighter jet. Despite compelling evidence adduced over the years that the replacement for the CF-18 will prove far too costly and is ill-suited for our military needs, MacKay has been its biggest cheerleader. Now, after years of denigrating those who oppose the purchase, even the government has admitted it needs to seriously rethink it.

In today's Star article, entitled Opposition MPs take aim at F-35 ‘fiasco’, Bob Rae makes the following assertion:

... MacKay is done, his credibility shot because of his outspoken defence of the F-35 in the past.

“I think the one thing that he’s lost completely is his credibility. ... I don’t think there is anyone who will take his comments about this project seriously ever again,” Rae told reporters.

Given the long pattern of protection afforded MacKay by Stephen Harper, I'm afraid I do not share Mr. Rae's optimism.

Robocalls and Fingerpointing

If crimes were committed in misdirecting voters in the last federal election, who cares who the complainants that have brought this matter before the courts are?

Apparently the Harper regime does.

What Fools These Mortals Be

The title of this post, taken from Shakespeare's Midsummer Night's Dream, hardly qualifies as a startling insight. Nonetheless, after reading two columns in this morning's Star, I couldn't help but reflect on the mass of contradictions that we are. It has likely always been thus, but stands in especially sharp relief in today's broken world.

My very wise friend Dom pointed out something to me recently. "Lorne," he said, "the genius of the corporate world has been to get us addicted to cheap stuff from China, even though that cheap stuff comes at a very high cost: the loss of good-paying manufacturing jobs, as well as the spread of retail positions (think Walmart) that refuse to pay a living wage."

On some level, I suspect we are aware of this truth, but choose not to ponder it as our search for bargains encompasses an increasingly wide swath. In her column today, Heather Mallick confronts the issue head-on in a meditation prompted by Wall Street's reaction to Apple Tim Cook's recent announcement about bringing a small amount of Apple jobs back from China. What should have been a cause for celebration in the depressed American job market turned out to be anything but:

Wall Street’s instant response was to drop the stock several percentage points. Apple is the biggest company in U.S. history. But despite its might and inventiveness, the market judged it solely on its merits as a behemoth built mainly on cheap Chinese labour.

But it seems that it is not just the stock market that takes a dim view of such a move:

Ten years ago I paid $250 for a coffeemaker. Today I pay $80. Would I pay even $60 more to restore Canadian jobs?

Yes, I say. But am I being truthful? I buy books from Amazon.ca because they offer me 37- to 50-per-cent discounts and free shipping. But I could buy them locally at full price if I were of a mind. I am not.

So yes, we would like to see a return to good-paying jobs, but not if we have to pay more for our goods as a result. While I realize this may be an over-generalization, Mallick really does speak an unpleasant truth about our contradictory natures.

On a separate topic, Dow Marmur writes about the irony of how our best impulses, our philanthropic ones, may have undesirable and unintended consequences. Echoing a concern I recently voiced here, Marmur opines that private efforts to relieve hunger in fact make it easier for governments to ignore the problem of growing and intractable poverty.

He writes about Mazon, a Jewish group whose aim is to feed those in need irrespective of background and affiliation. So far it has allocated more than $7 million to food banks and related projects across Canada.

Its founding chairman, Rabbi Arthur Bielfeld, recently

... challenged the government to render it and all organizations of its kind obsolete. In reality, however, the need continues to increase multifold. A quarter of a century ago there were 94 food banks in Canada; today there are more than 630.

Citing recent data, Rabbi Bielfeld said that some 900,000 Canadians use food banks every month. Last year more than 150 million pounds of food were distributed to families in need; 38 per cent of recipients were children. This year many will have to make do with less because of growing demand and diminishing resources.

Marmur observes the irony of it and many other organizations committed to the reduction of poverty:

... as essential as it is to help those in need, ironically, the relative success of such efforts helps governments to get off the hook. At times it even seems that charities find themselves inadvertently colluding with the inaction of politicians.

And so we have it. Two very good writers making some very relevant observations about the contradictions that define our humanity. On the one hand we want to be oblivious to the economic and social consequences of our propensity for bargain-hunting; on the other hand, even when we allow our better angels to come to the fore, the results are anything but an unalloyed good.

I guess, as always, the answer to this conundrum ultimately does lie in our own hands.

Canada and Egypt: A Study in Contrasts

My wife, well aware of my anguish over the disengagement with democracy of so many Canadians, made a comment this morning that has inspired this post. She observed the sharp contrast that exists with Egypt, where the notion of democracy is still more a dream than a reality, a dream the people feel is well-worth putting themselves at risk of arrest, injury, and even death, to achieve. This became quite apparent less than two years ago with the vigorous protests leading to the toppling of Hosni Mubarak, and the people's passion continues to this day, evident in the demonstrations against President Mohamed Morsi's attempt to arrogate dictatorial powers in the guise of 'protecting democracy.'

Well, it seems that taking the notion and promise of democracy seriously has paid off for the Egyptians. As reported in today's Star, Morsi made unexpected concessions Saturday in a move to appease opponents — even rescinding most of the Nov. 22 decree that gave him sweeping new powers. While there remains the very real question of whether these concessions will be enough to quell the strong opposition to Morsi, it is nonetheless instructive in what an engaged citizenry can accomplish.

The contrast with Canada couldn't be sharper. I have written several times on the state of democracy under Harper, most times with a note of despair over the willful contempt the Prime Minister has shown for our traditions, and the singular lack of outrage expressed over that contempt by the majority of Canadians. But it would also seem that even when people attempt to participate in the 'discussion,' their voice is ignored, even suppressed.

One of the latest examples demonstrating the contemptuous and autocratic rule of the Harper regime is to be found in the machinations playing out in the Trans-Pacific-Partnership talks, which many claim is one of the biggest threats to our sovereignty to come along in decades. In his column today, Michael Geist reports on the Harper propensity for secrecy and the suppression of any information that contradicts his policies.

Observing that the deal may require a major overhaul of Canadian agriculture, investment, intellectual property and culture protection rules, Geist reports:

The talks remain shrouded in darkness, with a draft text that is secret; public interest groups are largely banned from where the negotiations are being held.

Moreover, the Canadian government has failed to engage openly with the public on the TPP. Foreign Affairs has created an insider “consulting group” that will be granted access to secret and confidential information regarding the negotiations (members of the group are required to sign a nondisclosure agreement). The department has not publicly disclosed the existence of the consulting group or indicated who might be granted privileged access to otherwise confidential information.

To compound this open disdain for any semblance of democratic transparency, despite the fact that the Harper regime launched a six-week public consultation on Canada's potential participation in the trade talks,

... the government never revealed the results. The individual submissions were not posted online and no public report summarizing the responses was ever published.

Yet, according to documents obtained under the Access to Information Act, the government was overwhelmed with negative comments urging officials to resist entry into the TPP and the expected pressures for significant intellectual property reforms as part of the deal.

In addition to tens of thousands of form letters and emails criticizing the TPP, the government received hundreds of individual handcrafted responses that unanimously criticized the proposed agreement.

Suppression of information. Contempt for the will of the people. Disregard for democracy. They all sound like pretty good reasons to take to the streets.

I'm sure the Egyptians would agree.

Sins Of The Harper Government: Ministerial Incompetence, Secrecy, and Contempt For Democracy

For anyone who needs a quick primer over the damage being done to Canada and its citizens by the Harper regime, I recommend the following:

In the F-35 fiasco, truth is the first casualty, a stinging indictment not only of the government lies surrounding the true projected costs of the F-35 fighter jets, but also of the incompetence of the teflon Defense Minister, Peter McKay.

Freedom of expression is more than an international issue, in which Star Public Editor Kathy English laments the sad state of our Freedom of Information Act as obstructed by Mr. Hartper et al.

How Harper exploits Canadians’ ignorance of parliamentary democracy, in which Frances Russell explores the debasement of democracy under Harper, and cites other Parliamentary jurisdictions with models that would throttle the near-dictatorial powers the Prime Minister currently wields.

If knowledge is power, it is time we all begin arming ourselves with the facts.

How Do You Solve A Problem Like Tim Hudak?

I guess the short answer is to ignore the prating lad. Failing such a massive challenge to self-discipline and restraint, I suppose the other best answer is to hold his pronouncements up to public scrutiny, a goal I have modestly tried to achieve in this blog.

Such scrutiny invariably gives rise to ridicule; the risible nature of most of Tim's recycled pronouncements, many of which are mere carry-overs from the inaptly named Common Sense Revolution of his failed mentor, Mike Harris, invite such a response.

As usual, Toronto Star readers are happy to share their own observations, their letters-to-the-editor mirroring, I suspect, widely-held assessments of the young leader of Ontario's Progressive Conservative Party. To whet your appetite to read the full array of their reflections, here are a few of them:

There are no demonstrations at Queen’s Park demanding that the LCBO be privatized. The demands are coming from businesses that want to make profits.

Hudak says that “competition” is needed and it’s time to end the monopoly. Why would we take a monopoly that serves the public interest and change it to one that serves the private few?

Remember when the Tories introduced “competition” into the electricity sector? Rates have now tripled. Has “competition” lowered gasoline rates, car insurance rates or credit card interest rates?

To use Tory terms, the LCBO benefits from “economies of scale” that have resulted in “increased efficiencies.” The LCBO is extremely well run and well organized. Its profits serve all the people in Ontario.

Hudak is just a schill who wants to transfer that public wealth to the private few.

Paul Kahnert, Markham

There is an error in the following letter, which infers that The Beer Store is a government operation. It is, in fact, a private consortium:

So it’s official. Politicians are out of ideas. Is the tired (and tried) chestnut of privatizing the LCBO and Beer Store really the best Tim Hudak has to offer us? I guess “a chicken in every pot” didn’t test well.

Never mind the LCBO and Beer Store provide quality employment for 10,000 Ontarians and are reliable cash cows for the government, helping fund education, healthcare and social programs. Got to keep the stumping simple and treat the electorate as simple-minded.

David Kinahan, Toronto

With the government looking for ways to decrease its (our) huge debt, only a fool would suggest privatizing the LCBO cash-cow that brings in a billion a year.

The beer stores are in a different category, as they are owned by foreign breweries. They should be privatized as soon as possible and corner stores should be allowed to sell beer.

As for Tim Hudak, first he says: “let’s let the private sector into the alcohol business, let’s have some more competition.” Then he says there would be no reduction in the price of alcoholic beverages.

No wonder Hudak lost the election. He’s a dumkopf.

William Bedford, Toronto

Let me transpose what Mr. Hudak is really saying here. He can’t create any meaningful jobs so what he’s proposing is a liquor store on every corner — in the U.S. there’d also be a gun store.

So he wants you to know that when you really need to lash out at your family, because you just can’t find work, there will be a source of mind-numbing alcohol close by for your comfort. Because we all know alcohol is just like comfort food in a crisis.

Bon appetite.

Richard Kadziewicz, Scarborough

A Law And Order Government That Loves Guns - Part 2

The post I wrote yesterday elicited a rather spirited and passionate response from one of its readers. Since I promised a reply to Anonymous after reading the links he provided, I thought I would base today's contribution on his observations.

First, one of the points Anon made (I will reproduce his entire commentary in a moment) turned out to be largely correct. He asserted that the Harper government would not loosen the gun laws based on the committee recommendations. As reported in The Globe, in a link provided by Anon, the Prime Minister, in a rare move that bespeaks common sense over partisan priorities, has firmly stated that prohibited weapons such as the Ak-47 assault weapon will not be reclassified as 'restricted,' something that would have made them much more readily available.

What follows is the exchange Anon and I had over my original post:

Do you even understand what any of the above terminology actually means?

Do you not realize that these recommendations were made in March? How long do you think that the Toronto Star has been sitting on this non-story? Any particular reason that they maybe chose today to print this?

To which I responded:

I believe I understand both the terminology and the implications of the Harper thrust to appeal almost exclusively to its constituency, Anon.

As to why The Star chose to print the story today, I would think the answer is obvious: to show the absolute hypocrisy of a government that claims to be hard on crime while at the same time making it easier to acquire and maintain the weapons that would facilitate crime.

I hope I have answered your questions to your satisfaction.

Anon replied:

Not even close. The government is probably finished with firearms. The only recommendations that might be examined is the merging ATT's with licenses, if only because it won't cost the government much. There's the merger of the POL and PAL, which you don't mention. Beyond that...

It's unlikely that the government would choose to reclassify prohibited weapons as restricted. At best, the government could remove the OiC prohibitions on named weapons like the AK-47, or more likely it's semi-auto only equivalent. The tories aren't stupid enough to change automatics as an class from prohibited to restricted. At best, the civilian variant of the AK, semi-auto only could be taken off the prohibited-by-name list. Consider: http://www.wolverinesupplies.com/details/3426/CZ-858-2-Canadian-Model-762-x-39-19-Barrel.aspx. It's not an AK, it's a CZ-858. It LOOKS a bit like an AK. It's in the same caliber as the AK. It has roughly equivalent capabilites as a semi-auto only AK. That firearm is non-restricted. This is a Saiga semi-automatic rifle: http://www.jgsales.com/saiga-7.62x39-ak47-style-semi-automatic-rifle.-imported-and-converted-by-cai.-new.-p-7043.html. Same caliber as the CZ-858. Basically the same capabilities as the CZ-858. It's prohibited because it's an AK "variant." What kind of sense does this make, and what does it do for Canadians?

You obviously don't know what an authorization to transport is. An authorization to transport is a piece of paper issued by a provincial CFO which allows the owner of a restricted firearm to transport their trigger-locked, unloaded and encased firearm to a shooting range, and home again, by the shortest possible route, making no stops in between. Presently, an authorization to transport must be obtained separately to being licensed. It's a needless duplication of paperwork, and does nothing to enhance public safety. I don't see how that would stop the police one iota from laying criminal charges upon an offending individual whether or not the ATT was separate.

Fourth, allowing police forces to sell firearms to the public. The sales of siezed firearms used to be a significant contributor to police budgets. Since C-68, the police have had to make do without that income, further increasing the strain on municipal and provincial budgets, with no effect on public safety. Finally, making firearms licenses last 10 years does not in fact strip the RCMP of its ability to stop licenses, "the form must be verified by another person."

That's an outright lie. This is the actual form that an individual must fill out to renew their firearms license: http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/form-formulaire/pdfs/979-eng.pdf. (THIS WAS A LINK I WAS UNABLE TO CONNECT TO) Note that there is no section for verrification by a third party, except a person's spouse, or former spouse. They are only expected to declare that they are aware of the applicant's application for renewal not verrify its authenticity.

As to why the Star chose to publish such an obviously loaded article today, it's clearly to spread irrational fear and provoke knee-jerk reactions among those who share your political bias. And, you fell for it. Why wouldn't the Star publish this in say, June, or August? They did it quite deliberately.

The Star's piece has had the opposite of its intended effect, as several members of the so-called gun-lobby wouldn't actually know about the recommendations if the Star had just kept quiet. In fact, I have personally witnessed several people announce that they'll be making donations to the CPC in direct response to the committee's recommendations, even if the government does nothing.

When is your side ever going to learn that in order to win this particular fight, it must either become educated about firearms, and how they are regulated in Canada, OR, it must learn to keep quiet when it comes to guns, because ignorance, and blatant pandering are just going to keep fueling your enemy's coffers?

While I appreciate the passion and the research that Anon put into his response, his interpretation of the data differs from my own in some fundamental ways. For example, I see even the possibility of a reclassification of the weapons he describes a cause for grave concern, since those weapons serve only one primary purpose, in my mind (an assertion that Anon would likely disagree with).

As well, the sale of seized weaponry may make economic sense, as Anon points out, but from my perspective, anything that facilitates the circulation of guns comes at too high a potential cost to society.

Also, I heartily disagree with his contention that 'my side' unless we have done copious research 'must learn to keep quiet when it comes to guns ... because ignorance, and blatant pandering are just going to keep fueling your enemy's coffers.' Nor do I fault The Star for printing the story. In a democratic and pluralistic society, debate is the one of our key rights and responsibilities. Indeed, what may strike one person as asinine may strike another as perceptive and informed. Hopefully, some new knowledge might ultimately be achieved through the clash of viewpoints.

Left unaddressed in Anon's commentary is a disturbing fact that, according to The Globe article to which he directed me, may be soon rectified. Despite pleas from law enforcement and victims of gun crime for representation, the firearms committee is dominated by sport shooting enthusiasts and those opposed to gun control. Interim Liberal Leader Bob Rae suggested that the committee

needed wider representation, including from police chiefs, those fighting domestic violence and groups dealing with suicide prevention, Mr. Harper all but agreed.

Had The Star not run the story, I am dubious as to whether Stephen Harper would have been so receptive to the suggestion.

A testy exchange between Anon and me? Yes. But the fact that we have a fundamental and deep philosophical disagreement neither disturbs nor upsets me, one of the reasons being that unlike so much right-wing commentary that relies on bluster, bullying and empty rhetoric (and I am sure Anon would accuse his ideological opponents of the same shortcomings), Anon made a sincere attempt to support his point of view with documentation. Even though I was unable to get all of the links to function properly, I do appreciate the effort that he made.

It is to state the obvious that we live in extremely polarized times, times when the strategy of many is to simply shout down their opponents. I think the information provided by Anon in our exchange amply demonstrates the possibility of something more productive.

A Law and Order Government That Loves Guns

Anyone still harbouring doubts about whose interests the Harper regime is governing on behalf of would be well-advised to read this story in today's Star. Entitled RCMP concerned as Conservatives consider loosening firearms restrictions, it reveals the latest legislative considerations of a government that claims to be tough on crime, but sees little reason to reduce the opportunity to commit crime.

Co-chaired by Steve Torino of the Canadian Shooting Sports Association, the Canadian Firearms Advisory Committee met with Public Safety Minister Vic Toews and other senior government officials in Ottawa in late March, after the bill to kill the long-gun registry had cleared the Commons and was on the verge of Senate approval.

The committee, comprised almost exclusively of lads who love their guns, has made a series of recommendation to the Harper regime. Amongst the gems are the following:

- getting rid of the “prohibited” category of firearms

- reclassifying weapons such as certain handguns and assault weapons (for example, the AK-47, shown in the picture at the top of this post) as “restricted” only

- removing the requirement on gun owners to get an “authorization to transport” firearms

- making seized firearms — which by law must now be destroyed — legally available for public sale or trade

- making [f]irearms licences ... valid for at least 10 years “or longer,”, a move strongly opposed by the RCMP, since it would impede their “ability to monitor, on a timely basis, any changes to an individual’s mental health status”

The entire breadth of the committee's recommendations can be read here, but surely even the brief overview I have included in this post should be sufficient to lead right-thinking people to realize that whoever the Harper regime is governing on behalf of, it surely isn't the majority of Canadians.

A Clarification From Young Tim

Tim Hudak, the boy who would be premier, has issued a policy clarification:

Hudak said the thrust of his proposal to put alcoholic beverages in corner stores, supermarkets or private specialty stores is to make it easier for Ontario consumers to buy a six-pack of beer or a bottle of wine.

Should the master recycler of tired ideas ever attain his ambition of leading the province, I suspect that the ready availability of alcohol, and the temporary solace it provides, will be much appreciated by Ontarians.

Harper's Debasement Of Canadian Foreign Policy

That Canada once enjoyed a sterling reputation in the international arena is something beyond dispute. That its standing has fallen precipitately under the misguided direction of the Harper regime is a truth that I suspect only the most rabidly ideological would disagree with.

Perhaps the most egregious departure from norms that most would consider reasonable is found in its Mid-East policy, which can be summed up in four words: unqualified support for Israel. Despite its disproportionate response to aggression from Hamas, Israel, it seems, can do no wrong in the eyes of our political 'leaders.'

In his Star column today, Tim Harper writes that Canada is doing no favour to the Jewish state by aiding and abetting its reprehensible behaviour. Well worth the read.

Just A Fleeting Thought About Young Tim

I have a busy morning ahead, so just a brief post for now. That serial recycler of tired policy, young Tim Hudak, continues to maintain his naive faith in the virtues of the private sector as a panacea for all that ails us, yesterday calling for the end of the LCBO's monopoly on alcohol sales.

Trumpeting the virtues of privatization, along with the possible sale in whole or in part of the monopoly that injects about $1.6 billion per annum into provincial coffers, the never-ready-for-prime-time-politics leader of the Progressive Conservatives might be advised to supplement his populist rhetoric with a little research. As published in today's Star, Canadian jurisdictions that have privatized sales have seen an increase in prices and a reduction in selection.

Perhaps none of that, however, will matter to those who support the errant but evangelical vision of young Tim.

Just Wondering

What does it say about young Tim Hudak that this constitutes a major policy announcement?

Just wondering

On Polarized Politics

Well aware that the universe does not revolve around the City of Toronto, which is within an hour's drive of my abode, I rarely write posts that pertain to it. I make an infrequent exception today because of a greater truth that the risible antics of its mayor gives rise to.

It is hardly a revelation to say that we live in poisonously polarized times; for this troubling fact I lay the bulk of blame at the clay feet of the extreme right-wing. I have opined many times here that the Harper government is the most divisive in our history, reliant as it is on tactics ranging from demagoguery to name-calling to open contempt for our democratic traditions. And the results of that elevation of party politics over the well-being of the country is evident in many ways, including the recently reported loss of faith in democracy.

Nonetheless, I was reminded of how much I too have fallen victim of this polarization when The Mound of Sound responded to one of my posts about Mr. Harper:

I never much liked the Progressive Conservative party although there were some MPs I truly did respect and I held no enmity to most PC supporters. The Harper Conservatives are a different story entirely. I despise the party, its Fuhrer and its MPs and Senators. I don't feel much better about those who vote for it either. Harper has divided and shamed the nation and those who support him are responsible.

The Mound's comment made me remember earlier times in our political history when I felt little ill-will towards those who embraced a political philosophy different from my own, times when disagreements could be reasonably discussed and resolutions often found. One example would be the long reign of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party, in part attributable to the steady hand of Bill Davis, the premier from 1971-85, one of a long line of Conservative premiers who governed with both moderation and consensus.

So how does this pertain to the ongoing sad spectacle of Rob ford and his thuggish brother Doug? In his column today entitled It’s time for conservatives to rescue the brand, Royson James, The Star's municipal affairs columnist, offers the following observation:

Reasonable, fiscal and progressive conservatives should be very concerned that the current city hall administration has damaged the right-wing brand...

They are red Tories and blue Liberals and practical New Democrats and they’ve managed to build a city with heart — an urban region that does such a good job balancing the interests of its people that this has become a brand admired and recognized around the world.

James has much more to say, essentially arguing that there are good and able people of moderation much more fit to help govern the city than the current administration, and that it is in the interests of those people to see the end of Rob Ford's reign, even if they identify themselves with the right. I hope you will take the time to read his entire piece.

For me, James' column is both a poignant reminder of the way things used to be on all levels of government, and an indication of what is still possible if both politicians and voters act out of concern for the collective good rather than the selfish advancement of their personal agendas. Without doubt, we have had enough of the latter.

Harper Strategy Succeeding

Here's the proof.

The Green Side of Tim Hudak

He must have one, since he recycles, recycles and recycless the same ideas at every opportunity.

An Odious Servitude

In its ongoing and odious servitude to a reactionary constituency, the Harper regime continues to use the heavy hand of government to target and harass those whose ideology differs from its own.

I have already written several times about Bill C-377, the private members bill designed to flame discontent with unions in this country. Apparently, anyone who seeks to challenge that bill now becomes a victim of one of the favourite tools of the Harperites, name-calling.

As reported by The Star's Tim Harper, this childish and manipulative tactic, a sad substitute for reason (never a strong point with Harper and his ilk), was used to 'answer' what most would deem to be a reasonable question about Bill C-377:

Opponents of the bill wonder why the government is not forcing the same type of financial disclosure upon doctors, lawyers and others who, like union members, pay tax-deductible dues to professional organizations.

The answer was provided by Ottawa-area Conservative Pierre Poilievre after the NDP filibustered the Hiebert bill at committee.

“The NDP’s attempt to block this union transparency bill and block workers’ rights only strengthens our party’s resolve to support that member’s bill and its amendments,” Poilievre said. “The reality is that never before has one party in Parliament been so dominated by a single-interest group.”

He told the Commons that a third of NDP MPs are “past union bureaucrats or union bosses.”

Yet this unwarranted and unprecedented attack on unions is not the only way in which government power is being misused. As also reported by Tim Harper, Conservatives sitting on the natural resources committee have summoned Justin Trudean and David McGuinty to explain their anti-Alberta remarks. How long will it be before we see show trials in Canada?

Finally in his piece, the star columnist points out the egregious hyprocrisy of a government that insists that the principles of accountability and transparency are its sole motivation:

As the Conservatives cast their light of accountability about the halls of Parliament, they have ignored their own lack of accountability — on the true cost of the F-35 fighter jets, on spending on the G20 summit, on the use of a discredited marketing agency to spread lies about Liberal MP Irwin Cotler or on its recent fun-with-figures budget numbers aimed at delivering goodies in the 2015 campaign.

So far, the Canadian public has given no indication that its appetite for the government's reprehensible behaviour is reaching the saturation point. Until it does, expect more of the same.

Unions Under Attack: A Star Reader Writes

In two recent posts, I discussed Bill C-377, a Harper-driven anti-union measure disguised as a private member's bill. Introduced by Conservative MPP Russ Hiebert, it is designed to require full disclosure of all union expenditures, including monies allotted for various causes; while its ostensible purpose, according to government propaganda, is to provide full transparency, a concept Mr. Harper seems only peripherally acquainted with, its real purpose is to stoke the resentments and jealousies some feel toward unions and their members. If that resentment reaches a critical mass, making union dues optional, a favorite Trojan Horse tactic of the extreme right to weaken and ultimately destroy unions, will be that much easier.

In this morning's Star, letter-writer Jenny Carter offers her insights on the bill:

Thomas Walkom talks of Russ Hiebert's private member's bill, which is, he says, ostensibly a plea for openness but actually an attack on the automatic check-off of union dues, or Rand formula.

It's a funny thing, but I, and everybody with a taxable income, also pay automatic dues, also supposed to provide services and benefits to those who pay.

Bill C-377 says the public has the right to know how unions spend their money. But the government refuses to tell the public how their tax money is spent. Even Members of Parliament seem no longer to have a right to this information, which is very strange because one of the main functions of an elected parliament has always been to oversee the way in which tax money is spent.

REAL Women may not like expenditure on “left-wing causes,” but many taxpayers may feel that it is not in their best interests to have government money spent, for example, on subsidizing fossil fuel companies, building unnecessary jails and buying attack fighter jets, while starving provincial governments of funds for health-care and essential social spending, and failing to provide public housing.

We need trade unions as a counterbalance to business. If the Rand formula is abolished, I really don't see why I, or anybody who objects to the government's lack of financial transparency and the way it spends our money, should be expected to pay taxes, especially since the tax system in this country is extremely unfair.

The proposed bill is undemocratic and unjust, and another indication that Big Brother is trying to take us over.

Jenny Carter, Peterborough

Thomas Walkom's Perspective on Teacher Unrest

On this blog I have written periodically about unions in both a favourable and a critical light. I have argued both for their necessity to mitigate the depredations that employers are sometimes given to, and I have pilloried them when cronyism or malfeasance have undermined their effectiveness.

In the latter part of my teaching career, I felt that my union, the Ontario Secondary School Teachers Federation, had become far too political in the worst sense of the word, listening only to the privileged few in executive positions while largely ignoring the rank and file, i.e., the frontline workers. As well, becoming advocates for the Ontario Liberal government, I felt, was always a very bad idea because while governments and unions may sometimes have common goals, their interests are not usually congruent, a fact that has become egregiously evident with the McGuinty government's betrayal of collective bargaining principles when it comes to teacher contracts.

In this morning's Star, columnist Thomas Walkom argues that the current unrest, soon to erupt into strikes, is easy to understand, given that teachers have nothing to lose due to the absence of anything resembling free bargaining in the current climate:

For teachers, the choice given them by the provincial Liberal government amounts to no choice at all. The government urges the unions to bargain with local school boards. But it insists that the final results must fit a template that it has already pre-ordained.

Those that don’t voluntarily agree to this template contract — which includes wage freezes for some, cutbacks that amount to wage reductions for others and the elimination of some benefits — will, under extraordinary legislation passed this fall, have it imposed on them.

The unions are being told: “Yes, we have a gun to your head. But if you wish, you can pull the trigger yourself.”

It seems the teaching unions prefer that the government’s prints alone be on the weapon.

He goes on to say that the nature of the constitutional challenge being mounted to the legislation, Bill 115, will be undermined should too many teacher locals sign contracts under duress, leaving the government with the opportunity to argue that it can't be unconstitutional if groups have agreed to its restrictions.

Left unsaid in his piece, however, is another reason I suspect the federations are refusing to be a further party to this charade. Because of the grave mistake they made in allying themselves with a political party, much of their effectiveness has been compromised over the past several years, to the point that their relevance, especially to younger teachers, is not readily apparent. I remember in the latter part of my career hearing some young teachers question the need for unions in general, and OSSTF in particular, never having witnessed them in their finest hours.

At least now, with the federations finally showing some backbone against government abuse of power, they will have an inkling of what unions are there for.

Mature Discussion About The Fiscal Cliff

Mature, that is, until CNBC's Rick Santelli opens his mouth:

From The Horse's Mouth

Actually, were I not committed to a certain level of decorum on this blog, the mouth is not the part of the horse's anatomy I would have chosen as the point of origin for young Tim Hudak's latest utterances that are simply a pathetic recycling of past demagogic platitudes that offer nothing in the way of enlightened policy.

Speaking to the Hamilton Spectator editorial board yesterday, the lad who would be Ontario's next premier had these 'visionary' insights to offer:

Hudak took aim at unions, saying a culture of entitlement on the part of union representatives has escalated McGuinty's conflict with teachers.

Hudak also hinted that his party's white paper will include some sort of privatization plan for the LCBO.

On balancing Ontario's books:

“I know the path forward. These decisions are going to be hard to do, but they're necessary if we're going to get out of the rut we're in as a province.”

“The best social program, I believe, as a conservative, is a job.”

On the Mike Harris legacy:

“Whether you agree with what we did or not, we did what we said we were going to do. We made promises we knew we could keep, and we kept them.”

So, nostalgia for a fictitious past, tired rhetoric about unions, and bromides about jobs seem to be at the core of Tory policy in Ontario. But to be fair to Mr. Never-Ready-For-Prime-Time-Politics, those vying for the leadership of the provincial Liberals have really said little to inspire hope either.

The Perilous State of Democracy in Canada

Over the past year I have written several posts on the woeful state of democratic participation in Canada, a state I am convinced is at least in significant part due to the debasement of our traditions engineered by the Harper regime. Contempt of Parliament and disdain for those whose vision of Canada disagrees with their own are but two elements of that debasement.

I am old enough to remember when there was a measure of civility in politics which, probably not coincidentally, began to seriously erode with the introduction of cameras in the House of Commons in the 70's. At that point, it became the fashion for parliamentarians to begin to grandstand before their viewers, to the point today where poisoned partisanship takes precedence over enlightened and progressive policy-making.

In today's Star Bob Hepburn returns to this theme. His analysis, and his discussion of what seems to be taking the place of political engagement, makes for important reading for anyone concerned about this very worrisome pattern.

Pension Envy

That's what Martin Regg Cohn, in his column this morning, calls the resentment stoked by the right-wing towards those who enjoy defined-benefit pensions.

In what passes for debate in the debased arena we call contemporary politics, politicians of the right, most notably Tim Hudak, have declared public defined-benefit plans unaffordable and unfair:

“Our pension system should be fair, not gold-plated for some and non-existent for others,” he began (my italics). “Generous plans are the norm for many government employees while a majority of workers . . . have no access to a workplace pension at all.”

As Cohn points out, the alternative he is advocating, Pooled Registered Pension Plans, are

...merely glorified RRSPs — they make no pretense to paying a reliable pension. The only certainty is that they will make future retirees poorer and investment advisers richer (thanks to fat management fees), while leaving all of us more exposed to the inevitable social costs of dealing with a wave of financially exposed seniors.

Yet despite that, the public clamours to bring everyone down to the lowest level rather than putting pressure on politicians to implement an enhanced Canada Pension Plan, one that would allow participation by everyone. Such reform has been demanded by several provinces, but it would seem that pressure exerted by the powerful financial lobbies have scotched that possibility for the time being.

But of course, the fate of any reform, be it political, economic, or social, ultimately rests in the hands of the electorate, the same electorate that is currently engaged in sniping at fellow citizens thanks, in part, to being such easy and eager targets for manipulation by their political 'masters.'

Updated: Another Reason To Despise Harper And His Minions

Or maybe I just don't understand the nuances of business and a right-wing mentality that will consign millions to early and unnecessary deaths.

H/t Andre Picard

Even that bastion of Harper support, the Globe and Mail, has written about how reprehensible this action is.

Rand Formula Under Attack

The other day I wrote a post about Bill C-377, ostensibly a private member's bill put forward by Conservative MP Russ Hiebert that would subject unions to unprecedented scrutiny. It is, in fact, a bill being guided by the Prime Minister's Office.

In his column today, The Star's Thomas Walkom says that the real target of the bill is the Rand Formula, which requires all employees in a bargaining unit that has democratically chosen a union to pay union dues.

Initiated in 1946, it was designed as a counterbalance to the power of the employer and as a means of ensuring that those receiving the advantage of union working conditions and pay could not simply opt out in order to avoid paying union dues. All in all, most would say it is balanced and desirable.

Everyone, that is, except the extreme right-wing, i.e., the Harperites, who are using this bill as a thinly disguised union-busting tactic. Writes Walkom:

On the face of it, Bill C-377 makes no sense. It argues that because workers can treat union dues as tax deductions, the general public has the right to know — in exacting detail — how unions spend their money.

Indeed, as drafted, the bill is remarkably intrusive. It would require the names and addresses of anyone who gives or receives more than $5,000 from a union. Unions would also have to categorize how and why they spent their funds.

As he goes on to point out, there are many tax breaks offered to professional organizations such as doctors and lawyers, as well as the executives paid in stock options, all of which cost the treasury countless sums. Yet none of them are being subjected to the kind of scrutiny Bill C-377 would impose on unions.

Walkom suggests the ultimate purpose behind the bill:

The unstated aim of this bill is to provide ammunition to politicians, like Ontario Tory Leader Tim Hudak, who would scrap the Rand formula and introduce U.S.-style right-to-work laws designed to sap unions.

The Conservatives’ working assumption is that once Canadians see how unions spend their money, they will be scandalized. It is another round in a sophisticated public relations war designed to portray union leaders as undemocratic pork-choppers.

Given the irrational contempt and envy much of the public feels toward unions, it seems likely that if passed, the bill will achieve its nefarious intent, and we will all literally be the poorer for it.

A Sad Spectacle

“This comes down to left-wing politics. The left wing wants me out of here and they’ll do anything in their power. I’m going to fight tooth and nail to hold on to my job. If they do for some reason get me out I’ll be running right back. As soon as the next election, if there’s a byelection, I’ll be the first name on the ballot.”

Thus spaketh Rob Ford, the soon-to-be former chief magistrate of the self-proclaimed 'world-class' city of Toronto. Although I do not live there, I have had an abiding interest in its political machinations since Ford was elected, and I retain that fascination in the reaction to his ouster.

Rob has been called many things: stupid, arrogant, willful, stubborn, and uncouth, to name a few. It seems to me that most of those qualities are evident in the above excerpt from this morning's Star; moreover, being an ardent student of human nature, I find his reaction emblematic of the mindset of the right-wing, echoing as it does the sentiments of brother Doug and other reactionaries who have made their way into politics.

To take a reductionist approach, those reactions seem to epitomize something ingrained in those inhabiting a certain part of the political spectrum: intolerance of those who have a different viewpoint. How else can one explain the absolute dismissal of a legal ruling by a respected judge? How else does one explain the following by brother Doug:

His and his ilk's inability to admit any wrong by Rob Ford, his dismissal of the proceedings as 'politically motivatated' and engineered by 'the social elites' and 'the unions' bespeaks a kind of contemptuous fanaticism dangerous to the collective good. Populist politics, I guess the Ford brothers' only real political currency, is better left in the history books with people like Huey Long.

We need and deserve better.

The Not-So-Hidden-Hand of Harper

Although I believe unreservedly in the vital role that unions play in both protecting and promoting workers' rights, I make no apologies for the times that I have been critical of them. Cronyism, questionable expenditures, and corruption have no place in organizations meant to serve their members.

Nonetheless, the latest thinly-disguised attack against unions by the Harper regime goes beyond the pale, one that feeds into and exploits the inexplicable envy and antipathy felt by much of the public toward those responsible for helping their members earn a living wage.

Bill C-377, ostensibly a private member's bill put forward by Conservative MP Russ Hiebert, is getting help from the Prime Minister's office to modify measures that have touched off an unusual outpouring of concern from Canadians.

Denounced as a well-structured assault on trade union rights by MP Pat Martin, the bill,

...would require labour unions or any group involved in collective bargaining with an employer to provide Canada Revenue Agency with information annually on nearly all financial affairs, with the reports to be published on CRA’s website.

However, the information that would be required goes well beyond simple financial statements:

Required information includes every transaction or disbursement over $5,000 for conferences, collective bargaining activities, training, lobbying, political activity and payments to union officers and members. The same reporting requirement applies to all investment trusts and funds operated by unions on behalf of their members. The name and address of each person involved in any of these transactions would have to be reported to CRA and would be made public.

Especially vexing is the arrantly hypocritical Harper justification for this information, with Hiebert claiming

...the bill is in keeping with the Harper government’s attempt to promote transparency and the public has a right to know how unions spend their members’ dues, which are tax deductible and according to Hiebert cost Ottawa about $500 million in foregone revenues a year.

Transparency and lost tax revenue are concerns of this government?

Really?

A Speech From Which We All Could Learn

I suspect, however, I know how the right-wing would react to this:

H/t William B Devitt III