Finance Minister Jim Flaherty
Photo Credit: CBC

Let’s get straight to the point. The deficit is an economic problem, but it is not as serious as many make it out to be. What may surprise many people is the fact that many business leaders and almost all neo-conservative politicians secretly agree. Don’t be fooled by Finance Minister Jim Flaherty’s recent rumblings about the deficit. His main concern is tax cuts and smaller government, not the deficit. In fact, a large deficit plays right into his plans for smaller government.

Let’s rewind our discussion back to the events in Ontario during the early 1990s when there was a severe recession and Mike Harris, who worked closely with Flaherty, was not quite yet Premier. Ontario was actually deficit-free for several years just before the recession of 1990. Recessions usually cause deficits, because the unemployment levels significantly reduce government revenue and because of the large costs of helping the unemployed. Based on the ideas of Keynesian macroeconomics, some governments try to end recessions by simulating growth through spending, further increasing the deficit. Ontario Premier Bob Rae, the leader of a socialist NDP government, tried this and so have most governments, including Mr. Harper’s, during this most recent global recession. Bob Rae eventually stopped spending and started reducing the deficit when he started receiving a lot of flak for the increased deficit. When Neo-conservative Mike Harris came to office, the deficit was already significantly way down. Mr. Harris and Mr. Flaherty continued the policy of deficit reduction, but not at a rate faster than Rae and that of other Canadian governments. The economy improved, not because of Harris tax cuts or deficit reduction, but because of low U.S. interest rates that created a large market for Ontario exports.
(more…)

Terminology from George Orwell’s classic novel 1984 often gets thrown around in politics. For instance, it’s not unusual to hear those on the Left claim the state’s monopoly of public surveillance, such as the cameras in London or homeland security bills in the USA, are signs of a looming Big Brother. It’s also not unusual to hear those on Right alluding to thoughtcrime whenever they’re being accused of human rights violations.

But perhaps the doubleplusgood thinkers of them all are the Ministers of the Conservative Party of Canada. While not specifically using the terminology with any particular proficiency, these parliamentarians recently exemplified their understanding of the novel in what can only be described as a textbook case of espousing doublethink. In the novel, doublethink means to accept and believe information (espoused by the state) that one rationally knows to be contradictory. The case in point? Copenhagen.

Once upon a time there was a quaint little climate summit in the quaint little country of Denmark. Statesmen, and stateswomen, from all over the world came to negotiate an accord that would hopefully save the planet’s environment from spinning wildly out of control into the fiery depths of hell. Canada, as the sovereign country occupying the world’s second largest land mass, would naturally have a lot invested in the crisis, as its vast territory covers an array of starkly different ecosystems, including that of the Arctic, where Canada’s iconic polar bear has recently been seeing less seal than Heidi Klum on a weekend.
(more…)

The Copenhagen summit is a hot topic for conversation. Recent polls show that a broad spectrum of Canadians are calling for decisive action on climate change. One wonders why Stephen Harper, who is on a quest for a majority government, continues to ignore an issue that speaks to so many Canadians.

A Conservative prime minister adopting an aggressively environmental platform seems ludicrous, but the political map of Canada is changing. Liberal strongholds are disappearing faster than the polar ice caps. Conservative candidates are beginning to see that environmental action is about saving the economy, not crippling it. It could be that the shortest road to a majority is for Stephen Harper to redefine the Conservative stance on climate change.
(more…)

A walkout is a victory for the deniers

I interviewed Elizabeth May yesterday on my “Climate Change Reality Radio Show,” Breakin’ Ice, and she’s certainly a smart cookie. By far the most knowledgeable of the federal leaders on global warming, greening the economy, and so on, she’s also the only one who ‘gets’ the danger of climate change.


But there is one critical thing she doesn’t get, and neither do most well-meaning people: Those she is up against have a different morality. I have called it the Predator Morality, as it accurately describes the behaviour of the deniers and free market fundamentalists. Think about the Canadian Harper government; these are people who wrote a secret manual on subverting our democratic system. Do you really think they are going to negotiate in good faith or that their word can be trusted? These are people who put ideology before their own children. Calling them predators is not name-calling – it is an accurate description of their observed behaviour.
(more…)

Prime Minister Stephen Harper conversed with Chinese Premier Wen Jiaobao on Thursday.

Premier Wen Jiaobao of China delivered a rebuke to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper on Thursday. According to Premier Wen, one of the country’s most popular and senior politicians, Harper’s visit to China has been tardy, and diplomatic meetings between the leaders of the two countries have been too infrequent. The proverbial slap on the wrist may have been an innocuous chiding. But it speaks to the tenuous nature of Canada’s diplomatic relationship with the People’s Republic.

Although Harper and Chinese President Hu Jintao conversed a fortnight ago at the APEC conference, President Hu has not visited Canada in nearly five years. Harper, who has declined opportunities to venture to China in the past, is making his first ever visit.
(more…)

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has never courted China, despite its economic powerhouse status, and suggestions that he is now doing so in order to secure the Chinese-Canadian vote are ludicrous. It is perfectly evident that people do not emigrate from China to Canada on account of the weather. As such, it is naive to believe that Chinese-Canadians, en masse, wish for positive relations between their country of origin and their adopted homeland. This is not to mention the host of Asian Canadians, Tibetans, for instance, who may observe Canada’s diplomatic relations with China with suspicion.

With entirely opposing political cultures, China and Canada have no reason to maintain good relations besides for economics, and in this time of fiscal crisis, our Prime Minister has bit the bullet. In 2006, with regards to his stand on China, Harper famously noted that he would not “sell out” human rights in favour of economic gain. This is a course he has not diverged from, until now. For the first time since his election, Harper has paid an official visit to China.
(more…)

In a previous post, I suggested that Mr. Harper and Mr. Ignatieff were, from the point-of-view of the average voter, slightly different flavours of vanilla. Someone on Reddit suggested that my post was a sales pitch for the Conservatives.

Considering that I have called for Mr. Harper to be charged with treason due to his obstruction and inaction on the climate crisis, the idea that I am suggesting people vote for the man is almost funny. The poor Redditor failed to understand the difference between analysis, which is what I was doing, and a recommendation, which I most definitely was not.

Just to be crystal clear, I am also extremely unimpressed with the other choices on the political spectrum. Jack Layton and the NDP seem to have forgotten what principles are in their desperate search for votes, any votes.
(more…)

Official portrait of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Port of Spain, Trinidad 2009

At the recently concluded Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in Port of Spain, Trinidad, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper missed an opportunity to set a firm commitment for a reduction in North American greenhouse gas emissions which would have challenged his American counterpart to follow suit.

The Harper government has made no secret of its disdain for the existing Kyoto targets (which he once called ‘a Socialist scheme’), going so far as to announce what he felt were more ‘practical’ emissions reductions calling for a 20% reduction of 2006 levels by 2020. This has only raised the ire of environmental groups in Canada, who say that the government is in no position to promise alternative emissions reductions while opposing Kyoto and allowing the limits set by that protocol to balloon to levels 30% higher than the agreement called for.
(more…)

Just as I was starting to panic and think that I would have nothing to write about for my next blog, Mr. Harper came through for me in his most recent decision to attend the Copenhagen climate change meeting. Not that I think he shouldn’t attend it, I do – but the fact that he wasn’t going to attend until Obama decided to reminds me of high school, or maybe even junior high. Now I understand that rubbing elbows with Obama is probably a big thrill, one I would enjoy too, but seeing as Alberta alone emits more pollution than some small countries, I think Mr. Harper should have been attending regardless of what his US counterpart was doing that day – because it is the right thing to do, not the popular thing.

Like many of us years ago, I watched Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth. However, unlike many of you, I made the mistake of watching The Day After Tomorrow right after it. The combination of the two scared the hell out of me. If you’ve seen the two films you understand what I’m talking about. If you haven’t, basically The Day After Tomorrow is like if An Inconvenient Truth was a movie and not a documentary: the world goes into another ice age because the North Atlantic current shuts down from melting ice caps and Canada gets wiped out by snow and ice; only the Southern hemisphere is unaffected. Now I know it’s just a movie and everything, but the science is basically true, and to me, that’s freakin’ scary. We’re talking doomsday stuff here, and need I remind anyone that 2012 is right around the corner. I’m not suggesting we base federal policy on the Mayan calendar, nor am I preaching a doomsday is imminent, but if we continue on this path, we will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Sure it sells big bucks in the theatres, but I’d like theatres to be around in the next few decades and maybe more after that, I mean, I do have nieces and nephews.
(more…)

During the 2008 US elections I was living in the United States. I saw countless ad campaigns that disparaged the speaker’s opponents with allegations of every kind, on both federal and state levels. Some of these allegations were true, though exaggerated, and others were wildly fallacious. One could hardly help but notice how infrequently the candidates actually spoke about themselves or where they stood on issues.

I rapidly realized that in a country where few voters would take the time to seek out the truth about how their chosen candidate had voted or the changes he or she had made in the positions they currently held, these short television ads were going to be the basis of the decisions they made. These campaigns were no longer about who had the best ideas, the best track record or the most promising history. It was about who had the nicest suit, the fullest head of hair and the most entrancing manner of speaking. It was all a show.
(more…)