I like many Canadians have been following the media reports of the global financial meltdown, but as can be expected, my concerns are centred around the impact that we will feel here at home. Clearly, the manufacturing industry is in trouble in Ontario. The mines, forest products, oil sands, and other commodity based sectors are feeling the economic impact, and job losses are beginning to mount. When these cornerstones of our domestic economy are being devastated, the service sector, and small business are going to be dragged along for the ride.
The Federal Government, along with Ontario, Alberta, and Quebec are now on the verge of a deal to provide a bailout for the holders of Asset Backed Commercial Paper. I am uncertain how this will, or even if it has an impact on my personal situation. I do not pretend to understand all of the economic and financial issues that are being delivered to us on a daily basis. It is clear however, that there are a significant number of Canadians who are suffering at least some degree of financial loss as a result of this debacle.
I am more than a little concerned about how these problems are being dealt with, particularly at the Federal level. I understand the need for the rescue plan for the auto makers. I do not fully understand the issues surrounding the ABCP deal. I am certain however that this whole mess is the direct result of the government's abdication of its responsibilities with regard to the regulation of the financial industry. The impression I get from what I have read, is that although the collapse of the world economic order was triggered in the U.S. and no country will escape the fallout, ours included. The deregulation of the financial industry and acceptance of laissez-faire capitalism, as a government economic policy, has allowed some sectors of society to live very well indeed ,at least on a superficial level, for the last dozen years or so. Now that the chickens have come home to roost, so to speak, many people, most particularly the working, and middle classes, are being hit hard by the downturn. Everyone can see this, even though some in politics will not admit it publicly.
All of that being said however is little more than hindsight, water under the bridge as it were. In the flurry of bad news that has cast a pall over this Holiday Season, I want to know what is going to be done to prevent this from reoccurring in the future? Beyond the current minority government throwing the voters under the economic bus in order to cling to power by proroguing Parliament, and the sight of our political leadership squabbling in public, Canadians have little to look forward to in the New Year, with the exception of more promises of bad news.
Where, and when will controls be put in place to curb the financial damage, either through negligence or outright fraud, that has been perpetrated on Canadian workers and investors? Our politicians are elected to provide leadership. Our government ought to be providing regulation, and control over the economy. Business and industry, in addition to providing jobs also has a role to play in the economic well-being of the country. It is unseemly that they go to the taxpayers for bailouts, while looking for tax cuts for corporations while laying off those self-same taxpayers who are supposed to be providing the bailouts. The brand of capitalism that has been the norm in recent years, can not continue, any more than the form of communism that was practiced in the Soviet Union. Both systems were inherently flawed. It is time for Canadians to hear from their elected leaders,with their proposals for the way forward. I for one will be voting for more, and stricter regulation and a system that offers stability and an economic future for the citizens of Canada.
Thursday, December 25, 2008
Monday, December 22, 2008
Labour Under Attack, Again...
Now that George Bush has decided to step forward and include a bailout package for the North American Auto Makers from the TARP funds approved by Congress, the package agreed to by Queen's Park and Ottawa will kick in. I am concerned, (and I am putting it as diplomatically as possible), that although this is designed to provide a rescue package to prevent the failure of one of the cornerstones of our economy, auto manufacturing, the required concessions by the workers are also a thinly veiled attack on organized labour. It is generally conceded that the workers at the big three assembly plants are probably the most efficient to be found anywhere in the industry. It is also undeniable, that the labour costs comprise approximately seven per cent of the price of a new D3 vehicle That is less than the profit margin of the retail dealers. It is also less than the aggregate delivery costs associated with that vehicle.Labour costs are not a large part of the problems plaguing the auto makers. What the governments in both Canada and the U.S. have done is to use the world wide economic crisis in a blatant attack on the workers. Unfortunately, a good many unorganized workers, have foolishly sided with the government and corporations and have become quite vocal in labelling the auto workers as lazy, greedy, fat cats needing to be put in their place. During my career in union leadership, I encountered this sort of mindset quite often in the past. Human nature being what it is, envy leads some people to believe that if some one has a better wage and benefits package, they should have that package reduced rather than working to raise their own level of remuneration. This is a slippery slope. Reducing the organized worker's wages and benefits will not stop there. Once the battle against stronger, organized group of workers has been waged successfully, the unorganized workers will be next on the agenda.
It is often forgotten or overlooked by many that Unions have always worked to raise the wages, and conditions of all workers. Unorganized workers will be defenceless in the face of an economic crisis and government policy that have made high unemployment and low wages the norm. It is also worth remembering, that former economist for the CAW, Sam Gindin, often commented, “The only thing that concessions lead to, is more concessions.”
This is just the latest attack in a long term plan on the part of the right wing. In the 90's the Harris government in Ontario struck down the provisions in Provincial legislation that prevented the use of replacement workers during a legal strike. Not long after, in 2000, Mine Mill / CAW - Local 598 struck Falconbridge in Sudbury. The company brought in replacement workers and the strike continued for seven months and was one of the most brutal and damaging labour actions in memory. The fallout from this is still evident in that community today. I believe that the auto makers needed a rescue package and such a package is vital for the economic well being of Canada and its citizens. However, the workers cannot be held responsible for the bad decisions that threaten to bring down the corporations. By the same token, anyone who works for wages in this country, must see the actions of Harper and Bush for what they are, a blatant attack on workers. If they are allowed to succeed, all will be threatened. Pensions, benefits, and a living wage should not be sacrificed to disguise the failed right wing policies of deregulation, tax cuts and globalization.
It is often forgotten or overlooked by many that Unions have always worked to raise the wages, and conditions of all workers. Unorganized workers will be defenceless in the face of an economic crisis and government policy that have made high unemployment and low wages the norm. It is also worth remembering, that former economist for the CAW, Sam Gindin, often commented, “The only thing that concessions lead to, is more concessions.”
This is just the latest attack in a long term plan on the part of the right wing. In the 90's the Harris government in Ontario struck down the provisions in Provincial legislation that prevented the use of replacement workers during a legal strike. Not long after, in 2000, Mine Mill / CAW - Local 598 struck Falconbridge in Sudbury. The company brought in replacement workers and the strike continued for seven months and was one of the most brutal and damaging labour actions in memory. The fallout from this is still evident in that community today. I believe that the auto makers needed a rescue package and such a package is vital for the economic well being of Canada and its citizens. However, the workers cannot be held responsible for the bad decisions that threaten to bring down the corporations. By the same token, anyone who works for wages in this country, must see the actions of Harper and Bush for what they are, a blatant attack on workers. If they are allowed to succeed, all will be threatened. Pensions, benefits, and a living wage should not be sacrificed to disguise the failed right wing policies of deregulation, tax cuts and globalization.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Why Blame Unions?
A person would have to be isolated indeed, to have missed the media frenzy surrounding the proposed government loans to rescue the Big Three North American auto makers. In a previous article, I have outlined some of the reasons I believe it is necessary to protect manufacturing jobs, especially in the auto sector, in Ontario. Some people have expressed in the newspapers and other media, reservations and sometimes open hostility as to why unionized workers feel should earn higher wages and better benefits than other workers. Others have expressed the opinion that unionized workers should be required to take a pay cut if tax dollars are going to be used to support the auto makers. Basically, these views hinge on the, “ union workers are lazy and greedy while I work just as hard for less”, arguments favoured by those on the political right, and the corporate elite.
Unions do not have a policy of “getting more” than anyone else. As a rule, Unions hope to raise the living standards for all workers. Most, including the CAW, have programs in place to lobby the Provincial Government for increases in the minimum wage even though most of their membership tend to earn higher wages. All have programs designed to promote issues such as health and safety in the workplace, human rights, and equality issues etc. All workers benefit, in the workplace, from the impact of advances made in these areas.
In Canada 53% of the wealth is held by 10% of the households, or the top 20% control 75% of the wealth. On the other end of the scale, those households in the bottom 10% of the economic spectrum control none of the country's wealth, and in fact have a negative net worth. In point of fact, most of those who complain about unions fall into the group of 80% of the households who are in control of the remining 25% of the wealth. It is true that Labour Unions are in the business of gaining a bigger share of the wealth controlled by the corporations. They are not attempting to gain a larger share of the wealth controlled by the bottom 90% of the population. That would make no sense. They are attempting to gain a larger, more equitable share of the wealth controlled by employers. What does make sense is that when one group of workers improves their lot, all have a better chance of making the same sort of improvement. Unions are not responsible for the current economic mess in the world economic system. There are a good many structural issues that brought these conditions about; we hear about them every day on the news. Working people have not had a significant impact on the creation of the conditions that brought about this collapse. Instead of complaining that their unionized neighbours are greedy, (the envy argument), it would make much more sense for non-unionized groups to organize, and get into the business of redistributing some of the wealth that is controlled by their employers, and seeking to improve their working conditions as needed. In uncertain economic times union membership is an advantage, not a liability. Group action is always more effective than a single worker attempting to protect his or her rights.
Corporations are the benefactors when workers argue among themselves about the efficacy and validity of unions. Unionized workers aren't the enemy; they don't control corporations, or the distribution of the country's wealth. There is an injustice built into our economic system, and the sooner people see where the source of the real problem is, the sooner a remedy can be constructed. In the twenty-first century workers need to have a voice in their workplaces more than ever.
Unions do not have a policy of “getting more” than anyone else. As a rule, Unions hope to raise the living standards for all workers. Most, including the CAW, have programs in place to lobby the Provincial Government for increases in the minimum wage even though most of their membership tend to earn higher wages. All have programs designed to promote issues such as health and safety in the workplace, human rights, and equality issues etc. All workers benefit, in the workplace, from the impact of advances made in these areas.
In Canada 53% of the wealth is held by 10% of the households, or the top 20% control 75% of the wealth. On the other end of the scale, those households in the bottom 10% of the economic spectrum control none of the country's wealth, and in fact have a negative net worth. In point of fact, most of those who complain about unions fall into the group of 80% of the households who are in control of the remining 25% of the wealth. It is true that Labour Unions are in the business of gaining a bigger share of the wealth controlled by the corporations. They are not attempting to gain a larger share of the wealth controlled by the bottom 90% of the population. That would make no sense. They are attempting to gain a larger, more equitable share of the wealth controlled by employers. What does make sense is that when one group of workers improves their lot, all have a better chance of making the same sort of improvement. Unions are not responsible for the current economic mess in the world economic system. There are a good many structural issues that brought these conditions about; we hear about them every day on the news. Working people have not had a significant impact on the creation of the conditions that brought about this collapse. Instead of complaining that their unionized neighbours are greedy, (the envy argument), it would make much more sense for non-unionized groups to organize, and get into the business of redistributing some of the wealth that is controlled by their employers, and seeking to improve their working conditions as needed. In uncertain economic times union membership is an advantage, not a liability. Group action is always more effective than a single worker attempting to protect his or her rights.
Corporations are the benefactors when workers argue among themselves about the efficacy and validity of unions. Unionized workers aren't the enemy; they don't control corporations, or the distribution of the country's wealth. There is an injustice built into our economic system, and the sooner people see where the source of the real problem is, the sooner a remedy can be constructed. In the twenty-first century workers need to have a voice in their workplaces more than ever.
Monday, December 15, 2008
What's Wrong With This Country – Part 1
Although we are in the throws of the worst economic meltdown in close to a century, the federal government, has failed to provide any assistance for those workers who have lost, or are about to lose, their jobs. Since the mid-nineties, the federal government, mainly under the Liberals, has racked up one “surprise” budgetary surplus after another. The former Liberal government, in effect, converted the EI program into a hidden payroll tax, and used the excess funds to pay down the deficit. Although the Supreme Court agreed that this was the case, in its recent ruling, it stated that the federal government would not be required to return the money to the taxpayers. This was a fortunate result for the current Conservative government led by Stephen Harper, who since taking office, has given away $190 billion in tax cuts, mainly to the wealthy, and spent another 14 billion dollars in debt reduction. This has essentially left the government without resources to deal with the current economice downturn and subsequent job losses.
There has, as a result, been a very significant cost to Canadians, especially to those who are being forced to depend on the Employment Insurance scheme. In 1996, Canadians were sold on the idea that the program was a waste of taxpayer dollars and discouraged claimants from seeking work. This led to a “reform” of the EI system. The problem is that now, when it is really needed, only 40% of unemployed workers will qualifiy for benefits. The current maximum payout is $435 per week for a maximum of 45 weeks. Unfortunately few of the unemployed qualify for the maximum, and the average payout is only about half of the maximum. Further, in real terms, adjusted for inflation, there has been an almost 30% reduction in benefits since 1996. The situation is worse for working women who make up the bulk of part time workers in this country and seldom qualify for any benefits at all.
Employment Insurance is not now, nor was it ever intended as a welfare scheme. It was meant as a contingency fund for employees who found themselves without a job during the course of their careers. It was paid for by the employees and the companies that they worked for. The money collected ought never have been used as a part of the governments general revenue. Had the system been properly, and honestly managed the program would have had a surplus in the order of $54 billion. A surplus that Canadians facing the loss of their jobs, would have had available to draw on. Instead of dealing with this issue, the current federal government continues to pocket this surplus. The Conservatives have however, suggested the implementation of a new crown corporation that would set up a new financing structure and set the future rates for the Employment Insurance program. This will be cold comfort to those who are being forced onto the unemployment lines.
There has, as a result, been a very significant cost to Canadians, especially to those who are being forced to depend on the Employment Insurance scheme. In 1996, Canadians were sold on the idea that the program was a waste of taxpayer dollars and discouraged claimants from seeking work. This led to a “reform” of the EI system. The problem is that now, when it is really needed, only 40% of unemployed workers will qualifiy for benefits. The current maximum payout is $435 per week for a maximum of 45 weeks. Unfortunately few of the unemployed qualify for the maximum, and the average payout is only about half of the maximum. Further, in real terms, adjusted for inflation, there has been an almost 30% reduction in benefits since 1996. The situation is worse for working women who make up the bulk of part time workers in this country and seldom qualify for any benefits at all.
Employment Insurance is not now, nor was it ever intended as a welfare scheme. It was meant as a contingency fund for employees who found themselves without a job during the course of their careers. It was paid for by the employees and the companies that they worked for. The money collected ought never have been used as a part of the governments general revenue. Had the system been properly, and honestly managed the program would have had a surplus in the order of $54 billion. A surplus that Canadians facing the loss of their jobs, would have had available to draw on. Instead of dealing with this issue, the current federal government continues to pocket this surplus. The Conservatives have however, suggested the implementation of a new crown corporation that would set up a new financing structure and set the future rates for the Employment Insurance program. This will be cold comfort to those who are being forced onto the unemployment lines.
Saturday, December 6, 2008
Conservatives Fail on Economic Front
“Tories pledge protection for embattled oil sands - Coalition Threat”
The headline above appeared on Saturday, December 06, 2008 in the National Post. This commitment comes on the heels of the announcement last week, that the Canadian economy had lost 71,000 jobs in November. The bulk of the losses, 90% were incurred in Ontario. Of these, 38,000 were in the manufacturing sector. Manufacturing job losses since 2002 have totalled 388,000, according to Statistics Canada . If there ever was an industry in need of attention during these tough economic times it is manufacturing. In the same report, Alberta got off fairly lightly with losses of 3,700 jobs. Yet, Natural Resources Minister Lisa Raitt, has chosen to highlight the threat of damage to the Alberta Oil Sands industry should the Coalition gain power. This is the sort of direction from the Federal Government will only serve to accentuate the regional differences opened by Stephen Harper last week. It also highlights the need for Parliament to be in the House and dealing with the pressing issues that are laying waste to the economy of the country. Clearly, Harper's Conservatives are fixated on the need to hang onto power with their divide and conquer methods, and will not deal with the issues of ordinary Canadians even though our economy is headed for the ditch.
The headline above appeared on Saturday, December 06, 2008 in the National Post. This commitment comes on the heels of the announcement last week, that the Canadian economy had lost 71,000 jobs in November. The bulk of the losses, 90% were incurred in Ontario. Of these, 38,000 were in the manufacturing sector. Manufacturing job losses since 2002 have totalled 388,000, according to Statistics Canada . If there ever was an industry in need of attention during these tough economic times it is manufacturing. In the same report, Alberta got off fairly lightly with losses of 3,700 jobs. Yet, Natural Resources Minister Lisa Raitt, has chosen to highlight the threat of damage to the Alberta Oil Sands industry should the Coalition gain power. This is the sort of direction from the Federal Government will only serve to accentuate the regional differences opened by Stephen Harper last week. It also highlights the need for Parliament to be in the House and dealing with the pressing issues that are laying waste to the economy of the country. Clearly, Harper's Conservatives are fixated on the need to hang onto power with their divide and conquer methods, and will not deal with the issues of ordinary Canadians even though our economy is headed for the ditch.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
What's Wrong With the Right
Stephen Harper's quest to destroy the opposition and make the Conservative Party the natural governing party of Canada, is wrong on many levels. In pursuit of his goal, he seeks to limit discussion, and dissent in our government. If there is no avenue for differing viewpoints, in government, we are left to assume our society needs no improvement.
We are left to accept the status quo. There is no need for change. His party leaves the impression that the most noble goal of government is the reduction of taxes. There is no need or requirement to improve the general welfare of the people. Minimal efforts in the areas of infrastructure and its maintenance and improvement are laudable goals. Rather than improving the social safety net, for those who find themselves in need, the dismantling of these systems ought to be the goal. Environmental concerns may be swept under the rug of cost control, and business efficiency.
Most of all, he would take away the desire of the people to dream of something better.
We are left to accept the status quo. There is no need for change. His party leaves the impression that the most noble goal of government is the reduction of taxes. There is no need or requirement to improve the general welfare of the people. Minimal efforts in the areas of infrastructure and its maintenance and improvement are laudable goals. Rather than improving the social safety net, for those who find themselves in need, the dismantling of these systems ought to be the goal. Environmental concerns may be swept under the rug of cost control, and business efficiency.
Most of all, he would take away the desire of the people to dream of something better.
Parliamentary "Recess"
The Governor General, Michaelle Jean, has granted Stephen Harper a “stay of execution”, at the hands of a majority in the House of Commons. This decision means that Canada is now effectively governed by a group of Parliamentarians, who have managed to engineer a “coup”, and seize control of the Federal Government. I will grant that I am plagiarising the rhetoric of that same group, AKA, the Conservative Party of Canada. It is extremely unfortunate that Michaelle Jean has set a dangerous precedent in granting the PM his request, and thereby allowing him to avert certain defeat at the hands of the opposition. This potentially has opened the door to any future Prime Minister who, when faced with defeat, to exercise the option to prorogue Parliament. Now that Harper has succeeded in achieving this goal, and given his demonstated modus operandi, and the disregard he has shown for the Office of Prime Minister, He most certainly will once again try to “push the envelope” when next faced with a crisis. Where will he stop. What tactics would he consider to be crossing the ethical and moral lines. He is afterall, someone who is puportedly committed to serving the citizens of this country. He has indicated a willingness to use any weapon, or tactic at his disposal to hang onto power. Over the past few days he has shown that throwing Quebecers “under the wheels of the bus” of public opinion and starting the unity crisis anew was not too great a price to pay. What is next? Who is expendible in his quest to destroy all opposition in his quest to retain power?
Thus it is, that we now have a government that has no moral, or ethical right to continue in power. In reality, it matters little, that the voters appear, in recent polling, to be supportive of the Conservatives. It does not matter that the opposition was attempting to form a coalition, and that concept is new and somehow scary to Canadians. It doesn't matter which party or group think that they have gained an advantage. It is irrelevant that some do not like Stephan Dion. Canadian democracy has been diminished. Stephen Harper, when faced with imminent defeat in a motion of confidence, by abusing his power, delayed that vote for a week. He accomplished this by cancelling the opposition day in Parliament on Monday December 01. On national television He did commit to having the vote on the following Monday. He has renegged on his commitment. He has convinced the Governor General to prorogue Parliament until the end of January. It doesn't matter which party you might support. It doesn't matter where you live. The fact is Harper, used the office of Prime Minister to evade the wishes of Parliament and had managed to thwart the wishes of the House. He is now the master of an illegal government. This is the core detail of the entire sorry drama. All of the other details are nothing more than window dressing. Whether or not he manages to gain the confidence of Parliament in January 27th, is irrelevant. Had the constitution been followed he would have lost the vote of confidence over the Economic Statement. We then would have had the Governor General deciding whether to allow a coalition, or sending the voters back to the polls. That would have been a legal outcome.
Using the tactic of prorogation was unethical. This was an abuse of the highest office in the land and shows that the Prime Minister has no respect for the office he has gone to such lengths to hang onto. He has opened the unity debate again. He has engaged more Canadians than ever in the debate, but at the cost of deep divisions, and unprecedented levels of anger. He has openly exploited divisions for citizens of differing cultures or residing in different geographical regions opening wounds that may take years to heal. Stephen Harper has opened a pandora's box of unintended consequences that may harm Canada and its people for the forseeable future. Stephen Harper has poisoned Parliament and has no right to occupy the office of Prime Minsister.
Thus it is, that we now have a government that has no moral, or ethical right to continue in power. In reality, it matters little, that the voters appear, in recent polling, to be supportive of the Conservatives. It does not matter that the opposition was attempting to form a coalition, and that concept is new and somehow scary to Canadians. It doesn't matter which party or group think that they have gained an advantage. It is irrelevant that some do not like Stephan Dion. Canadian democracy has been diminished. Stephen Harper, when faced with imminent defeat in a motion of confidence, by abusing his power, delayed that vote for a week. He accomplished this by cancelling the opposition day in Parliament on Monday December 01. On national television He did commit to having the vote on the following Monday. He has renegged on his commitment. He has convinced the Governor General to prorogue Parliament until the end of January. It doesn't matter which party you might support. It doesn't matter where you live. The fact is Harper, used the office of Prime Minister to evade the wishes of Parliament and had managed to thwart the wishes of the House. He is now the master of an illegal government. This is the core detail of the entire sorry drama. All of the other details are nothing more than window dressing. Whether or not he manages to gain the confidence of Parliament in January 27th, is irrelevant. Had the constitution been followed he would have lost the vote of confidence over the Economic Statement. We then would have had the Governor General deciding whether to allow a coalition, or sending the voters back to the polls. That would have been a legal outcome.
Using the tactic of prorogation was unethical. This was an abuse of the highest office in the land and shows that the Prime Minister has no respect for the office he has gone to such lengths to hang onto. He has opened the unity debate again. He has engaged more Canadians than ever in the debate, but at the cost of deep divisions, and unprecedented levels of anger. He has openly exploited divisions for citizens of differing cultures or residing in different geographical regions opening wounds that may take years to heal. Stephen Harper has opened a pandora's box of unintended consequences that may harm Canada and its people for the forseeable future. Stephen Harper has poisoned Parliament and has no right to occupy the office of Prime Minsister.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Coalition is Needed
Harper is like a Republican petty and greedy
There is so little time and so much to do.
Our country needs re-structuring, and not in the sense Mr. Harper wants.We don't need them to sell Canada to the Americans again or be lax in thought about the citizens of this country. We just bought Canada back and we had a surplus for our infrastructure. We don't want to punish the people we voted for, we want them to govern.
We need a coalition and it seems the right thing to do now.
The NDP and the Liberal party have great ideas and they can work well together. Along with the Bloc lets’ face it Quebec is doing things in health-care and childcare we just dream about. And just what is wrong with the Bloc being part of this, I'm sorry but I learned in school, that if a person is voted in during an election they are part of parliament, and that means they are Canadian last time I looked.Unless Harper changed the law and Quebec is no longer part of the country and he forgot to tell us about it.
Let us help rebuild our tired cities - green transit. And not just for cities; what is wrong with building a new and better rail service for people and products? Give Canadians the access of new jobs, to build a better Canada. We have suppliers going under and they can be used for our own needs. Be inventive think outside the box, build our own Hybrids. (We have the talent and we know how to do it all).
Harper is the emperor with no clothes.
Please listen to a Canadian that believes it can get better. This bullying by Mr. Harper has to stop. The pettiness is having a seriously negative effect on the people. He is on his way to splitting up the country. Next you will hear it is between us and them.
A Prime Minister is supposed to reassure people that he is taking care of the country's welfare. It is not to frighten them into his way of thinking. Or make us hate our neighbours because they think differently he does.
There is so little time and so much to do.
Our country needs re-structuring, and not in the sense Mr. Harper wants.We don't need them to sell Canada to the Americans again or be lax in thought about the citizens of this country. We just bought Canada back and we had a surplus for our infrastructure. We don't want to punish the people we voted for, we want them to govern.
We need a coalition and it seems the right thing to do now.
The NDP and the Liberal party have great ideas and they can work well together. Along with the Bloc lets’ face it Quebec is doing things in health-care and childcare we just dream about. And just what is wrong with the Bloc being part of this, I'm sorry but I learned in school, that if a person is voted in during an election they are part of parliament, and that means they are Canadian last time I looked.Unless Harper changed the law and Quebec is no longer part of the country and he forgot to tell us about it.
Let us help rebuild our tired cities - green transit. And not just for cities; what is wrong with building a new and better rail service for people and products? Give Canadians the access of new jobs, to build a better Canada. We have suppliers going under and they can be used for our own needs. Be inventive think outside the box, build our own Hybrids. (We have the talent and we know how to do it all).
Harper is the emperor with no clothes.
Please listen to a Canadian that believes it can get better. This bullying by Mr. Harper has to stop. The pettiness is having a seriously negative effect on the people. He is on his way to splitting up the country. Next you will hear it is between us and them.
A Prime Minister is supposed to reassure people that he is taking care of the country's welfare. It is not to frighten them into his way of thinking. Or make us hate our neighbours because they think differently he does.
Fear and Loathing of the Bloc and a United Left
With a Coalition of the Liberals and New Democrats, now on the verge of forming a government, significant numbers of talking heads and assorted pundits in the media, are expressing concern, outrage, or suggesting that the support is tantamount to sedition. Further, there seems to be a fear of admitting that a significant portion of the Canadian electorate happy with the current turn of events. One of the issues used by pundits, is the inclusion of the Conservative talking point decrying the use of the Bloc to shore up support for this government in waiting. One particular point of view that I have not heard explored in any detail is why Gilles Duceppe, and his caucus would sign on to support the Coalition in the first place?
One possible explanation would center around the dismal state of the Party's finances. They, more than any other party in Parliament are dependant on the public funding, that the Harper Conservatives vowed to eliminate in last week's financial statement delivered by Jim Flaherty. Given the circumstances, it is in their interest to protect that funding, until such time as they are able to rebuild their finances from private contributions. Another alternative would be to eliminate the threat of bancrupcy by assisting the other members of the Coalition in eliminating the Conservative threat as much as possible.
Secondly, in polling by Leger Marketing, the Provincial Liberals, led by Jean Charest, are currently enjoying a comfortable lead over the PQ, and appear to be well on the road to forming a majority government after the Provincial Election to be held on December 8th. As a result, the Bloc may have chosen to use support of the coalition as a means of buying time, as it were, to rebuild the fortunes of the Separatist movement in Quebec. Support of the coalition in Ottawa, although it might outrage some hardcore separatists, is more likely to be advantageous than damaging to the party in the long run. In addition, the question of another referendum on Quebec separation any time in the near future remains moot, as there are clear signs that the younger generation of Francophones in the Province appear to regard the issue of independence as an issue of the older generation. Their are signs that the electorate is begining to tire of the entire issue of Quebec independence.
It is also worth noting that support of the coalition offers an unprecedented opportunity for the Bloc to influence the government of Canada without appearing to “Sell Out” to the forces of Federalism in Ottawa, and without actually appearing to be a part of the Government of the day. The prospect of advancing the interests of Quebec by holding the balance of power in a minority situation must have been attractive indeed. Further, they did not have to compromise their leftist ideals by supporting the decidedly right-wing agenda of the Conservatives. The fact that Stephan Dion's tenure as Prime Minister is time limited to next May would allow their base the opportunity to forget that they supported the architect of the last federalist campaign during the referendum in 1995.
Finally, although it flies in the face of the Harperites, perhaps, the Bloc, in light of the economic crisis, doing what they were elected to do, putting the needs of the electorate first and placing the more divisive portions of their platform on hold. To the cynical Conservatives, that would be unfathomable. To this writer, it is clear the only party in the House with no interest in addressing the needs of the Country, are the Conservatives. Their attempts at divide, and conquer politics, and demonization of the opposition, in the current crisis have been shameful.
In light of the happenings in Parliament, it is possible, that Harper in his efforts to destroy the Opposition, may have revived the flagging fortunes of Separatism in Quebec. His monumental arrogance is probably the most destructive force in politics in generations.
One possible explanation would center around the dismal state of the Party's finances. They, more than any other party in Parliament are dependant on the public funding, that the Harper Conservatives vowed to eliminate in last week's financial statement delivered by Jim Flaherty. Given the circumstances, it is in their interest to protect that funding, until such time as they are able to rebuild their finances from private contributions. Another alternative would be to eliminate the threat of bancrupcy by assisting the other members of the Coalition in eliminating the Conservative threat as much as possible.
Secondly, in polling by Leger Marketing, the Provincial Liberals, led by Jean Charest, are currently enjoying a comfortable lead over the PQ, and appear to be well on the road to forming a majority government after the Provincial Election to be held on December 8th. As a result, the Bloc may have chosen to use support of the coalition as a means of buying time, as it were, to rebuild the fortunes of the Separatist movement in Quebec. Support of the coalition in Ottawa, although it might outrage some hardcore separatists, is more likely to be advantageous than damaging to the party in the long run. In addition, the question of another referendum on Quebec separation any time in the near future remains moot, as there are clear signs that the younger generation of Francophones in the Province appear to regard the issue of independence as an issue of the older generation. Their are signs that the electorate is begining to tire of the entire issue of Quebec independence.
It is also worth noting that support of the coalition offers an unprecedented opportunity for the Bloc to influence the government of Canada without appearing to “Sell Out” to the forces of Federalism in Ottawa, and without actually appearing to be a part of the Government of the day. The prospect of advancing the interests of Quebec by holding the balance of power in a minority situation must have been attractive indeed. Further, they did not have to compromise their leftist ideals by supporting the decidedly right-wing agenda of the Conservatives. The fact that Stephan Dion's tenure as Prime Minister is time limited to next May would allow their base the opportunity to forget that they supported the architect of the last federalist campaign during the referendum in 1995.
Finally, although it flies in the face of the Harperites, perhaps, the Bloc, in light of the economic crisis, doing what they were elected to do, putting the needs of the electorate first and placing the more divisive portions of their platform on hold. To the cynical Conservatives, that would be unfathomable. To this writer, it is clear the only party in the House with no interest in addressing the needs of the Country, are the Conservatives. Their attempts at divide, and conquer politics, and demonization of the opposition, in the current crisis have been shameful.
In light of the happenings in Parliament, it is possible, that Harper in his efforts to destroy the Opposition, may have revived the flagging fortunes of Separatism in Quebec. His monumental arrogance is probably the most destructive force in politics in generations.
Big Three Rescue
There seems to be a good deal of confusion whether the proposed “bailout” of the Big Three North American auto-makers is a good thing or not. Those in favour generally suggest that the economic impact and potential job loss make the loss of the auto-makers unthinkable.Those opposed seem to be of the opinion that they got themselves into this mess and shouldn't be allowed any special treatment because they didn't build the vehicles people wanted in the first place. A subgroup is intent on Union bashing, and claims the labour costs are too high and the unionised workers don't deserve the pensions that they bargained.
It is clear that any major failure in the North American auto sector would have a catastrophic impact on employment in central Canada, in particular, Southern Ontario. Automobile manufacturing is a base level industry that provides at least seven spin off jobs for every direct job created. It is estimated that if this industry fails, it could result in the direct loss of 288,000 jobs in this country. Further, the retail sector would be crippled overnight. It is not difficult to foresee stagnation in the construction industry, (recall the situation in Calgary after the last bust in the oil patch). The loss of tax base to municipalities, increased social welfare and Employment Insurance costs would clearly preoccupy all levels of government. We have some idea of the sort of pain that the loss of manufacturing can bring by studying the aftermath of General Motors closure of its plants in Flint Michigan. It should not be a scenario we would wish to see repeated on a wider scale across North America.It is clear that serious errors were made in terms of long range planning by the management of the Big Three. However, under our system as it is currently structured, management's function is to maximize the profit for the shareholders. There is little or no incentive to look forward in any great detail to try and head off any perceived problems. Management is rewarded for immediate results. Caution is not rewarded, and at best due diligence receives only lip service.
As to the argument that they never built the type of vehicle people wanted, one only has to look at what people are driving on the highways in our country. Pickup trucks, vans and SUV's abound. They built what people wanted. They didn't anticipate how rapidly the market would change, almost no one did.
Those who blame the labour and pension costs are chosing to attack the group that has the least influence on the source or outcome of the problem. They would like to see the wages in the order of fourteen dollars an hour. If that becomes the case, then it stands to reason that all wages across the board should be adjusted. To what level would we rolled back minimum wage. Perhaps we should investigate the salaried of people in the financial industry, their performance leading up to the current crisis hasn't exactly been stellar.To blame the workers for bargaining pensions, goes to the heart of what people want from our society. First, the company's should never have been allowed to under fund these plans, particularly when times were good. For people to state that pensions should not be factored into a person's working life in short sighted indeed. We have an aging population; what is society supposed to do with people who have reached the end of their working life? Everyone will be in that situation someday. Food banks and side walk sleeping arrangements ought not be a viable option in a civil society.
It is clear that any major failure in the North American auto sector would have a catastrophic impact on employment in central Canada, in particular, Southern Ontario. Automobile manufacturing is a base level industry that provides at least seven spin off jobs for every direct job created. It is estimated that if this industry fails, it could result in the direct loss of 288,000 jobs in this country. Further, the retail sector would be crippled overnight. It is not difficult to foresee stagnation in the construction industry, (recall the situation in Calgary after the last bust in the oil patch). The loss of tax base to municipalities, increased social welfare and Employment Insurance costs would clearly preoccupy all levels of government. We have some idea of the sort of pain that the loss of manufacturing can bring by studying the aftermath of General Motors closure of its plants in Flint Michigan. It should not be a scenario we would wish to see repeated on a wider scale across North America.It is clear that serious errors were made in terms of long range planning by the management of the Big Three. However, under our system as it is currently structured, management's function is to maximize the profit for the shareholders. There is little or no incentive to look forward in any great detail to try and head off any perceived problems. Management is rewarded for immediate results. Caution is not rewarded, and at best due diligence receives only lip service.
As to the argument that they never built the type of vehicle people wanted, one only has to look at what people are driving on the highways in our country. Pickup trucks, vans and SUV's abound. They built what people wanted. They didn't anticipate how rapidly the market would change, almost no one did.
Those who blame the labour and pension costs are chosing to attack the group that has the least influence on the source or outcome of the problem. They would like to see the wages in the order of fourteen dollars an hour. If that becomes the case, then it stands to reason that all wages across the board should be adjusted. To what level would we rolled back minimum wage. Perhaps we should investigate the salaried of people in the financial industry, their performance leading up to the current crisis hasn't exactly been stellar.To blame the workers for bargaining pensions, goes to the heart of what people want from our society. First, the company's should never have been allowed to under fund these plans, particularly when times were good. For people to state that pensions should not be factored into a person's working life in short sighted indeed. We have an aging population; what is society supposed to do with people who have reached the end of their working life? Everyone will be in that situation someday. Food banks and side walk sleeping arrangements ought not be a viable option in a civil society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
