 |  |  |
|
PSYCHE
Psychology & Cognition |
MEDICA
Health & Fitness |
NUTRI
Diet & Nutrition |
SOCIO
Society & Culture |
POLITICO
Politics & Economy |
ENVIRO
Earth & Climate Change |
| SITE INDEX |
|
Autism & Neurodevelop-
mental Disorders:
Causative Factors, Early Detection, and Interventions |
| Vitamin D Theory of Autism |
Caffeine:
Facts, Amounts, Clinical Studies and Resources |
Child Care Cookbook:
Day Care Recipes You
Can Use At Home |
Cognitive Mapping:
Definitions, Examples, and Resources |
| Consumer Health Resources |
Irrefutable Evidence:
The Importance of Vitamin D in the Prevention of Illness and Death |
Linguaphile:
New Words and Phrases |
Medicinal Mushrooms:
Treating Illness and Maintaining Health with Fungi |
Nordic Walking: Overview
Origin, Health Facts,
Technique, Gear |
Pollution in People:
Toxic and Hormone-Disrupting Chemicals in Plastics and Everyday Products |
ProPublica:
Investigative Journalism in
the Public Interest |
Tools, Gear & Gadgets:
Health & Fitness, Work & Play |
What Fish Are Safe To Eat?
Selected Lists and Resources | | |
|
 | |  | |
|
| | |
|
The Urban-Rural Divide
In the U.S. and Canadian elections now under way, the traditionally dominant political factors are giving way to a politics
in which wedge issues such as John McCain's "drill, baby, drill" and Stéphane Dion's Green Shift program are pitting city
folk against high-consumption, low-density rural voters.
In the summer of 2001, New York Times reporter Anthony De Palma published a book titled Here: A Biography of the New
American Continent, in which he argued that the three elections in 2000 in the U.S., Canada and Mexico reflected
continental economic integration and convergence.
That was tenuous at the time, and Sept. 11, 2001 looked like a decisive refutation. Both the Canada-U.S. and the
Mexico-U.S. borders thickened, and integration languished.
But now, the U.S. and Canadian elections are travelling on parallel tracks, much more than in 2000. Each country seems to be
dismantling its traditional electoral structure — in the U.S., one built around race, and in Canada, organized around
regionalism. In both countries, the major parties are now fighting their election campaigns primarily along the same
urban-rural battle line. For the first time, something like a single North American election is happening. This new
politics is likely to be with us for a long time to come.
Race has been the defining issue for the U.S. Six decades after the Constitution came into effect, the growing slave
power broke up the party system and plunged the nation into civil war. After that, and as recently as the Nixon-Reagan
revolution, the "Solid South" and its race-based politics was the key to power at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. Most
strikingly, when the long-invincible New Deal Democrats dared to break with their Southern base in the 1960s, they went
on to win a meagre three out of 10 presidential elections and faced in Congress a dominant coalition of conservative
Republicans and conservative Southern "boll weevil" Democrats.
North of the border, Canada's political tradition has been shaped by a regionalism initially rooted in the differences
between French and Irish Catholics and English Protestants. That evolved into a politics pitting against each other: a
distinct, francophone Quebec; an Atlantic region that de-industrialized 100 years before it became fashionable around
the Great Lakes; an alienated West; and a smug, populous and elsewhere despised Ontario at the centre. As with Dixie
in the U.S., Quebec has been the fulcrum of power. The party that represents the aspirations of Quebec has controlled
Parliament and the prime ministership for 99 of Canada's 141 years. Each of the five times power has changed hands
in the past 50 years, a Quebec shift has been a strong factor [...]
In Canada, the consensus-oriented political culture and the higher degree of urbanization has kept the hard wedges from
being hammered in. Over three campaigns, Stephen Harper has learned to modulate his pitches to a very subtle frequency,
only now being tried out by the Republicans. The Conservatives have offered their existing and potential voters policies
that matter to them emotionally: low taxes (for people who see themselves as self-reliant and not needing the services
that high taxes afford), a tough approach to crime (seen as a big-city scourge) and strong support for the armed forces,
an institution alive and well in the small towns of otherwise unmilitary Canada.
The rise of environmental politics on the electoral main stage has created a further opportunity for the urban-rural split.
Competing with the New Democrats and the newcomer Green Party for urban votes, Stéphane Dion's Liberals have proposed the
Green Shift, a universal income-tax cut to be offset by new taxes on carbon users. For someone in a big-city apartment
building who uses public transit, the impact will be largely positive. And for rural folks? Mr. Harper has replied to
Mr. Dion's plan with a tax cut on diesel — the fuel of choice for agricultural equipment, heavy pickups, motorboats
and long-distance trucking — while continuing a very soft approach to global warming.
In the U.S., a clash on environment and energy has run along similar lines. In June, with gasoline soaring at the pumps,
Mr. McCain dropped the green stance he had toyed with, to push offshore drilling as a response to pinched supply. Mr.
Obama stuck to his anti-drilling, pro-environmental guns. Dick Morris, former strategic guru to Mr. Clinton and arch-Republican
Trent Lott, has commented: "With his willingness to respond to the gas price crisis with bold measures, McCain shows himself
to be a pragmatist while Obama comes off as an ideologue to puts climate change ahead of making it possible for the average
American to get to work." It is hard to imagine a clearer case of each candidate appealing to his party base [...]
No one, least of all John McCain or Stephen Harper, wishes to impede the immense human progress that has come with North
America's relentless urbanization. And neither Barack Obama nor Stéphane Dion wishes to harm rural dwellers. As environmental
problems get worse, however, politicians will be increasingly forced into confrontations between the urban and rural coalitions. |
|
| | | |
| | |
|
On the U.S. Bailout...
Talk about lipstick on a pig: the bailout measure, which began as a modest, $700-billion, three-page oink, reached
the U.S. House of Representatives yesterday wearing about 450 pages of lipstick. Its maximum final cost was no longer
calculable -- after bipartisan negotiations to add "sweeteners" to the thing, to buy it support from various congressional factions.
Americans, and anyone else who happened to be watching (most of the world), got a good taste of what "Congressional oversight"
means; to say nothing of the explanation of why, in opinion polls, the U.S. Congress enjoys even less popular esteem than
President Bush.
It is not for a Canadian to lecture Americans on U.S. constitutional niceties, but I'm going to do it anyway. Money bills in
that country are supposed to originate in the Lower House, as they do in all civilized national jurisdictions. This one
effectively originated in the Upper House. In order to disguise this irregularity, the senators had to dress the thing up
as a non-money bill. That is how the "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act" became the more aptly-named "Paul Wellstone Mental
Health and Addiction Equity Act" -- by taking a bill already on the floor of the Senate, stripping out its text, and substituting
the text of the bailout bill.
"The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life." This decadent habit of cautiously observing the letter of the law, while
purposely ignoring the spirit, is at the root of so many enormities in contemporary politics and society. There are times
when, given the complexity of the world, one must honestly bend (never break) a law, interpret it drolly, even turn a blind
eye. But one should do such things in the cause of honouring the spirit of the laws, for the sake of justice; not in the
cause of subverting them.
This is a problem not only in the U.S. but everywhere. We speak fondly of old-fashioned constitutional democracy, while
in fact acknowledging it is a thing of the past. Everything from bloated omnibus bills, to "emergency" executive orders,
to court reviews of legislation, is used to subvert a constitutional order, and thereby suppress political formulation of
the popular will. The process has advanced to such a degree in Europe, thanks to the extraordinary power of the E.U.
legal and political bureaucracies, that national assemblies are rendered powerless to oppose them.
The U.S. House of Representatives had defeated the bailout plan when it was already carrying many times its weight in lipstick.
It was defeated because the thing itself was genuinely unpopular. Members of both parties had their switchboards jammed by
constituents expressing outrage at the thing. They voted it down, even under the extraordinary pressure brought upon them
by the White House and the congressional leadership of both parties. If I may be so old-fashioned, that is what democracy
is for: to stop things the people just won't have.
Now, curiously, in the week since that happened, a number of prominent economists have weighed in on the bailout measure,
including supporters of both U.S. presidential candidates. It appears that all are appalled by the measure itself, and most
consider it to be counter-productive. Some 230 of them signed an open letter to Congress, telling them not to be in a hurry.
Here is how John Cochrane, Myron S. Scholes Professor of Finance in the University of Chicago, characterized the bailout, in
an interview with Fox News: "The legislation is like this: some boats are sinking, so rather than bailing those boats out,
you blow up the dam and drain the whole lake."
That comment, and many like it, was offered even before "sweeteners" were added, that would in themselves roll any economist's
eyeballs.
It is worth adding that not one of the politicians voting on the 450-odd-page bill can possibly have read the whole thing,
let alone deeply considered the implications of its parts. Few of them have an understanding of the crisis they are legislating
for. The blind are leading the blind.
Call me a populist (few do), but my "two cheers" support for democracy is predicated on the belief that usually, given enough
information, and sometimes even when not given enough, the people know in their gut the difference between right and wrong,
up and down, fresh meat and gangrene. And when they don't, we're all doomed anyway. I am seldom surprised when, after much
research and deliberation, the "experts" finally embrace a carefully qualified equivalent to the knee-jerk view originally
expressed on "Main Street." |
|
| | | |
|
|
|
Last Updated: 28 October 2008 |
CANADA Election 2008
News, Notes and References |
POLITICO > CANADA ELECTION 2008...
|
|
A Stronger Harper Minority...
Estimated voter turnout in yesterday's election was the lowest in the history of Confederation.
According to Elections Canada, 13,832,972 of 23,401,064 registered electors (59.1%) cast their votes.
Andrew Heard (SFU) reports that the Conservative Party gained 19 seats, chiefly in result of low turnout among
hundreds of thousands of Liberal supporters. Eleven Liberal seats were lost in Ontario, but the number of Conservative votes
was only marginally different from 2006 results. Approximately 500,000 Ontario voters, predominantly Liberal, did
not vote, while Conservative supporters did. Conservative votes dropped by 120,000 in Quebec, where they now have 10
seats. The Bloc also lost votes in comparison with 2006 results, but contributed to preventing a Harper Majority.
British Columbia was the only province in which the Conservatives made major gains. The Conservatives won no seats in
Newfoundland, where Danny Williams ran the ABC campaign, and they are not represented in NWT or Yukon, but they otherwise
have a national presence (see the interactive map at CBC.ca.)
Of additional interest in this lackluster result is the fact that thousands of votes essentially did not count because representation
is not reflected in the popular vote. According to Elections Canada, the Greens received 940,747 or 6.8% of the popular vote, for example, yet they gained no seats.
The bloc, on the other hand, garnered 1,379,565 or 10% of the popular vote, and holds 50 seats.
Does Harper have a real mandate to govern? No, he does not. He leads a stronger minority government that will require bipartisan
cooperation if it is to be productive. To learn that lesson, if in fact he has learned it, Harper cost Canadian
taxpayers some $300 million.
|
|
|
|
Before the election
The Campaign Unfolds...
The snap election called by Prime Minister Steven Harper will be held on 14 October, in advance the heavily covered U.S. election on 4 November 2008. The PM justified
dropping the writ — before the non-binding 19 October
2009 fixed date — on the predicate that parliamentary blockages prevent him from governing. Yet the minority parliament has been very productive
since he became PM in early 2006. "In fact," notes Richard Brennan, "[Harper's]
has been one of the more productive and long-lasting minority governments in Canadian history – something that undermines his
argument that a $300 million federal election is needed to give his party a fresh mandate..." (Democracy Watch filed a
court challenge regarding the legality of this election, arguing that the call violates both fixed election date law and Canadians' rights under the Charter, but
the request to be heard before voting day was denied on 3 October.)
Steven Harper obviously construed this as an ideal time to pursue his quest for majority government. September polls appeared to confirm his view, but the Tory lead soon showed signs of
declining, particularly after the debate (Nik on the Numbers: Archives; Globe Poll Snapshot).
This decline is likely to continue to the extent that Liberals and New Democrats successfully challenge the Tories on economic, employment, and social issues. The grassroots undercurrent — deny Harper a majority — may grow to a groundswell.
In early September, Harper said he expected to be the victim of "a very nasty kind of personal-attack campaign",
but it is he and his fellow Conservatives who have adopted such tactics. They proffer puerile ads, supercilious
invective, and mendacious disparagement in an effort to misdirect or obfuscate discussion of fundamental social, economic and environmental issues in the short run-up to this
election. "Harper sees politics as all about personal political power and gamesmanship," Ken Chapman writes,
and "never it seems is he focused on providing good old-fashioned honest, open, accountable and transparent
government."
Harper was disinclined to pursue pragmatic bipartisan initiatives in minority, and his performance
in the campaign to date provides no intimation of an attitudinal change along those lines. Would a Harper majority help us
achieve the progress we need on social, economic and environmental issues? His ideological fixity and lack of transparency
characterize a myopic agenda that separates economic control from inspired nation building and leadership. Although a majority
government often makes it easier to achieve a stable policy cycle and allow real progress on the issues we confront, an
effective bipartisan minority or coalition government can achieve such stability as well, often with better attention to the
needs of the plurality. If we are headed toward another minority government, we would benefit from more balanced
representation and a pervasive, post-partisan ideational shift among elected representatives. And if Harper does preside
over another minority, let us hope he has learned from his previous experience.
The Economic Meltdown
Harpernomics is a study in lack of vision. "If we choose to stay the course, [with] lower taxes, lower debt and prudent
spending," Harper tells us,
"Canada will come out of the current economic downturn stronger, better and more prosperous than ever before." But a
stay-the-course approach plays to the psychology of fear. It encourages people to choose the devil we know, rather than take
a risk on the sustainable strategies desperately need. It is lamentably short-sighted, and it does nothing to prepare us for the future.
The answer to our economic problems, including the precipitous fall in the Canadian dollar so closely tied to oil,
will not be found in short-term solutions and an eschewal of environmental concerns. The economy is a subset of the
biosphere.
As The Brundtland Report (1987:21), Our Common Future, clearly states,
the global ecology and the global economy are linked together in new ways:
15. [...] We have in the past been concerned about the impacts of economic growth upon the environment. We are now forced to concern ourselves
with the impacts of ecological stress — degradation of soils, water regimes, atmosphere and forests — upon our economic prospects.
We are now forced to accustom ourselves to an accelerating ecological interdependence among nations. Ecology and economy are becoming ever more interwoven — locally,
regionally, nationally, globally — into a seamless net of causes and effects.
The prerequisite for a sustainable economy is sustainable development.
30. [S]ustainable development is not a fixed state of harmony, but rather a process of change in which the exploitation of resources,
the direction of investments, the orientation of technological development, and institutional changes are made consistent with
future as well as present needs. We do not pretend that the process is easy or straightforward. Painful choices have to be made. Thus, in the
final analysis, sustainable development must rest on political will.
[The Brundtland Report (1987:25)]
The interconnectedness between ecology and economy is readily understood. As Director of the Qualicum
Institute Neil K. Dawe writes (2005),
The conventional or neoclassical economic model, under which much of the global economy operates today, assumes that infinite
economic growth on a finite planet is possible; the economy is considered to be the whole rather than a subset of the biosphere
and is not governed by physical and ecological laws and principles such as thermodynamics and carrying capacity. The economy is
seen as a perpetual motion machine that can run forever on its own output.
But the flow of economic throughput is not circular. It flows one-way from low entropy (useful) resources to high entropy
(used-up-ness) waste, according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. To grow, the economy must take more and more useful matter
and energy from the finite biosphere to produce goods and services; wastes are inevitable by-products. Ultimately, all our goods
become wastes as well. The economy cannot function simply by using only its own labour, manufactured capital, and waste as input.
While mainstream economists may think we can ignore carrying capacity and the laws of thermodynamics, "Facts do not cease to
exist just because they are ignored," as Huxley observed.
In fact, in terms of the conventional or neoclassical model, unchecked economic growth can adversely affect economic sustainability, particularly when the
impact on the environment is ignored. According to the Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy:
To grow, an economy requires more natural capital, including soil, water, minerals, timber, other raw materials, and energy
sources. When the economy grows too fast or gets too big, this natural capital is depleted, or "liquidated." To function smoothly,
the economy also requires an environment that can absorb and recycle pollutants. When natural capital stocks are depleted, and/or
the capacity of the environment to absorb pollutants is exceeded, the economy is forced to shrink.
This is a defining moment in our history. It will prove a tragic mistake if, in our failure to
appreciate and take determined action with respect to the environment, we insist on short-term,
stop-gap, stay-the-course measures to preserve the status quo and ignore the fundamentals of economic
sustainability. We need green technologies and green jobs, with greater focus on socialeconomic and sociocultural concerns. We
need a government with the vision and determination to address our current needs in terms of a sustainable future. Steven
Harper does not offer such vision, and his disparaging criticism of those who do is problematic. An ideational shift is clearly in order. — RJD, Ottawa |
|
| |
|
|
Post-Ideology: The Pragmatic ElectorateTOP
|
[...] Over the past two decades, Canadians have been inching toward small-c conservatism, a slow, oozing shift in values and
notions of how the country should be run, taking them further and further away from their one-time rah-rah support for the
progressive state as the instrument of national collectivity.
But the real seismic adjustment of the electorate is not from one ideological camp to another. Rather it's a drift from Canada's
traditional small-l liberalism – or, perhaps more accurately, its red toryism – to a rejection
of all ideology and theoretical ideas of governance and society that dramatically sets Canadians apart
from their southern neighbours.
Frank Graves, president of Ekos Research Associates, which does in-depth polling in Canada and the United States, said he does
not find the same trends across the border as he does here. "Americans are much more ideological than Canadians. They tenaciously
hold on to their ideological orientations and they are much more conservative, much more moral, with more religiosity and so forth."
In contrast, Canadian voters over the past quarter-century have indicated to academic investigators that most of them can't
define right or left or care about the distinction. They increasingly think of themselves as non-partisan and non-ideological.
They have the weakest political-party affinity in the Western world. [...]
There is an educated, engaged elite in the country that is very partisan and sees clear and deep distinctions between the
political parties. But to a majority of Canadians, the parties pretty much look alike, with Jack Layton and Stephen Harper
as an identical pair of suits.
In the late 1980s, early 1990s, Mr. Graves says, 40 per cent of Canadians self-identified as small-l liberal, 25 per cent
identified as small-c conservative and 35 per cent said they were neither. Today, he says, 28 per cent identify as conservative,
24 per cent as liberal and a whopping 48 per cent say they are neither. (A Conservative Party insider last week put the party's
core support at 27 per cent.)
The 2000 Canadian National Election Study [...] says 18 per cent of Canadians identify themselves as being on the right, 13 per cent
say they're on the left, 39 per cent say they're somewhere in the centre and 29 per cent don't know where they are, putting
the non-ideological total at 68 per cent.
University of Toronto political scientist Lawrence LeDuc, one of Canada's leading scholars on voting behaviour, says that
pattern has remained relatively stable for several years. Thus not surprisingly, with nearly four in 10 Canadians placing
themselves in the political centre, Prof. LeDuc says the largest chunk of voters – one-third – continues to identify with the
Liberal Party. But that no longer produces the enduring electoral alignment for the Liberals that it once did, what vote-behaviour
scholars captivatingly refer to as a "frozen cleavage," earning the Liberals the sobriquet of Canada's natural governing party.
Because of Canadians' weak identification with political parties – less than 15 per cent of the electorate consider themselves
"very strong" partisans – it's becoming more and more difficult for the Liberals to get elected by appealing only to their
supporters. [...]
For more than half a century, Canadians have seen, or read about, a succession of left and right governments that have promised
cure-alls for society's ailments but failed to deliver. Ideological fatigue has set in: Canadians have become tired of the
left-right arguments. They have become pragmatic, eclectic, interested only in what works. An increasing number of young Canadians
have grown into adulthood not knowing about or having experienced the nanny state in its heyday.
Mr. Graves has found that the small-l liberal and small-c conservative labels are powerful predictors of social values:
small-l liberals place emphasis on equality, collectivism, statism and tolerance; the emphasis for small-c conservatives is on
things like self-reliance, individualism, respect for authority.
What researchers are increasingly finding is the large group of non-ideological voters happy to do a mix-and-match of liberal
and conservative values: for example, they can be compassionate but have little faith in the state to meet that objective. [Read Full Article] |
An underreported story of this election campaign is the fragmentation of partisan support. In the latest polls, the combined
support for the two leading parties (Conservatives plus Liberals), which was 66 per cent in the 2004 and 2006 elections, is
declining toward its value in the 1993 election - 60 per cent (Liberals plus Reform). In 1993, everyone blamed the splintering
of the vote on the crack-up of the Mulroney coalition, which produced a five-party system.
It is less clear why the vote should be fragmenting in this election, but changes in party finance are part of the explanation.
Jean Chrétien's Bill C-24 and Stephen Harper's Accountability Act outlawed union and corporate contributions as well as large
personal donations, leaving parties to survive on government subsidies and grassroots fundraising. One of several unintended
consequences is to encourage the proliferation of parties. [...]
Whereas the new system has helped the three smaller opposition parties, it has hurt the Liberals, who, despite their bigger
cash requirements, have not yet learned the art of grassroots fundraising. With their much bigger war chest, the Conservatives
outspent the Liberals by a huge margin in the pre-writ period and thus entered the writ-period campaign with a big advantage,
although that is dissipating amid the international financial turmoil.
But if the Liberals end up badly in this election, the subsidy system will cushion their fall. No matter how poorly their
own fundraising performs, they can expect an annual subsidy of $6-million to $7-million, which will discourage them from
facing the need to "unite the left" through a coalition or merger with the NDP and/or Greens. Once again, the subsidy
system will promote fragmentation.
My long-term prognosis: Whether the Conservatives win a minority government (a majority now seems out of the question) or the
Liberals stage a comeback to win their own minority, we are in for years of fragmentation. Usually, a period of splintering
would be followed by consolidation, as happened with the Canadian Alliance-Progressive Conservative merger, but our system
of finance tends to turn advocacy groups into parties and keeps them alive even after they have outlived their usefulness. |
|
[...] In the case of Harper, however, we have a candidate whose path is the same as the one we're on as a country.
Just as traditional fractures seem to be diminishing somewhat, with separatism ebbing and Western alienation
mollified by a Western Prime Minister; at exactly the moment we seem to be coming together, our parliament
is in the process of splitting apart under the centrifugal force of irreconcilable ideologies -- the left and
the right both collapsing into European-style fragments. With greater unity has come greater division; that's
exactly what Stephen Harper represents. What he may or may not believe isn't really the issue. In order to exist,
he has to present himself as both a nation builder and a decentralizer. He has to break his own law about calling
elections in order to validate his ability to legislate. Harper is absent presence and present absence, the
definitive post-modern candidate. The hour has produced the man. It's just an unfortunate hour and an unfortunate man. | |
|
|
Key IssuesTOP
It's no wonder Stephen Harper is happy to talk up crime.
Any hot-button issue will do in order to avoid talking about the elephant in this federal election - the economy, jobs
and the growing insecurity of Canadians.
Anything to avoid talking about his party's dismal record of failed tax cuts over economic investment. Anything to avoid
talking about Canada's evaporating manufacturing sector and the loss of more than 350,000 well-paying jobs that go with it.
Anything to avoid discussing that Canada would have been plunged into a recession in the first six months of this year
had it not been for Canadian consumer spending.
And anything to avoid talking about how the number of people needing Employment Insurance benefits in July jumped by 6.1
per cent over June - a time of the year when the job market is usually hot.
So what happened to those billions of dollars in corporate tax cuts that were supposed to spur on business investment
and create jobs? Seems they are just not doing the trick.
Every single percentage point cut in the federal corporate tax rate costs Ottawa about $1.75 billion a year. Yet there
is no evidence that this money is doing anything except padding profits. Business investment in Canada has stagnated
despite skyrocketing profits and slashed corporate taxes.
According to Steelworker Union economist Erin Weir, profits rose nine per cent in the second quarter of 2008, while
capital investment by corporations dropped by one per cent. Corporate tax cuts are not stimulating the economy as Harper
and his finance minister, Jim Flaherty, would have Canadians believe.
Weir warns that once all the numbers are in this December, we may discover we have been in a recession, but that won't
be known until long after Canadians have voted, which is the real reason we are having the federal election now rather
than later. Harper could not risk going to the polls during a recession.
Remarkably in this election, Harper has basically said guaranteeing or protecting jobs is not his job or the job
of government. The fact that Canadians were not outraged by such a declaration speaks to how much damage this
Conservative government has done in just three years.
The damage has been to our expectations of what governments can do and should do - or at least what the federal
government can and should be doing.
With respect to the economy, Harper's response has been for us to keep spending. "Canadian consumer spending has
been a rock that has sustained this economy and we anticipate that this will continue," he told reporters when
forced to answer questions about the Wall Street fiasco and the impact it might have on the Canadian economy.
Keep spending! This is the best economic advice the prime minister can come up with. Let's get this straight. So,
spending our way out of a recession is OK as long as it's individual Canadians doing the spending and increasing
their personal debtloads, but the same prescription does not apply to government and businesses.
There is something really wrong with this kind of thinking.
Admittedly, though, even if the prime minister didn't need to dodge the economy, he'd still likely be talking crime.
It is part of his pro-Republican ideology - that includes longer sentences for young offenders while de-nouncing
any plan to deal with guns, gun control or poverty. A crime plan that fails to tackle the growing problem of guns
on our urban streets or poverty will fail. [...] |
|
|
Strategies and tactics...TOP
Strategic Voting:
| |
Promises, promises...TOP
|
|
|
Housing and HomelessnessTOP
Over the next number of weeks, leading up to election day on October 14, the Wellesley Institute will be bringing you
backgrounders, data, and key resources on a number of issues regarding housing and homelessness, health reform, community
health, and other social determinants of health. Visit our federal election issues page and follow us along via our blog
to keep up with the WI's monitoring and review of the elction progress.
Election Housing Primer
Housing insecurity at record levels
- One-in-four Canadian households pay 30% or more of their income on housing – that's three million households, or close
to eight million women, men and children.
- Housing is the biggest expense for low, moderate and middle-income households; housing costs over the past decade
grew faster than inflation even though incomes were stagnant.
- High housing costs are a key reason that 720,231 people across Canada lined up at food banks in March of 2007.
In the early 1980s, more than 10 out of every 100 new homes in Canada were truly affordable. By 2007, less than
one-in-one-hundred new homes were truly affordable.
- Canada's rental vacancy rate has been below 3% (the danger zone) since the year 2000.
- More than 300,000 Canadians experience homelessness annually; the number of shelter beds in Canada jumped by
22% in one year to 26,872 in 2007.
Federal investments lowest in two decades
- Federal housing investments of $2 billion in 2008 are at their lowest level since 2002. On a per-capita basis,
or as a percentage of Canada's Gross Domestic Product, federal housing investments in 2008 were at their lowest
level in two decades.
- Federal housing investments of $2 billion in 2008 are at their lowest level since 2002. On a per-capita basis,
or as a percentage of Canada's Gross Domestic Product, federal housing investments in 2008 were at their lowest
level in two decades.
- Compared to our partners in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Canada has slipped
from number two in 1980 to number seven in 2003.
- In 2006, the United Nations called housing and homelessness in Canada a "national emergency", a finding
confirmed by the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Adequate Housing after his official fact-finding mission
to Canada in 2007.
Key federal investments set to expire
- The federal homelessness program (Homelessness Partnering Initiative – $135 million annually) expires in fiscal
2008. Hundreds of programs and services in 61 communities will be forced to wind down in the fall of 2008.
[UPDATE: News flash: Feds extend housing / homeless investments but freeze dollars]
- The federal housing repair program (Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program - $128 million annually)
expires in fiscal 2008. Tens of thousands of homes are assisted annually.
- The $1.4 billion in affordable housing investments authorized by Parliament in 2005 (Bill C-48) has been
fully allocated and no new affordable investments are scheduled.
- From 2004 to 2012, net income for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (the federal housing agency)
will rise by 49% to $1.4 billion annually, but CMHC affordable housing spending will drop by 95% to a mere
$8 million for the entire country in 2012.
|
|
|
EnvironmentTOP
Green policies and plans...
| |
The Sierra Club of Canada gave top marks to the Green party and a failing grade to the Conservatives in its ranking of
parties' climate change platforms on Friday, just days before an expected election call.
The Green party's A- mark reflects a plan that "is very ambitious," national campaigns director Jean Langlois said at an Ottawa
news conference. "It's more ambitious than the minimum as defined by the science."
The Liberals, who have made their environmental plan, dubbed the Green Shift, the centrepiece of their platform, received a B+.
Their aim is to balance a carbon tax with income-tax cuts. While Langlois congratulated the Liberals for putting together a
credible plan, he said the party lost marks for an "ambiguous" target for reducing greenhouse gases. The party plan calls for
reductions of 20 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020, and that could rise to 25 per cent if other countries take on comparable
targets.
Both the Bloc Québécois and the New Democratic Party received Bs. "The Bloc have a target that reflects what needs to be done
based on science. However, their plan is not very detailed," said Langlois. For instance, the party doesn't specify a price
for carbon emissions.
Canada 'so far behind'
The NDP also has science-based reduction targets, said Langlois, but it lost marks for relying only on cap and trade for
reducing emissions and forgoing a carbon tax. Under cap and trade, government limits how much greenhouse gas polluters are
allowed to emit. Those who reduce their emissions below the cap receive pollution permits they can sell to companies that
go over their cap. A carbon tax involves government charging polluters for each tonne of greenhouse gas they produce.
"Canada is so far behind, we need both," said Langlois.
The Conservative party received an F+ because the Sierra Club said it has chosen a "completely inadequate" target for
reducing greenhouse gases and because it is relying on intensity targets to meet its goals. Emissions can be limited by
an absolute cap or by a maximum allowable intensity measured relative to economic output. An intensity target allows
overall emissions to grow as long as the greenhouse gas producer is using energy more efficiently.
The Sierra Club's report card rates parties based on information published as of August. Executive director Stephen Hazell
said the group would be publishing another report card closer to election day to reflect potential changes during the
campaign [...]
|
|
|
Health CareTOP
Doctor shortage and more...
| |
The issue of health care delivery in Canada hasn't been in the news much lately, but that doesn't mean it has gone away.
In a recent Angus Reid public opinion poll, Canadians indicated that the country's medical services remain a key concern,
with 79% of respondents saying health care will be very important factor in deciding which party to support in the upcoming
federal election.
Spending for Canada's publicly-funded health care system approached $160-billion in 2007, representing more than 10% of the
GDP. Seventy per cent of funding comes the federal government and the provinces. Attention has focused mainly on the issues
of wait times — last year, The Fraser Institute reported that Canadians seeking surgery or other therapeutic treatment faced
an average wait time of 18.3 weeks — and a shortage of doctors. As well, the ideal mix of public and private financing and
delivery of health services has been hotly debated.
At the Canadian Medical Association's annual meeting in Montreal in August, new CMA president Dr. Robert Ouellet urged
Canadians to dispense with the dogma of universal health care and embrace a "mixed" system of public and private health care.
"A mixed public and private practice can be a positive if it contributes to improved access to health care," he said.
"Does it make sense, in the face of a shortage of operating rooms, to ban surgeons who provide 90% of their services in a
hospital from performing five to 10% of their surgeries in a private clinic?
"I am talking about improving it by allowing the private sector to intervene in a complementary way, where possible, in
areas where the public sector is unable to provide services.
"Instead of trying to ban the private sector, we need to provide a framework, with conditions, that will enable it to
intervene in an orderly fashion."
|
|
|
Child CareTOP
The federal election campaign took on a family focus Wednesday, with the NDP and Liberals pledging billions for childcare. [...]
At a campaign stop in Kitchener, Ont., Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion said if elected, his party would scale up spending on child
care spaces to reach $1.25 billion in four years time, money that he said would fund 165,000 new spaces. There were no immediate
details about how much they would spend on child care in the three years before that.
It's not, however, an all-out pledge to immediately re-establish the daycare plan the Liberals had just launched when they were
kicked out of government in January, 2006 – a concession to tougher times, and the political price they would probably pay if
they cancelled the Conservative program that pays parents of young children $100 a month.
Mr. Dion's Liberals committed to keeping the $100-a-month child cheques that Mr. Harper instituted – doing otherwise would
be a political risk – and Mr. Dion said the public coffers do not have enough funds to bring the Liberal child care plan back
right away. But he did promise to create a new "Guaranteed Family Supplement" of up to $1,225 for low-income families with
children under 18. [...]
Canada spends 0.2 per cent of its gross domestic product on early education and child care, the worst in the
industrialized world according to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Even parents who can afford to put their children in child care programs are seriously frustrated with federal
day-care funding levels.
| |
Earlier in the day, NDP Leader Jack Layton made a similar promise, vowing to create 150,000 spaces across the country within
the first year of a mandate at a cost of $1.4-billion. [...]
Mr. Layton would not reveal what his final price tag would be. Party officials later said the annual funding would reach
$2.2-billion by Year 4. But that would only pay for 220,000 spaces, making a truly universal program still a work in progress.
Mr. Layton also said he'd pass a law to ensure the program's survival, similar to the way the Canada Health Act governs medicare.
The law would require provinces to follow standards of care and show where federal dollars would be spent.
The idea of a national day-care program has been kicked around for years. Advocates say a nationally subsidized child-care program
would help working parents make ends meet and ensure that kids are in a high-quality learning environment.
But detractors say the idea is too expensive and unworkable. [...]
|
|
|
EconomyTOP
[...] Statistics Canada had previously reported the economy contracted by 0.3 percent in the first quarter, but revised
the decline to 0.8 percent in Friday's report. The revision shows the economy had a much worse winter than analysts thought.
The 0.3 percent expansion in the second quarter was well below the Bank of Canada's prediction of a 0.8 percent advance and
means the economy essentially retreated in the first six months of 2008.
Minutes after the news about the gross domestic product was announced, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty told reporters that
economic fundamentals remain strong.
But Scotia Capital's Derek Holt said if Canada did
avoid a mild recession that would have been suggested if there had been two consecutive quarterly declines, it was mainly through
a technicality. "The key point is to look at the fact that in the first half of 2008, the Canadian economy contracted," he said [...]
"Every single category of business declined and detracted from growth... residential structures, nonresidential structures, business machinery and equipment... and
this is the among the weakest pace of consumer spending we've had in years," he said.
|
The OECD has chopped its outlook for Canada for 2008 and now predicts the national economy will expand at the second
slowest pace in the industrialized world.
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development said Tuesday Canada's economy will expand by only 0.8 per
cent for the year, down from its previous prediction for annual growth of 1.2 per cent.
Only Italy, which the international organization forecasts to grow by a feeble 0.5 per cent, would perform worse than
Canada among the G7 economies if the prediction holds.
The OECD, which released the new numbers in its interim economic update, said the global economy is plagued by the credit
overhang from the housing slowdown in the United States and the other Western economies.
"The downturn in housing markets is still unfolding, with reduced credit supply likely adding to pressures," the organization's
chief economist, Jorgen Elmeskov, said in an analysis accompanying the forecast.
As well, soaring oil prices, while moderating in recent months, still are boosting inflation in many countries higher.
Canada was not the only country seeing its growth prospects dimming in the OECD's most recent numbers. In fact, five countries —
Japan, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom and France — all saw their economic growth rates cut as well. Only the United States,
which the OECD expects to expand at a 1.8 per cent clip for 2008, will grow faster this year compared with the Paris-based group's
earlier forecast.
In overall terms, the OECD predicted that the G7 countries will expand by 1.4 per cent this year, unchanged by the organization's
initial projections [...] |
Among the many ironies in this federal election is the notion of Stephen Harper as the man to turn to in an economic crisis.
Harper's economic tool box is limited, consisting of tax cuts and more tax cuts — a proven formula for funneling resources to
the rich, but less reliable as a means of stimulating the economy.
The notion of Harper as economic fixer is particularly ironic in Ontario, where Harper has helped push the economy to
the brink of — if not into the lap of — recession.
Harper has been a big supporter of the unbridled development of Alberta's oil sands, refusing to take any serious steps to
rein in the heavy oil projects by clamping down on their mammoth greenhouse gas emissions.
This is not only devastating for the environment and for any prospect of Canada meeting its Kyoto commitments, but it's
also been key to driving up the Canadian dollar. (Foreign money flows into Canada to buy up stocks in highly profitable
energy companies here, pushing up our dollar in the process.)
That high dollar, more than anything else, has been killing our manufacturing jobs by making our exports uncompetitive,
notes Jim Stanford, economist for the Canadian Auto Workers Union, whose ranks have been heavily hit by the loss of more
than 200,000 manufacturing jobs since Harper became Prime Minister.
Manufacturing is the backbone of the Ontario economy. The erosion of our manufacturing base risks transforming the
province into a much less rich and vibrant place.
So while Harper's vigorous pro-oil agenda has helped turn the Alberta economy red-hot, it's left Ontario's deeply cool. [...] |
|
| |
|
|
ImmigrationTOP
In his September 6 column in the National Post, Robert Fulford wrote that the forthcoming election was one that was
"going nowhere." One of the reasons it may be going nowhere is because some of the most important issues facing Canada
are not going to be discussed. One of the most critical of these is immigration. Canada is facing an immigration crisis
but immigration policy will not be on the agenda of any of the political parties.
In the so-called "ethnic ridings" each of the parties will promise to keep immigration levels high and will repeat the myth
that we need immigration to combat our aging population and keep the economy growing by supplying desperately needed skilled
workers for our labour force. Most economists in Canada and elsewhere have concluded that immigration does little to enhance
the economy and that immigrants cost more in the benefits they receive than in the taxes they contribute. However, our
politicians are not concerned about facts – they are concerned about votes and see every new immigrant as a potential voter.
What counts for our politicians is numbers.
There are now almost one million people waiting in the immigration backlog. All of them have met the requirements and by
law must eventually be issued a visa to come here. Most of these immigrants are coming from Asian countries: China, India,
Pakistan, the Philippines and Iran. Many of them are the parents or grand parents of people already living here. Furthermore,
the Conservatives have promised that next year they plan to raise the annual immigration intake to 265,000. The Liberals and
the New Democrats want even more. They believe we should be accepting 1% of our population, or in other words, 330,000
newcomers annually.
These are high numbers and added to them are thousands of so-called temporary workers who are brought here by employers to
fill temporary needs. Many of these workers are unskilled and few will go home when their visa expires.
Canadians are led to believe that most of the immigrants and temporary workers are selected because they have skills,
education and training that will enable them to contribute to our (and their) economic welfare. The fact is that only about
17% of our immigration intake is selected for economic reasons. The remaining 83% come to Canada because they have been
sponsored by their relatives or because they are refugees, or there are humanitarian reasons for admitting them. [Read More]
|
|
|
Aboriginal IssuesTOP
|
The October 14 election allows the voices of over 800,000 First Nation citizens across Canada to be heard given
the slim margin of victory in over 50 ridings in the last general election. To that end, the Assembly of First
Nations National Chief Phil Fontaine has launched "Vote '08, Change Can't Wait!", a First Nations political
participation and public awareness campaign to encourage voting among First Nations voters and to increase the
profile of Aboriginal issues in this election. This initiative is also aimed at soliciting a clear and robust
Aboriginal platform from each political party.
"The June 11, 2008 Apology to the survivors of the residential school experience was fundamentally about reconciliation,"
the National Chief said. He added, "It is time that each party advances a clear vision of what reconciliation means to
them if they were to form the next Canadian government". This election allows each party to place people above politics.
For our people, the time is now for all parties to step up and advance an effective and meaningful platform aimed at change.
This means alleviating First Nations poverty and improving the quality of the lives and life chances of First Nations
children and for all First Nation citizens."
The National Chief stated that "we are a First People, not an invisible people and each political party must address the
core issues which affect us if they truly intend to fulfill the promise and spirit of reconciliation afforded by the June
11 Apology". To that effect, the National Chief has compiled and delivered a comprehensive questionnaire to all federal
party leaders focused specifically on the issues and concerns important to First Nations in Canada.
"We are asking all parties to take the next step and focus on reconciliation, quality of life issues for First Nations,
and the quality of the relationship between the Canadian government and First Nation governments. We are also calling on
all five parties and the television network consortium in charge of the National Leaders' Debates to support inclusion of
a segment on Aboriginal issues so leaders can speak directly to First Nations and to all Canadians," the National Chief stated.
In addition, on September 29 the Assembly of First Nations is calling for a National Day of Political Action in First Nation
communities across the country. On this day all First Nation communities are encouraged to participate in a variety of
political activities such as engaging with their citizens and local candidates, host community meetings and town halls,
discuss platforms with each other, and other political events so that First Nation citizens can make an informed choice
on October 14. [...] |
A First Nations leader in British Columbia says aboriginal issues are missing from the agenda in this year's federal
election campaign.
Shawn Atleo, the B.C. regional chief of the Assembly of First Nations, said it's frustrating to see issues like the
environment and the economy dominating the election, while federal party leaders are ignoring the issues that matter
to Canada's aboriginal population.
"It's very difficult to talk about the economy in places like B.C. without talking about title and rights issues
and negotiations," he said. "It's difficult to talk about health without considering that First Nations health
issues are a top issue in this country."
Atleo also pointed out that the aboriginal community is the most vulnerable to changes in the environment,
whether it's the shifting patterns of caribou herds or the devastation of fishing stocks.
"And yet nowhere have we been able to see early on in the election any mention of First Nations issues," he said. [...] |
|
[...] First Nations families face intolerable poverty unmatched by any other segment of the Canadian population.
There is no reason why these terrible conditions should continue in a country as wealthy as Canada. There is,
however, debate about the reasons for that poverty. Some prefer to blame the victims, and believe that First Nations
are not accountable or that reserves themselves are not viable. This goes against all available evidence. The fact
is that First Nations are being held back by government laws and policies that are obstacles to development and local
control. Along with reconciliation, First Nations poverty can be countered by fairness and investment.
The First Nations population is the fastest growing population in Canada. Yet, when adjusted for inflation and population,
the budget for basic programs and services to First Nations citizens decreases every year. This is because there has been
a cap on funding increases to First Nations since 1996. A shrinking budget, coupled with a booming population, means
severely reduced funding for education, languages, housing, water, schools, houses, roads and economic and social
development. According to the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, First Nations have been deprived of $774 Million
in much-needed resources since the cap was put in place. [...] |
|
| |
|
|
Arts & CultureTOP
Prime Minister Stephen Harper has sparked a culture war in the federal election campaign with a claim that "ordinary people"
don't care about arts funding.
Under fire for his government's $45 million in cuts to arts and culture funding, the Conservative leader yesterday said
average Canadians have no sympathy for "rich" artists who gather at galas to whine about their grants.
"I think when ordinary working people come home, turn on the TV and see a gala of a bunch of people at, you know,
a rich gala all subsidized by taxpayers claiming their subsidies aren't high enough, when they know those subsidies
have actually gone up – I'm not sure that's something that resonates with ordinary people," Harper said in Saskatoon,
where he was campaigning for the Oct. 14 election.
Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion and NDP Leader Jack Layton accused their Conservative rival of treating arts and
culture with contempt.
Dion said the Conservatives are ideologically attacking the arts.
Layton meanwhile predicted Harper would sell off the CBC and undermine Canadian culture if the Conservatives win
a majority government.
But Harper shrugged off his opponents as elitists preoccupied by "a niche issue."
He said he has increased the overall budget at the Department of Canadian Heritage by 8 per cent, but had to trim
some arts funding. "Ordinary people understand we have to live within a budget," he said. [...]
| More links and articles on arts and culture — |
|
|
|
Crime & PunishmentTOP
Related Articles & Crime Resources...
| |
Canada's national crime rate is dropping annually and it's lower than it has been in almost three decades. [...]
However, all parties are rolling out law-and-order initiatives in their campaign announcements and platforms.
Where they stand:
Conservative party
The Tories have carved out a niche as the tough-on-crime party, focusing on stiff punishment because they say it is a deterrent.
The Tories are expected to revive more than a dozen promises that never materialized in the last minority government or died
when the election was called. They announced this week their central promise to crack down on youth crime by giving judges the
power to impose life sentences for the most serious young offenders. The plan would include publishing the names of young offenders.
Other platform measures will include minimum jail terms for drug-related crimes and ending "house arrest" for a variety of crimes.
With the support of the opposition parties, the Conservatives succeeded in the last Parliament on key 2006 election promises,
including more mandatory minimum sentences for gun crimes, raising the age of sexual consent to 16 from 14 and a new law to make
it harder to get bail.
Liberal party
The Grits, building on their reputation as the gun-control party after bringing in extensive measures more than a decade ago,
have pledged to retain the federal firearms registry, countering a longtime Conservative promise to eliminate it. The Grits
also would ban military assault rifles like the one used in a 2006 shooting rampage at Montreal's Dawson College, set up a "guns
and gangs" task force and crack down on gun smuggling.
NDP
The party takes a more interventionist approach to crime, promoting prevention programs to ease conditions that breed crime,
such as poverty, addiction and sub-standard housing. The NDP, however, also supports a ban on all handguns and tackling the
"ongoing crisis" of illegal handgun smuggling.
Green party
The party would legalize and tax marijuana, tackle the root causes of crime rather than focus on punishment and promote
restorative justice, where offenders make reparation to their victims and to the community. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | |
|
During this US election cycle we are hearing a lot from the pundits and candidates about "heartland voters," and "white working
class voters."
What they are talking about are rednecks. But in their political correctness, media types cannot bring themselves to utter the
word "redneck." So I'll say it for them: redneck-redneck-redneck-redneck.
The fact is that we American rednecks embrace the term in a sort of proud defiance. To us, the term redneck indicates a culture
we were born in and enjoy. So I find it very interesting that politically correct people have taken it upon themselves to protect
us from what has come to be one of our own warm and light hearted terms for one another.
On the other hand, I can quite imagine their concern, given what's at stake in the upcoming election. We represent at least a
third of all voters and no US president has ever been elected without our support.
Consequently, rednecks have never had so many friends or so much attention as in 2008. Contrary to the stereotype, we are not
all tobacco chewing, guffawing Southerners, but are scattered from coast to coast. Over 50% of us live in the "cultural south",
which is to say places with white Southern Scots-Irish values - redneck values [...]
Ultimately, the Scots Irish have had more of an effect on the American ethos than any other immigrant group. Here are a few you
will recognize:
- Belief that no law is above God's law, not even the US Constitution.
- Hyper patriotism. A fighting defence of native land, home and heart, even when it is not actually threatened:
ie, Iraq, Panama, Grenada, Somalia, Cuba, Nicaragua, Vietnam, Haiti and dozens more with righteous operations titles
such as Enduring Freedom, Restore Hope, and Just Cause.
- A love of guns and tremendous respect for the warrior ideal. Along with this comes a strong sense of fealty and
loyalty. Fealty to wartime leaders, whether it be FDR or George Bush.
- Self effacement, humility. We are usually the butt of our own jokes, in an effort not to appear aloof among one another.
- Belief that most things outside our own community and nation are inferior and threatening, that the world is jealous
of the American lifestyle.
- Personal pride in equality. No man, however rich or powerful, is better than me.
- Perseverance and belief in hard work. If a man or a family is poor, it is because they did not work hard enough.
God rewards those who work hard enough. So does the American system.
-
The only free country in the world is the United States, and the only reason we ever go to war is to protect that freedom.
All this has become so deeply instilled as to now be reflexive. It represents many of the worst traits in American culture
and a few of the best.
And that has every thinking person here in the US, except perhaps John McCain and Sarah Palin, worried.
Very worried. |
|
| | | |
|
|
An Open Letter to Stephen Harper about Cuts to Arts Funding... Ouch!
