Conservative MP Blaine Calkins' Bromance

Either the Alberta Conservative MP has a thing for the late Charlton Heston or he has a love of a darker kind.

Economic Fact Check

Contrary to what our self-described economist Prime Minister would have us believe, the jobs that are being created in Canada today are but a pale echo of what once existed. Responding to a January report about the creation of 29,000 new jobs, Star readers have this to say:

Jump in jobs eases economy fears, Feb. 8

The article begins by saying “the labour market started 2014 with a bang adding 29,400 jobs,” presenting a positive tone regarding unemployment. This is misleading. From 2004 to 2008, according to Statistic Canada, nearly 350,000 well-paying manufacturing jobs disappeared, to be replaced by a number of service jobs that paid minimum wage or less. Every sector was hit: the automotive industry, auto parts manufacturing, textile product mills, all industries related to wood and paper. Along with these jobs went the unions, and suddenly we were seeing the rise of food banks.

By 2010, manufacturing employment had fallen by an additional 375,000 workers. All courtesy of free trade agreements that allowed companies to leave Canada for cheap-labour countries.

Then there were other job losses: Sears, 1,600 jobs gone; public sector workers: 20,000; and major Canadian banks, in the thousands. The construction industry in northern Alberta, which generates the best paying jobs in the country, has been laying off workers and replacing them with temporary foreign workers earning as little as half the prevailing wage.

“They called the guys (Canadian workers) into an office, told them that they were gone, and they literally walked past the replacements on the way out,” Alberta Federation of Labour Gil McGowan said.

Job losses over the past 10 years add up to well over a million. The number of jobs listed in the article, 29,400, doesn't even wipe out the job losses of the month previous, 49,500.

And it does nothing about the million jobs already lost.

Bert Deveaux, Toronto

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty should have chosen ballet slippers instead of steel-toed shoes the way he dances around the reality Canada is rapidly becoming a part-time economy. Will that be fries with your budget, Sir?

Richard Kadziewicz, Scarborough

No doubt these facts will be viewed as just a tiny challenge to the Harper propaganda machine.

To Be Young, Gifted, And Gay

I am in awe of this kind of courage, and it is one of the reasons I am never quite wiling to give up on humanity. Despite the progress that society has made, I can't think that this could have been an easy decision.

Harper's Ongoing War Against Democracy

I had a very spirited discussion early this afternoon with the constituency assistant working in my Harper M.P.'s office. I called to ask her to convey my disdain for the Fair Elections Act and the plethora of other contempt-for-democracy activities the Conservatives are involved in; warning me about getting my information from 'the left-wing press,' she proceeded to inform me about her party's commitment to ending election fraud, running government with integrity, and all the other sweet and holy things that her boss and her boss's boss are working so hard to promote in this country. I won't bore you with the vigorous rebuttal I offered to her preposterous talking points, except for one point.

I told her that if her party were really interested in respecting and promoting democracy, it would be busy engaging Canadians in a discussion of ideas. Instead, all it can do is demonize and denigrate those who oppose its 'vision'.

A good case in point, which I used as a relevant and current illustration, is a story that appeared in this morning's print edition of The Toronto Star. Since it doesn't seem to be available online, here is a link to The Hamilton Spectator, which also carried it.

Entitled Leaked note shows how Conservatives planning to undermine Justin Trudeau, the article conveys the following tactics that have come to define the Conservative modus operandi and their concomitant absence of integrity:

Stephen Harper's Conservatives are planning to target Justin Trudeau at the upcoming Liberal convention with a carefully orchestrated campaign to disrupt Liberal communications, highlight disunity in the ranks and question his leadership abilities.

The game plan, laid in out Conservative party documents, spells out the objective in three words: "drive, disrupt, disunity."

I don't really have the stomach to reproduce any more of this Machiavellian embrace of anti-democracy so beloved of the Harper cabal, but it does raise a fundamental question, doesn't it?

If their ideas have any real currency among Canadians, why not promote them on their own merits instead of trying to erode the credibility of those who disagree?

The answer, I suspect, is painfully obvious.

More On The Harper Contempt For Democracy Act

If twisted autocracy is not your political cup of tea, please consider signing this petition sponsored by The Council of Canadians in protest of the misnamed Fair Elections Act.

As well, please consider making a Call For Democracy to your local M.P. today sometime between 12:30 and 6:30 P.M.

You may even wish to invite your Facebook friends.

The Fair Elections (A.K.A. Harper's Contempt For Democracy) Act: Star Readers and Creekside Weigh In

It is always heartening to awake on a Monday morning, peruse the newspaper, and receive confirmation that concerns over the Harper Fair Elections Act are not the exclusive concern of the blogosphere. That being said, I strongly recommend that you visit Alison at Creekside to read her analysis of this odious bill.

As well, savor these missives from Toronto Star readers:

Elections bill could disenfranchise thousands, Feb. 7

Typical of the Harper government’s obsession with control, they propose to create a new bureaucracy with the apparent sole purpose of bringing the currently independent investigative powers under the political influence of a government minister. Why else would you avoid the logical, and probably more cost effective, route of simply enhancing the existing powers of Elections Canada, the acknowledged “expert” in administering Canada’s election laws and regulations?
The ability to exert government (political) influence over enforcement and investigations of possible abuses of electoral law is the only apparent benefit of Stephen Harper’s approach.

Interesting also that, while they propose tougher rules to prevent abuse by individual voters, they promote “one law for you and another for the insiders” by providing new cover, out of the public view, for suspected abusers of the electoral system at the party and elected levels. This can only lead to a public perception that cover-ups of transgressions are likely as the insiders look after one another.

Leave it to Harper to subvert one more thing to his anti-democratic, dictatorial bent.

Terry Kushnier, Scarborough

Democratic Reform Minister Pierre Poilievre says he wants “everyday citizens in charge of democracy.” Really? The per-vote subsidy allowed all voters, regardless of wealth, to allocate a small amount of public funding to parties they supported. By scrapping that and increasing the individual donation limit by 25 per cent, the fraction of voters who direct public subsidies to political parties shrinks to about 1 to 2 per cent of all voters, with the biggest donors among them directing the biggest subsidies.

We’re on the wrong track. But before you blame a party or parties you don’t like as the source of the problem, recognize that all parties have an obvious conflict of interest with law-making on political funding.

We need an independent citizens’ assembly to tackle this. While it may not be clear what such a body might decide, it would certainly be more democratic and fair than the partisan-designed mess we have now.

Larry Gordon, Toronto

The “Fair Elections Act” recently tabled by the federal government is good, bad and sad. Good because it is not buried in a giant Omnibus Bill and contains many positive reforms. Bad because it appears that the chief electoral officer was not consulted on the details and, on the surface of it, Elections Canada will be lacking some powers to investigate. Sad because political parties have played fast and loose with our democratic rights to such an extent that our government feels compelled to call it a “Fair Elections Act.”

Bill Wensley, Cobourg

With Apologies, Another Post On Tim Hudak

I have to admit that I grow increasingly tired of and bored with young Tim Hudak, the boy who would be Ontario's next premier. Yet because his duplicitous tactics and rhetoric provide such a window into the sordid world of Conservative politics, sometimes I just hold my nose and plod on. But I promise to be brief.

In this morning's Star, Martin Regg Cohn examines Hudak's oft-repeated plan to bring 'workplace democracy' to Ontario, i.e., make union membership optional. Says Tim:

“We will change Ontario’s labour laws to give union members more flexibility and a greater voice. We will give all individuals the right to a secret ballot in certification votes. We will introduce paycheque protection so union members are not forced to pay fees towards political causes they don’t support.”

Such a touching concern for the sensibility of workers, to which he adds:

“Modernizing our labour laws is a part of that [bringing manufacturing jobs back to Ontario]. Makes it more attractive for jobs. Thatcher was instructive in that … they had rigid labour laws, they were deep in debt. She ended the closed shop, she modernized the labour laws.”

Assuming a rudimentary reasoning capacity just slightly beyond that of a toddler, one can fill in the details that young Tim withholds as to why making union-membership optional might, in theory, attract more jobs. No, it's not because a worker given the choice of union membership is a happier and more productive worker - without a union, he is a much cheaper worker, a reality at odds with Hudak's promise of one million good-paying jobs for Ontario.

What about the political machinations going on behind the scenes? In a party that has grave concerns about its leadership, those Progressive Conservatives who will likely run in the next election are concerned about how to best massage the message. The following, from The Hamilton Spectator, offers some insight into the sordid, morally-compromised world these people inhabit:

Internal memo shows concern over Hudak's 'right-to-work' plan

Alarm over Progressive Conservative Leader Tim Hudak's controversial "right-to-work" policy is spreading among party activists, MPPs and increasingly skittish new candidates.

In an unusually candid memo obtained by The Toronto Star, 11 would-be MPPs express concern that Hudak's U.S.-style anti-union measures could hurt them in a provincial election expected as early as spring.

Echoing fears raised in a Jan. 22 conference call of 300 party stalwarts and earlier by MPP John O'Toole at last September's Tory convention, the candidates worry that radical labour reforms will be a tough sell to voters.

"Part of being smarter means we should recognize that campaign policies need to be flexible in order to allow for the type (of) precision needed to maximize regional support," says the draft memo, written by Timiskaming-Cochrane Tory hopeful Peter Politis with input from the 10 other Northern Ontario nominees.

"I'm sure we agree that messaging of policies and being prepared for the counter-message is the most important aspect of our campaign going forward," he writes.

Politis warns that "critical wedge issues" must be "messaged effectively in order to maximize the impact in our region while not hurting the impact of other PC seats in other regions."

"The 'right-to-work' policy also needs to be messaged effectively to maximize its impact in the south without sacrificing 11 seats in the North that can very well be the difference between a majority or minority government."

The candidates' memo is the latest sign of an internal PC schism over a pledge to eliminate the Rand Formula, which requires all workers in a unionized workplace to pay dues, regardless of whether they join the union.

Harking back to the party's heyday, the PC standard bearers urge Hudak to follow the centrist footsteps of former premier Bill Davis, who governed from 1971 until 1985 and remains popular to this day.

It is perhaps a testament to the character of the candidates that their concern over Tim's union-busting policy is prompted, not by principled objections but rather political expediency, i.e., "How can a union-busting promise be presented without damaging our chances of getting elected?"

Such is the stable from which the Progressive Conservatives draw.