I am outraged!  Are you guys outraged?!  That’s a stupid question, of course you are, because I’m outraged and, because I form your opinions for you based on my opinions, that means you guys are outraged too!  And that’s good, because I’m going to do something I don’t often do – vent!  (I know this is a drastic turn for a hard-hitting, investigative reporter such as myself, but I can stand by no longer!)

Now, I’m sure most of you were waiting with bated breath for the Harper Government to announce their new budget.  It’s like Christmas, only with less math (“And twelve-minus-eleven partridges in a pear tree”) . . .  and real.  And I was right there with you, sitting in front of my TV, watching whatever the Canadian version of C-Span is, wearing my new budget slippers and eating my new budget tub of ice cream, when “BAM!”, the Harper Government hits me hard and fast (and not in the good way).

Sure, they throw out some things that make sense. Increasing the retirement age – makes sense to me. I’ve always said our elderly are just a bunch of gripers. (“Oh yeah? My bones hurt too!”) Really, what have they done for me?  The Cons also throw some cuts at the CBC budget. And why not? The CBC hasn’t made anything good since “The Beachcombers.”  It looked like we were in for a pretty sensible fiscal year.

But then they did it, then the “BAM!” hit – the Harper Government is getting rid of the penny.  That’s right the old queenie, as we call it in Canada, is about to be dethroned (beheaded?).

At first I was outraged because I didn’t know how anyone was going to buy penny candies anymore – which, as we all know, is a time honoured youngster’s tradition. (“Of course there’s only fifty cents in the bag . . . no . . . no . . . it just feels like there’s a dollar’s worth in there.”)  However I was quickly informed that penny candies actually cost a nickel now (I blame the communists), and kids aren’t allowed to eat candy anymore because we have an obesity problem.  Next thing you’re going to tell me that everything at the dollar store costs a dollar twenty-five, and that there’s a slave-labour problem.  It’s a sad, sad, communist world we live in now.

Butthe real reason I’m outraged is because we’re living in a world that is on the brink of an economic meltdown (or as I like to call it, an economidown – just say it a few times, it takes some getting used to, but I swear it’ll be the next Bennifer), and our government is talking about just throwing money down the drain?  I guess, being that Harps is, in fact, a robot, he’s never had a grandma and therefore never learned the lesson, “A penny saved is a penny earned.”

What does that mean?  I don’t know; my grandma was always spewing crazy sayings like, “It’s the communists’ fault that FDR is dead.”  My grandma was crazy.  My point, however, is that Canada produces 816 million pennies a year; if you times that by .01, you’ve got yourself 8.16 million dollars.  Can we really afford to throw away 8.16 million dollars every year because Harps doesn’t like how his fingers taste like tin foil after he’s handled some pennies. (I can only assume that’s why we’re getting rid of the penny – Harps is kind of power hungry like that.)

Here’s an idea: why don’t we take all those 816 million pennies we produce a year and give them to the CBC?  That way they can start making new episodes of “The Beachcombers,” and people will actually have a reason to watch the CBC again.

I don’t know, I guess that’s just my five cents.

- Nathaniel Moher is a television writer living in Vancouver. This column first appeared in The Flying Shingle.

I missed the Occupy the World march to St. James Park in Toronto.

But when I saw the pictures on TV at work, and I saw how the Occupy movement is spreading.

I knew that I was right when I said the other day that this is a movement that could change the world, and save it from destruction.

Then tonight on my way home I went to the park and the mood was electric…

A large group of demonstrators had just finished a noisy march around the block, escorted by a contingent of cops on bicycles.

And in the dark park, a wild drumming party was in progress…

But what struck me was the incredible level of organization. Food, water, and other supplies were pouring into the park, and a logistics committee was running around barking out orders with almost military precision.

Don’t be fooled by appearances. These people are serious, and they won’t be easily moved.

And the dumbos in the MSM shouldn’t be confused by their seemingly disparate demands. Because as far as I can see most of them have one thing in common. They are all complaints about a decaying economic system.

From The International Business Times: Companies, Roubini said, are motivated to minimize costs, save money and stockpile cash, but this leads to less money in the hands of employees, which means they have less money to spend and flow back to companies — [thus] weakening the capitalist system.

Now, in the current financial crisis, consumers, in addition to having less money to spend, are also motivated to minimize costs — to save, to stockpile cash and to pay down debt — thus magnifying the effect of less money flowing back to companies.

They can fix the banking system in Europe, but it won’t bring the good jobs back. Without those jobs, and with high levels of debt, consumers can’t keep consuming.

And if capitalism can’t grow, or magically morph into a low growth version . . .

From The Guardian: So far governments have responded to the renewed crisis of capitalism by frantically seeking to invoke the old magic again, to start the engine of creative destruction once more. The means to do so no longer exist. Even if they did, they would only delay and enlarge the underlying problems.

But now, in the wake of the English riots and faced with possible collapse, we are at last beginning to talk about the issues ignored while the illusion persisted: equality, exclusion, the feral rich and the discarded poor and, in WH Auden’s words, about “what the god had wrought / To please her son, the strong / Iron-hearted man-slaying Achilles / Who would not live long.”

It will DIE. It’s really that simple.

Yup. The conditions for a movement like OWS to grow have never been more favorable.

The time is NOW.

And the message couldn’t be clearer…

By Louis Laberge-Côté
Contemporary dancer / choreographer / teacher / arts lover / taxpayer

If by attacking dance artist Margie Gillis on the Canada Live show aired on June 1st, Krista Erickson, anchorwoman for the Sun News Network, intended to publicly insult a well-respected artist on a sensationalist broadcast news channel, she certainly achieved her goal. Of course, Miss Erickson is allowed to have her own opinions and she has the right to express them. But when it comes to journalism, shouldn’t it be somewhat of a moral obligation for the reporter to put aside her personal opinions to look at a situation from different perspectives, gather information from different sources and, obviously, allow her guest to express her point of view? Isn’t it ridiculously unprofessional and profoundly inhumane to invite a woman such as Margie Gillis just to publicly bully her, with no possibility for real discourse, in the name of a few minutes of “great television”?

But behind the obvious lack of respect and consideration, what was most shocking during this interview is that Miss Erickson was clearly more interested in diffusing an extreme anti-arts agenda than honest and truthful information.

If Miss Erickson had done her homework more thoroughly (listing all the grants one specific artist received during the last 13 years, although impressive looking, is certainly not enough to discuss the subject of public arts funding as a whole), she probably would have arrived at different conclusions. Or at least, let’s hope so. She likes numbers, so let’s play her game:

In 2007, The Conference Board estimated that the economic footprint of Canada’s culture sector was $84.6 billion, or 7.4 per cent of Canada’s total real GDP, including direct, indirect, and induced contributions. Culture sector employment exceeded 1.1 million jobs in 2007. And by the way, culture sector workers (including artists) are taxpayers just like any other worker in Canada, something Miss Erickson seems to easily forget. Furthermore, according to The Conference Board, the “Arts and culture industries play a vital role in attracting people, business, and investment, and in distinguishing Canada as a dynamic and exciting place to live and work… The culture sector bridges geographical distances and creates greatly expanded social networks.” (Valuing Culture: Measuring and Understanding Canada’s Creative Economy. 2008.)

http://www.conferenceboard.ca/documents.aspx?did=2671

And this is not hard to believe. Each time an artist like Margie Gillis receives a grant, Canadians are hired: dancers, actors, musicians, composers, rehearsal directors, lighting/costume/set designers, photographers, administrative and marketing staff, to name a few. Rehearsal and performing space are rented. Eventually, posters, flyers, ads and programs are designed, printed and distributed. Many audience members go to a restaurant before or after the performance traveling by car, taxi, or public transportation. Previews and reviews are written in newspapers and magazines. Tourists come to a city or decide to stay longer to see a specific show or exhibition. Touring artists fly and travel all around the world on commercial airlines. The list goes on and on.

In fact, we should consider cultural public funding as a collective investment and certainly not as a “waste”, to use one of Miss Erickson’s favourite terms. According to Canadian Heritage, the federal cultural funding totals “$1.51 billion for the fiscal years from 2010 to 2015”, which amounts to an average of about $300 million a year. (Canadian Heritage – News Releases/ Statements. 2009.)

http://www.pch.gc.ca/pc-ch/infocntr/cdm-mc/index-eng.cfm?action=doc&DocIDCd=CJM090829

The Canadian federal budget expenditures totaled $276 billion in 2010.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Canadian_federal_budget

Looking at it proportionally, it is easy to see that cultural funding doesn’t represent that much money in the big picture. In fact, wanting to cut these amounts to help the economy is somewhat similar to wanting to cut the toenails of an obese man, just so he could lose some weight. Somewhat ridiculous, don’t you think? Especially since by comparing these numbers with the ones from the Conference Board, we can also see that this “small” collective investment is actually quite a profitable one; the Conference Board estimates that in 2007, the expenses related to culture on all levels of government together (federal, provincial and local) reached $7.9 billion. This $7.9 billion generated $84.6 globally, something we all benefit from, and not only the “cultural elites” as Miss Erickson likes to believe. In fact, respected Danish researcher Bengt-Åke Lundvall clearly demonstrated that countries who do better economically and politically are precisely the ones who deliberately contributed to a “creative and cultural climate”.

But obviously, the cultural sector is about something much greater than the money it generates. The real power of the arts is not material and pretending otherwise is as ridiculous as saying that the car industry is about paying for the groceries of the builders, while ignoring that cars are made for transportation. According to a study published in the British Medical Association’s Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, cultured people are more satisfied with their lives, regardless of how educated or rich they are. Researchers led by Koenraad Cuypers of the Norwegian University of Science and Technology analyzed information collected from 50,797 adults living in Norway’s Nord-Trondelag County. The participants were asked detailed questions about their leisure habits and how they perceived their own state of health and well-being. “After adjusting for relevant confounding factors” — including socio-economic status — “it seemed that cultural participation was independently associated with good health, a low depression score and satisfaction with life”, the study’s authors write.

Is that something a conscientious government should care about? Obviously. Miss Erickson’s assertion on the June 1st edition of The Waste Report that apparently most Conservatives privately think that arts funding is ridiculous, if true, says much more about the Conservative party than about the value of the arts in our society. In fact, most countries financially support their cultural industry in a way or another. And this goes back to the Roman Empire, if not before. Behind the masterworks of Michelangelo, Shakespeare, Bach or Mozart, there is a pope or a monarch. Were these works directly profitable from a business sense as they were being created? Probably not. Do these works enrich the lives of many human beings from all around the world since their creation? Of course. I personally cannot imagine a world without the works of Beethoven, Molière or Da Vinci and I am extremely grateful that somebody allowed them to create such beautiful expressions of humanity.

But let’s use a more contemporary example; Cirque du Soleil started from nothing and is now worth around $2 billion. In the early ‘80s, the founders were a few unknown artists living in Baie-Saint-Paul with no rehearsal space. I am pretty sure Miss Erickson would have gladly described them as “walk like an Egyptian” “artsy fartsy” “cultural elites”, to use more of the colourful language she enjoys so much. But luckily, Guy Laliberté didn’t meet with Miss Erickson when he needed public support. He met with Québec Premier René Lévesque who took the time to listen. Thanks to a politician who had faith in culture, this little circus with no audience at the time became a highly successful international enterprise. But this didn’t happen in one day. It took many years of research, development, and trial and error which were at first not profitable.

Contemporary interpretive dance is not a commercial art form. In many cases such as Margie Gillis’, it is an intimate, personal journey, not meant to be shared in front of a huge audience, making profits more difficult to achieve. Does this mean this work shouldn’t be created? Certainly not. Artists like Margie inspire and enlighten many people on a very deep emotional, spiritual and intellectual level and act as ambassadors all over the world. They push and define the limits of imagination, research, difference, individuality, identity, language, humanity, compassion, criticism, connection, understanding, and beauty. Again, the fact that Miss Erickson cannot relate to any of it certainly says far more about her than the work itself. In fact, many artistic movements and creators were at first not appreciated by their contemporaries. For the longest time, jazz music had a very limited audience. Artists such as Van Gogh and Stravinsky, whose work is greatly appreciated nowadays, had very difficult beginnings. Many of the things we can enjoy today as “normal entertainment” would have been completely misunderstood just a hundred years ago. And that’s normal, as this is how humanity evolves. Should we stop artistic evolution just because it requires effort and personal exploration to fully appreciate it, especially knowing that this pattern (avant-garde works not being mainstream) has existed for centuries? Obviously no.

And of course, this pattern also exists in other fields. Take science for example. There is practical science which has clear direct function. And there is leading-edge research, which doesn’t necessarily have immediate results. But leading-edge research is the reason why diabetes treatments, X-rays and supersonic planes exist today. I don’t understand why artists are being publicly described as spoiled elitists when the government also supports the pharmaceutical industry, high-caliber sports or higher education. Everything is financed by the state. And everybody benefits from it. When an athlete competes on an international level, we’re all winners. When an artist like Margie Gillis presents her work internationally, the effect is the same.

I will conclude all this by quoting Laurent Simon who said, “The world that is coming scares the traditionalists, since its models are less controllable than the analysis of an economy centered around the classical schemes of production and return”. It is very saddening to see that this fear now results in aggressive, partisan and close-minded “journalism” on Canadian television. Let’s just hope that the world of tomorrow will be more respectful, wise, compassionate and, as opposed to Miss Erickson, willing to allocate a portion of the taxpayer money towards world peace.

“What is a cynic? A man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.” – Oscar Wilde

I would like to thank Nova Bhattacharya, Michael Caldwell, Alexandre Chartrand, Pierre Duhamel, Jean-Philippe Joubert, Simon Jodoin, Tara Gonder, Catherine Lalonde, Graham McKelvie, Nathalie Petrowski, Brian Solomon, Jean-Jacques Stréliski and William Yong who were all a great inspiration and help as I was writing this. And of course, heartfelt thanks to Margie Gillis for being such an incredible example of wisdom, kindness and strength to all of us.

In the meantime, what can you do?
1. Do not watch Sun TV and avoid visiting their website as they receive money from their sponsors each time you do so. But of course, this is inevitable if you want to see the interview mentioned earlier (http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/971454253001) or send them your complaints (http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/about-sun.html).
2. Write to your MP about extreme political propaganda and misrepresentation in the media.
3. Send your complaints to the CRTC (http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/INFO_SHT/G8.HTM). Complaints need to be filed within 4 weeks following the broadcast, so be fast!
4. Ask your cable TV provider to remove SunTV from your bundle.
5. Learn your statistics, numbers, quotes and facts about the importance and the benefits of the arts in our society. Be prepared for heated discussions.
6. Remind people that artists are taxpayers too.
7. Share this letter or any other relevant information with as many people as you can.
8. Support the arts proudly and let the people around you know how important and enriching it is to do so.
9. Stay gracious, open, creative and compassionate. Example is the best teacher.

Please watch this inspirational interview with paleontologist Donald C. Johanson about what makes us humans: http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=10150175212469795&oid=95578378591&comments

Just three months shy of 2010 — the date by which the Canadian Council of Chief Executives originally projected the goals of the SPP would be completed — some people have been mourning and others celebrating for years already.

The SPP is dead  (a short history):

Oct. 10, 2007 “The Security and Prosperity Partnership is dead,” wrote John Ibbitson in the G&M. “Nothing’s going to happen anytime soon.”

Aug. 1, 2008 “The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America is dead,” says Robert Pastor, chair of the 2005 Council on Foreign Relations task force “Building a North American Community” available in book form with co-author John Manley.

Feb. 25, 2009 “The SPP is probably dead,” Canadian Council of Chief Executives President Tom d’Aquino tells the foreign affairs committee, adding that “something else” will replace it.

July 13, 2009 “The SPP is in hibernation” — Chris Sands, Canada-U.S. relations expert at the Hudson Institute, in Toward a New Frontier which recommends “rebranding a revived SPP.”
.
Aug. 2009 “The SPP’s Death Knell has Sounded” — Embassy Mag. “The Security and Prosperity Partnership, as we knew it, is dead. May it rest in peace.”

Aug. 19, 2009 “The SPP is dead, so where’s the champagne?” — Stuart Trew, Council of Canadians, at Rabble.

Sept. 24, 2009 “The SPP is dead. Let’s keep in that way.” — Murray Dobbin, Canadian author, long time foe of deep integration, and one of my personal heroes.

That’s two whole years of announcements about the SPP nailed to its perch and pining for the fjords.

The most recent — Dobbin and Trew — do not imagine for a moment that the push towards deep integration is over by any stretch, yet Dobbin does not see any successor on the horizon:

“Some on the left are so accustomed to losing that they make the claim the SPP will just re-emerge with another name.”

And indeed I do so here — Pathways to Prosperity in the Americas.

Bush’s outgoing gift to Obama has been embraced and described by Hillary Clinton as “a multilateral initiative to promote shared security and prosperity throughout the Americas.”

Stockwell Day has already begun dutifully using the phrase “pathways to prosperity” in the House, while ex-PM Paul Martin, Chris Sands, d’Aquino, David Emerson and other fans of deep integration assure us of the inevitability of some future SPP rebrand and relaunch.

But what worries me is: do we even need a rebrand and relaunch anymore?

In 2003 the Canadian Council of Chief Executives came up with the North American Security and Prosperity Initiative to shape Canada’s future within North America. It called for “reinventing borders; regulatory efficiency; resource security; and a North American defence perimeter.”

Here’s how that agenda has been achieved through the SPP so far:

Joint RCMP-Homeland Security “Shiprider” pilot project
Civil Assistance Plan signed in Feb. 2008 allows the military of one nation to support the other during a civil emergency
Passenger Protect no-fly list
Sharing military responsibilities in the arctic
“Smart Borders” and unmanned drones patrolling the Canada US border
The exile and/or detainment in Canada of persons of interest to Homeland Security
Canada’s cats paw FTAs with countries the US hopes to reach
The Canada Israel ‘Homeland Security’ pact
Canada helps the US occupy Afghanistan

Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative
Biometric data into visas for foreign nationals
RFID drivers’ licences – a de facto continental ID
Run-of-river projects and ramped up tarsands extraction for energy export
Proposal for national Canadian energy or water policy blocked
Streamlining regulations on food, drugs pesticides, genetically modified seeds.
“Intermodal transportation concept for North America”
Integrated North American energy and resource program

Does anyone really think just because 30 odd CEOs from the North American Competitiveness Council aren’t meeting as a designated SPP group anymore that that’s the end of it?

Ten days ago Harper stood in the White House and said:

“Today, Canada is announcing a major hydroelectric project, a big transmission line in northwestern British Columbia, which has the capacity down the road to be part of a more integrated North American hydroelectric system.

“Canada is not leaving Afghanistan; Canada will be transitioning from a predominantly military mission to a mission that will be a civilian humanitarian development mission after 2011.”

So, no, I’m not celebrating anything until the SPP and the groundwork already laid by the CCCE — plus the unseen continued integration of its facets throughout the public service — can be stopped and rolled back.

Paul Manly is taking his film ‘You, Me and the SPP: Trading Democracy for Corporate Rule’ on the road.

The tour, which will visit 33 cities across Canada, will be launched with an Ottawa Premiere on Parliament Hill on October 1st. hosted by NDP International Trade Critic, Peter Julian.

The Ottawa screening will be followed by a panel discussion and Q & A, featuring Peter Julian, Teresa Healy (Senior Researcher, Canadian Labour Congress), Bruce Campbell (Executive Director, Canadian Council for Policy Alternatives), Maude Barlow (Chairperson, Council of Canadians), Louise Casselman (Common Frontiers) and Paul.

The screening and panel will be streamed live by Rabble.ca — see promo page

From Ottawa, the tour will be working its way east to Newfoundland and then back across Canada to British Columbia. You can see all the tour dates on the film website here.

Each confirmed screening date has a pdf poster, handbill and press release that can be downloaded and used to promote the screening. Please help out where you can. All of the screenings are either free or by donation.

This ain’t over yet.

It would be nice if our issues could be solved with quick fixes, but they can’t. For instance, more people in jail does not reduce crime — just glance south for proof of that. And lowering taxes does squat for an economy that nobody trusts. Lowering taxes might stimulate the economy we had a few decades ago but it won’t impact the complex, globalized system that we’ve got now. This is a simplistic, infantile strategy.

Canadians need a government that they can trust to rely on the processes and institutions that have stayed strong and effective through the test of hundreds of years of democracy.

One of these institutions is the Supreme Court. Stephen Harper defies the Supreme Court: Despite a ruling from the Supreme Court of Canada and the Supreme Court of the United States, Stephen Harper refuses to request that a Canadian who was captured by US forces as a severely wounded child soldier be returned from imprisonment in Guantanamo Bay, where he continues to be routinely tortured. The evidence against this young man is circumstantial at best.

Think that such things could never happen to your kid? Check out Harper’s proposed toughening of laws related to young offenders . Think your kid can’t be so stupid as to be in the wrong place at the wrong time? Remember David Milgaard.

Listen, Stephen Harper and his fellow Conservatives are crude thinkers, culturally backward, and racist. The evidence of this is everywhere. Moreover, they are arrogant: they don’t feel that they need to answer to you. So far, Harper refuses to take part in a CBC program called Your Turn, a forum that allows viewers to seek direct answers from party leaders.

Need to know any more? I don’t.

- Eleanor Claire

I am interested in two things in this election: environmental stewardship and increased regulation of the finance industry. Canadian financial institutions may have escaped the worst of the crash, but a thorough review of our regulatory landscape is needed right now if we are to maintain economic stability. Getting a loan doesn’t need to become difficult, but neither should credit be available to people who cannot demonstrate an obvious ability to pay back in a reasonable period of time (unless it’s a student loan). Yes, more regulation will cool our economy, like the carbon tax will, but I’d rather have a sustainable way of life for generations than be on a big party boat headed toward the falls.

We can look at bailouts of American and British financial institutions as one of the biggest shifts of wealth in human history: from the poor (taxpayers) to the rich (stockholders and the managers who have been fired — with millions of dollars of severance packages — after screwing up the global economy). Sometimes it feels like multinational corporations run the world, but every country still has the power to regulate and legislate. All over the world, politicians have been asleep at the wheel and it’s time for ours to wake up, fast, before you and I are bailing out Canadian criminal moneylenders.

Meanwhile, folks, spend your money on paying down your debt and installing a solar panel and woodburning stove. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: things are going to get tougher and tougher until we have no choice but to live more frugally and locally.

Speaking of which, we need breaks for people who would be badly hurt by the carbon tax: farmers and people in the north who depend on diesel for heat. The work of farmers is a public service masquerading as a profit enterprise and they can’t take another hit. And it’s cold in the north. There are no trees and no coal plants. Taxing northerners would be an extra hardship that they should not bear — northern life is tough enough. And they might want to think about how to wean themselves off fossil fuels.

By the way, check out the Canada Health Consumer Index posted on the CBC website and note that the information was generated by Frontier Centre for Public Policy, a think tank based out of Winnipeg. They have a interesting take on things that seems to favour adjusting society to welcome globalization (yikes), and “empowerment” of Aboriginals (which seems to mean cancelling their special rights and demand they adopt the European way of life or die). They also have a video for sale questioning the role of human activity in global warming.

Need to know more? I do. Like, for instance, why the f*ck CBC is giving these idiots air time without pointing out clearly who they are.

- Eleanor Claire

Harper says that now is no time to be taking risks with the economy but, if we include depreciation of the environment in our accounting of the economy (and how can we not?), Harper’s platform is far more risky. Furthermore, his willingness to sacrifice quality of life and Canadian culture can be viewed as depreciation in the economy — if we view the economy as more than the sum of money spent.

Indicators like Gross National Product are certainly no measurement of the quality or security of our lives. For instance, if we want the GNP to go up, we should hope for natural disaster and war because the costs associated with all that misery actually increase the GNP. So we should not pay attention to those indicators as much as we should watch the other ones — the ones that actually measure how well Canadians are doing.

I want to know how many Canadians have jobs with benefits, how many are losing their homes, how many are being treated for addictions. I want to know about homeless rates, divorce rates, suicide rates, and how long we have to wait for MRIs. I want to know how many books are being published, how many theatre productions and concerts I can go to. I want to know how many people each recreation centre is expected to serve. I want to know that we’re secure in our food supply, that we can heat our homes this winter, and that the families of soldiers serving in Afghanistan aren’t depending on the food bank.

I want to know if the balance sheet on the environment is surplus or deficit. Is air cleaner? Is energy consumption going down? How much land is protected or exploited? How is the polar bear population doing? How many farms have adopted environmental stewardship programs?

I really want to know how many Canadian children are living in poverty.

I really don’t give a crap about the GNP. I actually don’t believe that cutting taxes does stimulate the economy or create jobs. Governments take credit when people have jobs and they blame mystical, magical forces that they cannot control when unemployment goes up. When times are tough, government has to step up and help people through the tough times — knowing that you’re not going to lose your home or be denied health care or education is what creates confidence in a society, not the fake promise of endless growth. Perennial economic growth is a death sentence for the planet, is not sustainable, and everybody knows it.

I am not going to get fooled into voting for Harper by a bunch of pseudo-economic mumbo jumbo. Economists are just theorists and I have no confidence in their theories. I am going to ask the other candidates for their plans to impact real quality of life and real sustainability for Canadians.

- Eleanor Claire

The first fellow asked me if Brian Mason (ND leader) could count on my vote.

“Sure,” I say, “If you can tell me your party’s plan to clean up the North.”

“We really care about the environment,” he says. “Brian Mason has a plan to protect the environment and reduce our dependence on carbon fuels.”

“Great,” I say, “What exactly is he going to do to clean up the North? I like that part of the province a very great deal and I was just there and it looks like a moonscape and an oil spill combined. I can see nothing on your website about cleaning up the north except a pitiful ‘More effective environmental compliance and oversight of land reclamation in the oil-patch.’ What about toxicology reports on air, water, soil, and animals? What about a biodiversity study to see how many species we’re extinguishing?”

“Uh, I should let you talk to somebody else.”

So another guy gets on the phone and assures me that the Alberta New Democrats are working on that policy.

“Are you kidding?” I ask, gobsmacked. “You have had years and years to think about this, to learn about this, and you’re working on policy in the middle of a campaign? Are you kidding me?”

He wasn’t. He asked if he could get back to me. I said I hoped he would.

Curious to see how the Liberals stacked up, I took a look. I note that while the Liberal environmental plan is more detailed and comprehensive, it still contains no intention to test the impact of the tar sands on the environment and absolutely no commitment to force the corporations to reclaim the land already impacted. There is a plan to use royalty money to address urgent environmental issues, but that seems to be letting corporate interests off the hook.

Interestingly, only the Liberals promise an absolute cap on greenhouse gas emissions. This is what the New Democrats promise: “Stronger greenhouse gas emissions regulations and enforcement in the oil-patch.” I am surprised. Could it be that the New Democrats simply don’t know how to think, plan, and implement?

The next phone call from the New Democrats seems to indicate that it is so. “Can we count on your vote,” asks the female canvasser.

“It depends,” I say, “on whether you’re calling me back to tell me your plan to clean up the North.”

“Oh,” she says.

“You are the third person from your party that I have spoken to and it now seems clear to me that you are not using a database to coordinate your canvassing. In this day and age, that’s downright scary to me. If you cannot think ahead enough to use a database to coordinate your canvassing, how can you govern a province? Running a province is a complicated task and I worry that you are a bunch of ideologues who don’t have the first clue what is actually required. I worry that you will act out of unsubstantiated wishful thinking rather than upon the advice of seasoned public servants who will give you practical advice on how to achieve your goals.”

“Oh,” she says. Silence. I am not making this up.

“So,” I say, “This is my problem with your party’s platform. You feel that you have great ideas and that your values are better than other people’s values but you haven’t actually tested a real plan in a real situation.”

“Hmmnn,” she says.

“A goal without a plan is just a wish,” I say. “You’ve had all this time and this is the best you can do.”

“I should have somebody get back to you,” she says.

Meanwhile, nobody else has called me. I will vote Liberal on Monday, even though doing so may split the opposition vote and leave the Conservatives in power.

Meanwhile, I am making plans for the coming recession. I really and seriously am and nobody I vote for or against on Monday can stop it from coming. It won’t be like the Great Depression. It will be, according to many analysts, the Greater Depression.

My advice? Be the first one out of the fire. If you lose your job, which you very well might, make sure you can still afford your current level of debt. If you have no debt, don’t get any. Do not buy a house now, as you’re going to be able to buy one at a price lower than the cost of its materials when people who maintain a high level of debt have to walk away from their mortgages. If you have a big mortgage, downsize to a sustainable mortgage right now while you can still get value out of your purchase. The housing bubble is going to burst all over the world. If you need to borrow, absolutely have to borrow, do it soon because loans are going to become nearly impossible to get.

All this is inevitable simply because of the natural limits to expansion. Our economy and productivity is bound by nature. Our population will grow to nine billion in 40 years. At the current rate of consumption, we will need another planet. The only alternative is for our global economy to cool off substantially. It will cool off, one way or another. A planned, orderly sub-zero-growth economy is much safer for all of us than the financial catastrophe that is the inevitable alternative.

This is why I have become a socialist in my old age — and why I wish I could vote for a socialist party with a plan.

Postscript: about two hours after I originally posted this entry, I heard from yet another caller for the New Democrats. She had absolutely no record that I had asked for information twice before. I reiterated my disappointment. She said, “Well, I can’t do anything about that but I hope you exercise your democratic right to vote.”

I sure will.

After it became clear that the main result of the Security and Prosperity Partnership meet-up in Montebello was to alert Canadians to the fact that their country’s sovereignty was in deep shit, deep integration’s best friends were unanimous in their tough love advice to the ailing SPP’s enablers.

Tom d’Aquino of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, Harper’s eminence grease Tom Flanagan, the Hudson Institute, the Fraser Institute, John Ibbitson and Neil Reynolds of The Globe and Mail, the usual gang all proposed the same thing. Don’t hide your blight under a Bushel, they all said — explains it to da peeps.

The Natty Post has stepped up magnificently to this cheerleading task with three-count ‘em-three editorials on how absolutely vital it is to Canada’s economic health to sell out to the plummeting rogue plutocracy to the south.

Michael Hart from Carleton U., a NAFTA negotiator, a former official at Foreign Affairs and Int. Trade, and a sometime “deep integration” teacher at the North American University, writes: Canada blew it.

“The crisis of Sept. 11, 2001, provided a perfect opportunity to seize the moment to re-imagine the border, but Canada blew it.”

According to Hart, we foolishly we squandered this unique opportunity to implement “the structural and institutional changes of deep integration” because of “nationalist phobias”.
Silly us.

Hart laid the deal out rather more clearly when he testified at the Int. Trade Committee on SPP in May last year –you know, the one that Con Chairman Benoit huffed out of in a hissy fit. “We have made a political choice that we wanted a more deeply integrated North American economy,” Hart said. “That means a willingness on our part to, for example, strengthen the perimeter around North America in order to deal with security issues that are uppermost in American minds.”

Uppermost in my mind at the moment, Mike, is the peculiar way you’ve turned being on the wrong end of Naomi Klein’s disaster capitalism into “a perfect opportunity.”

Onward to the second Natty Post SPP-plumping editorial . . . from another Carleton U. guy who happens to be the editor of the Financial Post: U.S. border is killing free trade. Integration just isn’t happening fast enough for Terrence Corcoran: Harper’s Tories are “complacent” while Stockwell Day’s record is “dismal.”

Probably because they’re hoping to be re-elected, Terry.

And thirdly . . . Natty Post excerpts from a Woodrow Wilson paper, Economic Integration in North America :

“Canada’s monetary independence acts as a major barrier to economic integration.
Until Canada decides to adopt the U.S. dollar, formally or informally, and hitch its business cycle more closely to the American rhythm, further integration will confront natural limits.”

“Further integration will confront natural limits.”

That, of course, will be us.

I am not a fan of Stephen Harper by any measure but we have to acknowledge that he conducted himself fairly well this week. He did not shy from telling Canadians that economic times are going to get tougher. He commended Manley’s report on Afghanistan without leaping to agree with it, asserting to Canadians that he would do the right thing.

I have no confidence, though, that Harper has a comprehensive understanding of how tough the tough times ahead are going to be. I would prefer that he warn Canadians that we have to completely reorder our society and economy in order to survive a post-carbon world. He has not done that and he should, even if it draws boos and boo-hoos from the business community.

How tough will things get? Those of us old enough to have heard Depression stories from our grandparents and parents would do well to remember them in detail. We can find indicators in those stories of what we might expect. My grandmother did not taste milk for ten years, sewed all the family’s clothes and sent her son, my father, to hunt meat for the evening meal. My father remembers being rationed two shotguns shells into his 10-year-old palm and being told to “make them count.” The occasional roast of beef was made to last all week from a glory of a Sunday meal through sandwiches and hearty soup. My grandfather was sometimes paid for his work as a mechanic in bags of potatoes because few in the neighbourhood had any money to spare. In the last years of her life, my grandmother still washed plastic bags and hung them to dry on the clothesline. She never learned to drive because she would never own a car.

That is the kind of lifestyle we have to get ready for. Earlier this week I mentioned to family members that they might want to sell their expensive cars now, while they were still worth something, especially if they were still paying for them. I was laughed down. I don’t think they’ll be laughing a few years from now.

We have to keep in mind that our current lifestyle is not typical in history or currently on the planet. The Depression occurred in living memory and is far more typical of human lifestyle than the we one we enjoy now. In fact, our current affluence happens only rarely and usually right before a significant political or economic crisis. To survive, we will have to accept a radically different lifestyle. If we don’t do this together, in an orderly way with supportive public policy, we will still live a radically different lifestyle but likely in an atmosphere of panic and chaos.

Harper did make one wrong step this week. Bouncing the torture controversy back to the Canadian military despite energetic criticism from the opposition was Harper’s mistake of the week. He should demand a full investigation into the controversy surrounding Canada’s transfer of detainees into the hands of Afghan torturers, even as Amnesty International and the B.C. Civil Liberties Union ramp up their lawsuits against the federal government. There are two problems with this situation. First, the Canadian military must take proactive measures to protect detainees before torture becomes a possibility. Surely they would expect Afghans to have different standards and plan accordingly. It is not sufficient only to react. Secondly, the federal government cannot bounce this back to the military. This is a question of oversight. The Canadian military is not independent. It is responsible to the federal government and the federal government must demand accountability. Where that accountability breaks down, the correct response is swift and decisive discipline, not finger-pointing.

Canada’s credibility as a civilized people is badly damaged when we fail to protect military prisoners. Combined with our whimpering apology of last week to two known torturers — Israel and the U.S. — Canada looks like an errand boy of the barbarians.

That said, Harper’s language has been strong, solid, and displayed the leadership qualities that will inspire voters to back him simply because they’re nervous. I hope the opposition — whose policies I am more inclined toward — will find a confident tone before the next federal election.