Fun with Fotos

Martin leaps over barriers:

Photo by Paul Chiasson,CP

while Harper runs into brick walls:

Photo by REUTERS/Andy Clark

"Its not him, its us"

Its like the old break-up line "Its not you, its me."
I fear a Harper election partly because of what he would do, but mainly because of what such a victory would say about us as Canadians.
Here is a description about what has happened to people in the United States over the last decade, which purports to explain why they vote for Republicans. It is what I DON'T want to see happening in Canada:

Looking at the data from 1992 to 2004, Shellenberger and Nordhaus found a country whose citizens are increasingly authoritarian while at the same time feeling evermore adrift, isolated, and nihilistic. They found a society at once more libertine and more puritanical than in the past, a society where solidarity among citizens was deteriorating, and, most worrisomely to them, a progressive clock that seemed to be unwinding backward on broad questions of social equity. Between 1992 and 2004, for example, the percentage of people who said they agree that "the father of the family must be the master in his own house" increased ten points, from 42 to 52 percent, in the 2,500-person Environics survey. The percentage agreeing that "men are naturally superior to women" increased from 30 percent to 40 percent. Meanwhile, the fraction that said they discussed local problems with people they knew plummeted from 66 percent to 39 percent. Survey respondents were also increasingly accepting of the value that "violence is a normal part of life" -- and that figure had doubled even before the al-Qaeda terrorist attacks.

And when we also get the news that American conservatives are licking their chops about a Harper victory, that scares me too.

Great line of the day

Michael Moore speaks out on the Canadian election:

. . . Far be it from me, as an American, to suggest what you should do. You already have too many Americans telling you what to do. Well, actually, you've got just one American who keeps telling you to roll over and fetch and sit. I hope you don't feel this appeal of mine is too intrusive but I just couldn't sit by, as your friend, and say nothing. Yes, I agree, the Liberals have some 'splainin' to do. And yes, one party in power for more than a decade gets a little... long. But . . . There are ways at the polls to have your voices heard other than throwing the baby out with the bath water.
These are no ordinary times, and as you go to the polls on Monday, you do so while a man running the nation to the south of you is hoping you can lend him a hand by picking Stephen Harper because he's a man who shares his world view. Do you want to help George Bush by turning Canada into his latest conquest? Is that how you want millions of us down here to see you from now on? The next notch in the cowboy belt? C'mon, where's your Canadian pride? I mean,
if you're going to reduce Canada to a cheap download of Bush & Co., then at least don't surrender so easily. Can't you wait until he threatens to bomb Regina? Make him work for it, for Pete's sake . . .

Emphasis mine.
Well, Michael, thanks for noticing, and we're trying our best.
Thanks to From the Heartland for noticing this story.

Cerberus sums it up

In The Final Weekend: Final Thoughts, Cerberus writes exactly what I was thinking -- how did they know?
Anyway, go read it if you want a concise summary of just about everything important for this election..

Where have these people been? (Part Two)

Part One is here.
And its about time people started speaking out.
Here's the most recent list of Conservative opponents, from the :Toronto Star:

- The Canadian Climate Coalition complained that the Tories were the only party that refused to respond to a questionnaire on the Kyoto Protocol, and accused Harper of moving Canada 'into the same camp as U.S. President George W. Bush.'
- The Council of Canadians expressed concern about recent comments by Conservative MP James Lunney favouring bulk exports of Canadian water, and called on Harper to clarify his position on the issue.
- Sixty-six economists signed a joint statement warning that the tax breaks being offered by the major parties would leave a huge deficit in social services and hurt the poor. They took special aim at the Conservative proposal to eliminate taxes on reinvested capital gains, saying it would 'deliver very large tax savings to a tiny group of high-income Canadians.'
- Phil Fontaine, national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, said he's not satisfied by recent comments by Harper that the party supports the principles of the Kelowna native deal, but not the final agreement and dollar amount. 'Any suggestion that one supports the objectives and the targets but not the approximately $5 billion allocated to these targets is of great concern to us because we won't be able to meet the targets without money,' he said.
- The gay-rights group Egale warned: 'Stephen Harper goes ahead with his plan to reopen the divisive equal marriage debate, it will lead Canada into a legal swamp.' On Monday, 104 law professors wrote an open letter to Harper saying that his plan to reopen the equal marriage debate would lead to "legal confusion, a lack of uniformity, and unnecessary, protracted and costly litigation."
- Harper also faced questions from reporters Tuesday on claims that the Tories harbour a secret agenda to reopen the abortion debate. On Monday, Dr. Henry Morgentaler, the father of the pro-choice movement in Canada, had said Conservatives can't be trusted on the abortion issue. But Harper maintained he "won't be initiating or supporting abortion legislation." "I'll use whatever influence I have in Parliament to be sure that such a matter doesn't come to a vote," he added.

Yeah, Stephen, sure. Surprisingly, I'm sure, your influence just may not be quite enough...
And if you need any more talking points, Rabble associate publisher Duncan Cameron provides this concise summary of why the Conservatives would be a bad choice for Canada:

On policy, Conservative leader Stephen Harper is clear. He is not bound by a parliamentary decision to approve same sex marriage. Nor would his government support the international convention on climate change known as the Kyoto Accord, or the federal-provincial agreement on aboriginal issues reached recently at Kelowna.
He is ready to re-start negotiations to make Canada a partner in the American first strike missile system known perversely as missile defence.
The reason Harper favours the so-called traditional definition of marriage is not just to ensure that gay and lesbian Canadians are made to feel insulted and demeaned. He also wants to prove to the courts that the House of Commons is not bound by legal decisions Conservatives do not agree with.
Similarly, with the Kyoto accord, he can demonstrate how a Conservative government can step down, and walk away from an international treaty ratified by Canada, in order to show solidarity with the Bush Republicans, and the U.S. . . . Just in case anybody missed it, under a Harper government, payment of the capital gains tax will be waived if you “re-invest” the gain within six months by buying a summer cottage, a speculative property to rent out, or some more stocks.
This capital gains holiday is super expensive to implement, and worthless to society. It could, however be dangerous, having the power to provoke speculative booms, and accelerate busts. Since it will favour the wealthy greatly, it has not been subject to rigorous examination in the media
Announced for the first time with the rest of the Conservative program last Friday, the capital gains measure far overshadows the attention-getting proposed one per cent reduction in the GST, trumpeted at the outset of the election campaign as a measure of social justice. It turns out the Conservatives do favour the rich even when they pretend to be looking out for working families. Their tax policy proves it.

If the Conservatives win, its time to get into the house flipping business, I guess.

Scalia Lite

Well, Harper just couldn't keep his inner "Refooorrrm" quiet any longer -- its been two months since he could actually say what he thought, and the real Harper just had to break loose.
Here was today's Globe and Mail headline, above the fold: Harper warns of activist judges.

. . ."I am merely pointing out a fact that courts, for the most part, have been appointed by another political party. But courts are supposed to be independent regardless of who appoints them and they are an independent check and balance," he said. When one reporter asked if he believed judges are activists with their own social agenda, Mr. Harper replied: "Some are, some aren't." . . . Mr. Harper's former Reform and Canadian Alliance allies have cried loudly about judicial activism, with many complaining that liberal judges have imposed such things as same-sex marriage upon an unwilling populace.
Liberal Justice Minister Irwin Cotler responded with a scathing attack on Mr. Harper, arguing that his opinions are unfit for a man who aspires to lead the country. "To me, [it] is irresponsible for a political leader to be impugning the independence and the integrity of the very institutions he should be protecting," he said. "We need someone who will respect the rule of law, who will respect the independence of the judiciary." Mr. Cotler said that the suggestion judges are Liberal-biased demeans and insults the judicial system. And he defended his own judicial appointments, saying they have been scrupulously apolitical.
In 2003, after courts in British Columbia and Ontario recognized the legality of same-sex unions, Mr. Harper, who was then the leader of the Canadian Alliance, accused former prime minister Jean Chrétien of stacking the courts with sympathetic judges for that very purpose.
"They didn't want to come to Parliament, they didn't want to go to the Canadian people and be honest that this is what they wanted," he said at that time of the Liberals. "They had the courts do it for them; they put the judges in they wanted, then they failed to appeal, failed to fight the case in court."
. . . Mr. Harper says there is a particular type of person who would get those jobs if he were prime minister. "What we will be looking for is what I call the judicial temperament," he told reporters. "And that is the ability to competently and shrewdly and wisely apply the laws that are passed by the Parliament of Canada."

Sounds like the Conservatives will be looking for men like Antonin Scalia.
Oh, Myrtle, we're in trouble now...

Trend is up

.SES tracking poll Jan 18 -- Conservatives 37, Liberals 32.
Finally, the Liberals seem to hae stopped sliding and they have found a ladder to climb.

Some good news

Here: Poll suggests Liberals back in lead in Ontario
And here: Martin's Values, Hopes, Dreams ad

Already with the excuses...

What is Harper doing here? Not even elected yet, but he's already setting up the civil service or the Senate or the courts to take the blame for his failure.
Are there some promises he had made that he doesn't really want to keep? Harper said today that a Tory majority would not have 'absolute power'. Well, that will be news to the voters. The Liberals did it their way for 12 years; now if the Conservatives win a majority then the voters will expect them to do what they promised. And if they don't, they really can't blame it on the Liberals.

Who not to vote for

Vote Marriage Coalition has published their list of 150 candidates who they say do not support gay marriage.
Well, now you know who NOT to support in Alberta, British Columbia,
Manitoba, New Brunswick , Newfoundland and Labrador , Northwest Territories, Nova Scotia , Nunavut, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, Quebec, Saskatchewan , Yukon .
Its notable that so many of these bigots are Conservatives -- which means that if the Conservatives win this election then they will have enough votes in the Commons to overturn the gay marriage bill.
And now 100 legal beagles have sent Harper a letter about how stupid this all is: "It appears to be your intention to pass a law that you know is almost certainly unconstitutional and then leave it to the courts to clean up the mess."
But these law professors don't understand priorities here -- given the choice between taking a responsible approach to governing, and pandering to their base, which way does everyone think the Conservatives will go?

"The best record in Canadian history'

Rob McGowan, editor of Politics Canada endorses the Liberals -- he finds too much that is wrong with the Conservatives, and lots that is right with the Liberals:

Paul Martin assumed the mantle of power in December 2003 bringing about a series of significant changes to accountability, a new accord on Healthcare emphasizing wait-time improvements, the Atlantic Accord, funding for cities, Parliamentary Reforms, free votes, terminating the Sponsorship Program, increased military funding, signed the helicopter contract, tightened financial controls, greater co-operation with the provinces, resolved the BSE cattle export dispute, and achieved a drop in duties on softwood lumber. He did this while dealing with the aftermath of Chretien's ill-fated Sponsorship Program as well in a minority setting passing more legislation than any other Prime Minister in a minority. Should the Conservatives take power they will inherit a country in much better shape than the last Conservative government left it. In 1993 interest rates and unemployment were high, and a government burdened with two decades of deficit financing and burgeoning debt. Today the Liberal record of sustained economic growth, balanced budgets, debt repayment, exceptionally low interest and low unemployment rates is the best record in Canadian history as well as the best record among the G7 countries.

Yes, this sums it up quite well.

$388

As The East End-Underground reports, the Conservative's child care allowance proposal evaporates once you figure in the income taxes. From a Caledone Institute study: "a two-earner couple in Ontario raising two children (one under 6) and earning $36,000 . . . would end up with a net Child Care Allowance worth just $388 - only 32.3 percent of the $1,200 face value payment."

Great line of the day

In my Comments page for the last post, the Dave the Galloping Beaver writes: "All platforms being equal (relatively worthless), the indicator of the real agenda of a political party and its leader is the direction of those organizations which support them. In checking them all, Harper's leave me cold." Emphasis mine. And I will keep checking his blog for more on this topic.

Cheshire economics

If the media are now going to blunt every criticism of the Conservative budget by describing it as just another attack on Harper, then neither the Liberals nor the NDP will be able to generate any traction.
What we are seeing now from the Conservatives is what I am calling Cheshire economics -- promises appearing from thin air like the Cheshire Cat's smile, then quickly disappearing before they can be pinned down.
This CP story is headlined Federal election campaign enters final week with attacks focused on Harper, which trivializes some serious concerns:

A Tory government would boost user fees to finance costly election promises, Layton warned. . . "They relieve you of your cash in other ways, with user fees and charges and things they don't call taxes," he told supporters . . . Martin was also in warn mode, saying the Conservative platform doesn't add up and costly pledges to help cities build infrastructure, housing and sports facilities could suffer. "Mr. Harper won't tell us what he'll cut, he won't tell us which programs he's going to cut and which services he's going to cut," Martin said . . . "But let me tell you, something is going to have to give."

Meanwhile, we're already seeing some Conservative cutbacks appear and promises disappear. When Harper released the Conservative budget, it included a letter from the Conference Board of Canada (pdf) trumpeting its affordability.
So Saturday we got the news that the budget had been quietly reissued because originally it hadn't listed $26 billion in hidden spending cuts.
Today we find out that the budget approved by the Conference Board didn't include billions Harper has now promised to Quebec, nor does it include his promise that Canadians can go elsewhere for health care if necessary:

[Conference Board economist]Darby says the version of the platform he was given to vet didn't include a Conservative party health-care guarantee which states patients will be transported to another jurisdiction if they can't get timely care at home. It also omitted a Tory platform promise to redress the so-called "fiscal imbalance" between Ottawa and the provinces. Darby wouldn't comment on whether the timely health-care guarantee would bear a significant cost. "Talk to Harper," he said. "It is not in the platform I received from them." It's also not clear what the Conservatives expect to pay to redress the fiscal imbalance . . .

Now, Goodale and the Liberals argue that the so-called fiscal imbalance doesn't really exist. So maybe this explains it -- the Conservatives were promising anything to sound good in Quebec, but later on they intended to announce that -- surprise, surprise -- they actually don't owe the provinces anything after all.
But beware, Ontarians -- don't make that appointment at the Mayo clinic just yet.
'Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?'
' That depends a good deal on where you want to get to,' said the Cat.
'I don’t much care where--' said Alice.
' Then it doesn’t matter which way you go,' said the Cat.
' --so long as I get SOMEWHERE,' Alice added as an explanation.
' Oh, you’re sure to do that,' said the Cat.
UPDATE: And as POGGE notes, check out Tilting at Windmills where Ian Welsh says the capital gains tax exemption will distort the Canadian economy by encouraging speculation in housing and in securities.

Where have these people been?

A coalition of progressive groups calling themselves the Think Twice coalition has FINALLY stepped forward to warn of the danger of Conservative victory.
Its about time.
Members include Maude Barlow, Council of Canadians; Buzz Hargrove, Canadian Auto Workers; Kira Heineck, Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada; Linda Silas, Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions; Bonnie Diamond, National Association of Women and the Law; and Elizabeth May, Sierra Club; plus the Canadian Federation of Students, Centre for Equality Rights in Accommodation, Egale Canada, Prevent Cancer Coalition, and the National Action Committee on the Status of Women.
Other than Buzz Hargrove, I haven't heard about any of these groups speaking out in support of the Liberals. There was no coverage that I saw on Friday for the coalition's announcement -- I found this story on Rabble, and that's just preaching to the choir.
But for the record, here's what they are sayng:

What would Conservative policies mean for Canadians?:
They mean privatization and deregulation, and more cuts to social programs.
They mean the end of the national child-care program, and the rollback of the $5 billion deal between 10 provinces and the federal government. This is the beginning of the first new national social program since medicare, but Harper says he will cancel it in exchange for a dollar a day sent to Canadians, burdened with securing and financing their own child care.
They mean abandonment of the agreement just achieved with First Nations at the Aboriginal Summit, and reneging on promised spending to alleviate a housing and health care crisis for some of Canada's most vulnerable citizens, women and children.
They mean more greenhouse gas emissions, the end of the domestic Kyoto plan to reduce emissions by 2012, and moving Canada from a strong supporter of further emission cuts to supporting George Bush's camp.
They mean a health care system based on commercialization, not patient needs; based on competition between health care providers, not collaborative practice; a health care system that would allocate public health care dollars to for-profit business, rather than improving primary health care for our families; and a continuing absence of national standards for home care and inadequate long-term care for our seniors.
They mean the loss of at least $1 billion for affordable housing, and the potential loss of a Canadian housing framework.
They mean no commitment to the income measures and services needed to reduce poverty.
They mean abandoning efforts to protect workers' wages, pensions and benefits in cases of corporate bankruptcy.
They mean massive tuition fee increases for university and college students.
They mean greater trade and foreign policy integration with the U.S., particularly joint military ventures (including participation in foreign conflicts and space-based military systems).
They mean new risks to Canadian women's right to reproductive choice and access to abortion.
They mean abandoning plans for new pay equity legislation.
They mean abandoning plans for a new national strategy for people with disabilities.
They mean less government support for the arts and for public broadcasting.
They mean re-opening the debate over equal marriage rights for same sex couples, and the introduction of unconstitutional legislation.
They mean re-opening the Charter to protect private property rights, which have major implications for environmental protection, labour rights and equality rights.
They mean big tax cuts for corporations, and fewer pollution regulations.

All this, and missile defense, too.
But it may be too late to persuade people to think twice about their votes -- the "racist, homophobic, anti-feminist bigots" have already booked their flights to Ottawa.
It ain't no use in callin' out my name, gal
Like you never did before
It ain't no use in callin' out my name, gal
I can't hear you any more . . .
I ain't sayin' you treated me unkind
You could have done better but I don't mind
You just kinda wasted my precious time
But don't think twice, it's all right