Tag Archives: harper

49th Parallel Has Canadians Confused About Voting In Federal Elections In Canada….Just Saying….

Posted on by

October 15, 2015         Andrew Chernoff

Just-saying

It has occurred to me that one of the reasons most Canadians have no logic or reason behind their voting in federal elections is that most Canadians live near the Canada-U.S. border.

And some do not vote at all, then grumble and complain for four more years like they had no way to influence which federal party would be the government of Canada. That is why it is so important to vote.

An estimated 75 percent of Canadians live within 161 kilometers (100 miles) of the U.S. border, according to http://travel.nationalgeographic.com.

According to CBC News, 90 Per cent of Canadians who live within 160 kilometres of the U.S. border as of 2009, http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/by-the-numbers-1.801937.

About four-fifths of the population lives within 150 kilometres (93 mi) of the contiguous United States border.[200] Approximately 80 percent of Canadians live in urban areas concentrated in the Quebec City–Windsor Corridor, the British Columbia Lower Mainland, and the Calgary–Edmonton Corridor in Alberta.[201, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada.

I for one will admit I have followed U.S. politics closely since the summer of 1972 when my family moved from Kitimat, B.C. to Midway B.C. and I had access to NBC, ABC and CBS, and  became educated in their political system and it is striking.

When I lived in Kitimat B.C. and Ocean Falls B.C. (where I was born) the main television station was CBC and it was Canadian politics I became acquainted with and watched from time to time, due to my parents, unless I went outside to play and be a kid.

You can’t blame all those Canadians from being unduly influenced by our Southern neighbours, especially when it comes to politics and voting in elections. There are great differences between U.S. and Canadian political systems when voting.

Here is a brief explanation of some differences between the United States and Canada:

From: http://www.parl.gc.ca:

  • In the United States, the president, the senators and the representatives are elected for different periods, it can happen, and often does, that the president belongs to one party while the opposing party has a majority in either the Senate or the House of Representatives or both. So for years on end, the president may find his or her legislation and policies blocked by an adverse majority in one or both houses. The president cannot appeal to the people by dissolving either house, or both: he or she has no such power, and the two houses are there for their fixed terms, come what may, until the constitutionally fixed hour strikes.
  • The Canadian prime minister did not appear in the written Constitution until 1982. It still contains not one syllable on prime ministerial qualifications, the method of election or removal, or the prime minister’s powers (except for the calling of constitutional conferences). Nor is there anything on any of these matters in any Act of Parliament, except for provision of a salary, pension and residence for the person holding the recognized position of first minister. Everything else is a matter of established usage, of “convention.” There is nothing in any law requiring the prime minister or any other minister to have a seat in Parliament; there is just a custom that he or she must have a seat, or get one within a reasonable time. There is nothing in any law to say that a government that loses its majority in the House of Commons on a matter of confidence must either resign (making way for a different government in the same House) or ask for a fresh general election.
  • While the United States has a republic form of government, Canada has a a constitutional monarchy developed in the United Kingdom, where the democratically elected parliaments, and their leader, the prime minister, exercise power, with the monarchs having ceded power and remaining as a titular position.
  • In Canada, all important legislation is introduced by the government, and all bills to spend public funds or impose taxes must be introduced by the government and neither house can raise the amounts of money involved. As long as the government can keep the support of a majority in the House of Commons, it can pass any legislation it sees fit unless an adverse majority in the Senate refuses to pass the bill (which very rarely happens nowadays). If it loses its majority support in the House of Commons, it must either make way for a government of another party or call a fresh election. If it simply makes way for a government of a different party, then that government, as long as it holds its majority in the House of Commons, can pass any legislation it sees fit, and if it loses that majority, then it, in its turn, must either make way for a new government or call a fresh election. In the United States, president and Congress can be locked in fruitless combat for years on end. In Canada, the government and the House of Commons cannot be at odds for more than a few weeks at a time. If they differ on any matter of importance, then, promptly, there is either a new government or a new House of Commons.

In Canada, when a federal political party forms government, the political leader of that political party automatically becomes the prime minister. There is no separate election in Canada to elect a prime minister like there is in the United States.

In Canada, pollsters ask Canadians who they would prefer as prime minister, like it matters: the prime minister is the horse or donkey, and the rest of those that are elected follow along.

The prime minister as leader of that cart literally is along for the ride….Well o.k., I may have simplified it a little….. Still, that successful party leader literally rides the coattails of his/her party elected members of parliament to the powerful position of prime minister. And that is the short of it.

Instead of the winning federal party determining  a leader of the government from their ranks that have been elected, the parties at a convention of the federal party, elect a person who will lead their party into an election and if successful, that person will then as leader of the party, become Canada’s prime minister.

Nanos Research recently asked Canadians in a poll who they preferred for prime minister. The results were Trudeau was the choice of 33.0% Canadians followed by Harper at 28.8%, Mulcair at 19.9%, May at 6.4%, Duceppe at 1.8% and 10.3% of Canadians were unsure. (Three-day tracking: Oct 10, 11 & 13/15)

What happens if you like the political party but not the leader? Most Canadians have little or no say in the election of a future prime minister of a federal political party, even though all Canadians have an opportunity to vote for a political party in a federal election.

It’s all about voting strategy, eh?

Which is more important to Canadians:

  • The attraction of the federal party leader in determining who to vote for;
  • Or, the federal party policies and platform in an election, damn the leader?
  • And to make things more interesting, your vote is only cast for the party representative in your federal constituency: what if you don’t believe that party candidate is the best person to represent your constituents? Is that important?
  • Or, are you voting for the federal party leader using the constituent candidate of that party as the leaders’ proxy?
  • Or, are you in effect voting the federal party when you vote for that particular party candidate not caring whether the person is the best person or not, to represent your constituency?

So, Canadians don’t vote separately for a federal political party and prime minister. And I will throw this in just to create more frustration: Canadians do not elect Senators that take part in Canada’s political system. The prime minister appoints those sitting federal government politicians; or non-sitting as it turns out most of the time.

I sincerely believe that the 80-90 per cent of all Canadians that live within 100 miles of the Canada-U.S. border have been brainwashed by too much of a political romance with United States politics because it is more appealing, entertaining, logical and sensible.

Canadians may say, may claim, they understand, when they vote, why they voted the way they did, and what it means, or could mean, or hope it meant…..but do they…..I mean….it isn’t as easy as putting an “X” by my constituency candidate is it? What if I like the candidate but not the party? And should I vote for the “right party” so the constituency has a member of parliament that is part of the party in power because the constituency can get things it needs much easier than not? And who is the “right party”? Like, what if it is a minority government? Did I waste my vote: depends why I voted I guess……

God, a lot to think about…….sure do…….this is interfering with my enjoyment of the start of the Vancouver Canucks road to the NHL playoffs in 2016…..the Toronto Blue Jays back in the MLB playoffs after 22-years…..and of course, what is happening with those B.C. Lions……

And don’t get me started on the NFL……or the 2015-2016 television season.

Oh, hell…..where is my two-sided coin….heads I will pick…..and tails I will pick….nope will not work…..need two coins to get the three main federal political parties……good though……cause I can include the federal Green party….so….on the second coin…..heads I will pick….and tails I will pick…..then I will have a playoff with the two winners on a third and separate coin……heads I will pick…..and tails I will pick……WOOHOO….HOUSTON WE HAVE A WINNER…..

It is a secret ballot of course, so I am unable to disclose my choice in my constituency of British Columbia Southern Interior because I haven’t voted yet…..I live on the West Coast….Think of it….My vote could be the difference maker in this nail bitter of an election……..Have to keep that choice close  to my chest….Don’t want to spoil the suspense and drama of it all….Just saying…..

Signs Harper Is Gearing Up to Declare War on Unions

Posted on by

Tory tweets, convention chatter and looming legislation hint at what may be coming, say labour advocates.

By Tom Sandborn, Today, TheTyee.ca

“Just wrapped up a meeting with several staff members, at midnight. Good thing they’re not unionized!”

Federal Conservative Employment Minister Jason Kenney’s tweet was the object of some derision on social media in the early hours of Nov. 19. Although quickly deleted, the tweet’s sentiment hit a deep nerve for some trade unionists across the country — particularly those already worried about what the federal Conservatives have in mind for labour legislation in Canada.

A set of non-binding resolutions was adopted earlier this month at the federal Conservative party convention in Calgary. The resolutions include a call on government to reduce wage and benefit levels for civil servants. The resolutions also call for stripping unions of the right to use member dues to support social policy campaigns and other expenditures not part of a set of narrowly-defined workplace issues.

The resolutions, in addition to clauses in Bill C-4, the omnibus budget bill currently before Parliament, aren’t merely expressions of Conservative anti-labour sentiment; according to trade unionists and labour advocates, they signal a growing war on Canadian workers.

For one, trade unionists argue because Tony Clement, Conservative cabinet heavyweight and president of the Treasury Board, supported a resolution at the convention that calls for public-sector wage and benefit roll-backs, it suggests that the Harper majority government may be inclined to implement them.

“We’re not here to buy labour peace through caving in to every single public-sector union boss’s demands,” Clement told The Globe and Mail at the Calgary convention. “We’re not here to do that. We’re here to represent the taxpayer.”

Bob Jackson, vice president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, describes Conservative actions on labour as “an all-out declaration of war on unions, coming from the highest levels of the party.” Jackson traveled to Calgary to participate in a union-sponsored demonstration outside the Calgary Stampede Grounds where the convention took place.

“We have never encountered this level of animosity and ill will from the government before,” Jackson said in an interview. “They want to get rid of us and to strip away things we have maintained for decades.”

Fears over labour gain roll backs

Hassan Yussuff, secretary treasurer of the Canadian Labour Congress, shares Jackson’s concerns about a turn to more anti-labour confrontations by the government. Yussuff said he thinks Minister Clement is “fixated” on rolling back gains that organized labour has won over the past half century.

Yussuff expressed particular concern about provisions in Bill C-4, the latest signature government omnibus budget bill, that would strip away rights from public-sector workers to refuse unsafe work. He also raised concerns about Bill C-4’s reduction of independent federal work-site safety inspections.

As well, Yussuff highlighted language in the bill that would allow the government to unilaterally define workers as “essential” during a labour dispute, a definition that has previously been negotiated between the employer and public-sector workers.

This power could conceivably allow government to define workers in a particular job setting as essential, rendering strike action impossible.

Simon Fraser University professor Marjorie Griffin-Cohen is also concerned about the Conservatives’ get tough approach to labour, as evidenced both in the Calgary resolutions and the provisions of Bill C-4. In particular, she said the right of unions to use member dues in social policy campaigns is important.

“If trade unions were not active in encouraging governments to deal in fair ways with labour issues, they would be derelict in their support of labour,” Griffin-Cohen told The Tyee via email.

“Corporate spokespeople, of course, are really objecting to labour uniting on political issues — they would much rather every individual work organization deal with their mighty power all by themselves,” she added.

Resolutions ‘not an attack on labour’: CPC activist

If the Harper government is declaring war on organized labour in Canada, John Mortimer has no apparent objections.

Mortimer, president of the Labour Watch Association and a board member of the Canadian Taxpayers’ Federation, is a prominent spokesperson for Canadian conservatism who ran for Parliament in 2000 for the Canadian Alliance.

“Unionization doesn’t belong in the public sector,” Mortimer said, adding that he does not endorse any specific party because of his role in the taxpayers’ federation.

Mortimer said that Canada is the only country in the world in which unions can collect compulsory dues and spend part of what is collected to campaign on broad social issues like poverty, minimum wage levels and environmental protection.

“Look at what the Canadian Autoworkers did not so long ago. They used auto workers’ dues to bring Saint [David] Suzuki to a meeting to tell the members their industry was ‘disgusting’,” he said. “I have no issue if a union wants to donate to a party or to promote a cause, but they shouldn’t be able to use mandatory dues collected from all of their members to make those donations.”

Vancouver lawyer and Conservative Party activist Scott Lamb, a member of the party’s national council, said there was broad party support at the Calgary convention for the labour-related resolutions. He disagrees with critics who characterize them as a “war.”

“That’s not fair. We are a grassroots party,” he said in an interview. “Those resolutions came from all across the country. They were not an attack on labour.”

The business-friendly Fraser Institute recently weighed in on public sector wages in an April report that suggested public-sector workers have, on average, a 12 per cent better wage level than comparable workers in the private sector, with most of the difference due to the higher level of unionization in the public sector.

The tone of the Institute’s report suggests that it would be better for public employees to have their wages reduced than for private sector workers to earn more in order to address this disparity.

‘Social unionism’ under threat?

Since 1946, after an influential arbitration ruling by Justice Ivan Rand in an auto industry dispute, Canadian labour law has permitted unions to collect dues from all workers in a bargaining unit, whether they choose to join the union or not.

This led to government and the courts allowing unions to use dues not only for narrow job site issues, but also for campaigns, such as the BC Federation of Labour’s long-standing push to increase the minimum wage in British Columbia.

In the early 1990s, for example, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in Lavigne v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union that “the state objectives in compelling the payment of union dues which can be used to assist causes unrelated to collective bargaining are to enable unions to participate in the broader political, economic and social debates in society, and to contribute to democracy in the workplace.

“These objectives are rationally connected to the means chosen to advance them, that is the requirement that all members of a unionized workplace contribute to union coffers without any guarantee as to how their contributions will be used,” the judgment continues. “An opting-out formula could seriously undermine the unions’ financial base and the spirit of solidarity so important to the emotional and symbolic underpinnings of unionism.”

Unionization in the Canadian private sector is down from 30 per cent in 1997, to 18 per cent last year in both Canada and B.C. Public-sector unionization is just over 70 per cent, even after a 4.7 percent reduction in that sector over the same period — a reduction created mainly by the contracting out of public services to for-profit providers whose workers are often not unionized.

If the recent Tory convention resolutions ever make it into Canadian law, trade unionists worry the kind of “social unionism” described in the Lavigne case will become illegal, and union membership could continue to shrink across the country. [Tyee]

What legislation will ‘die’ when Harper prorogues Parliament?

Posted on by
By Kelsey Johnson    
http://thetyee.ca       Published August 19, 2013

Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s decision to ask the Governor General to prorogue Parliament until sometime in October will mark the end of several controversial pieces of legislation.

Under parliamentary rules, 19 government bills will die on the order paper in either the House of Commons or the Senate.

Among the pieces of legislation affected by the impending prorogation are the Senate Reform Act, the Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act, and the Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, all of which have been met with varying degrees of criticism.

Delaying the return of Parliament also means the slates of the various standing committees have been wiped clean. This means the revision of the First Nations Elections Act and the Combating Counterfeit Products Act have been terminated, at least for the time being.

Studies by committee into questions surrounding animal welfare, bee health, infrastructure and the state of Canada lobster industry will also grind to a halt. The rules do not allow committees to sit when Parliament is prorogued.

While the bills have theoretically died on the order paper, the government could make a motion to reintroduce the legislation at the stage it was at before prorogation. In order to do that, however, it must get unanimous consent.

Otherwise, the legislation must begin the process all over again. Since the government has a majority, it is likely the legislation the government wants to reintroduced will be fast-tracked through debate.

As for private member’s bills, they are not affected by prorogation. They will automatically be reintroduced at the last stage reached in the House of Commons via a specific standing order.

Kelsey Johnson reports for iPolitics, where this article first appeared.

The Real Reason Behind Harper’s Annual Arctic Trip

Posted on by

August 18, 2013

By Andrew Chernoff

According to reporter, Michael Den Tandt, Postmedia News, Prime Minister Harper and his Conservative government are planning on staying the course with no intent on turning back on the federal Conservative government agenda. Full steam ahead. Damn the torpedo’s!

In his article, “Stephen Harper uses first speech of northern tour to lambaste oppositions’s dangerous ideas and vacuous thinking’, Tandt writes:

“Prime Minister Stephen Harper used the occasion of his eighth annual Arctic summer tour to deliver a blistering, highly partisan and combative speech in which he defended his record across the board and hammered the opposition relentlessly.”

Was this a good news speech Harper was delivering to the people of the North and the city of Whitehorse? Oh…..wait….it was a speech to Conservative Party supporters at a barbeque for about 200 supporters.

Tandt noted that, “Harper sounded more like a campaigner than a mid-term prime minister on a relaxed visit to one of his favourite regions. “You have trusted us, and we have delivered, despite the Opposition,” he said. Indeed, Harper claimed, the government has delivered on 84 of “more than 100 specific pledges” made in the last election.”

Of course Harper was just a wee tiny bit biased to the Conservative faithful in touting his federal government record.

Are they really “accomplishments” as reporter Bryn Weese , of QMI Agency wrote in his article, “Stephen Harper harkens back to gold rush, slams opposition to kick off northern tour”?

Harper lauded his actions, you know….the negative consequences being felt by 99 per-cent of Canadians; of his policies and the Conservative governments unapologetic support of global threats to Canadian sovereignty and shameless submission to the powerful and filthy rich 1 per-cent.

Anti-union sentiment is rampant with Bills before Parliament that seek to continue eroding what is left of the middle class in this country; trade agreements like CETA and TPP threaten Canada’s autonomy from coast to coast to coast; federal government layoffs threaten access to government; changes to EI seek to add more anxiety and stress to an already high unemployed Canadian population especially amongst young people.

Harper has never known what it feels like to be on welfare. Harper has never known what it is like to go hungry and scrounge for food; Harper has never had to use a food bank; Harper has never known what it is like to live from pay cheque to pay cheque with no savings to speak of or cushion to fall back on if your budget gets hit with a surprise.

Harper has never had to rely on the social safety net like many Canadians have and do.

Harper never has to worry about his defined pension benefit unlike many Canadians who are facing attacks on theirs and being threatened with a defined pension contribution. Parliament has decided their own fate on that subject, whether Canadians like it or not.

The point is, Harper is completely, unapologetically, unequivocally out of touch with the majority of Canadians.

Harper has no empathy or understanding of the reality of the work of nurses, steelworkers, sawmill workers, fisherman, coalminers, janitors, bus drivers, policeman, fire fighters and the rest of Canadians on the front-line like retail and service sector workers. Many Canadians have more than one job, as they struggle to make ends meet with a minimum wage.

When is the last time Harper had to make ends meet with one or more minimum wage jobs? Never!

Harper does not care how his policies are impacting the reality of the majority of Canadians and their families, many of them working in jobs highlighted above.

Harper’s arrogance is too far gone.

He believes his speeches. The speeches are not words to him. The speeches are not spin or hype. To him, the speeches are the truth.

Harper’s personal philosophy and political beliefs are his Bible. To question his integrity and direction is to commit the most unpardonable sin and to take his name in vain, is blasphemous.

Harper spoke of the mining of the North, how it led to the finding of gold over a century ago. But he did not speak of the sweat and toil, the strife and hardship, the impact on the health and well-being of the miners that slaved to extract that gold in harsh, inhumane conditions.

“The North is Canada’s call to greatness. As Conservatives we believe this with a passion… And as Conservatives, we have pledged that northern development will mean northern prosperity,” Harper told his faithful.

Of course Harper is excited about the potential of the North; of course, he believes the North is his…oops….Canada’s,,,, call to greatness.

The North, the Arctic, will be the cherry on Harper’s political legacy: the tapping of the North and Arctic’s economic richness and development of its land and resources are his ultimate goal, in my opinion.

We have seen it with the Alberta tar sands, and his unrelenting pursuit of the development and selling of “dirty oil”. Why should the North and Arctic be any different?

It may provide some northern prosperity, however long, or, short lived it may be, as history has already shown. But the expanded raping and further imperialising of the North and Arctic will provide untold wealth and riches to the 1 per-cent, with only a few crumbs to appease Canadians but many negative consequences because of it.

That is the real reason behind Harper’s annual Arctic summer trips.

Austerity chokes the down-and-out, as Harper and Flaherty look the other way

Posted on by

By Nick Fillmore  August 16, 2013  http://rabble.ca

Austerity chokes the down-and-out, as Harper and Flaherty look the other way

The exceedingly aggressive austerity cuts carried out by Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Finance Minister Jim Flaherty over the past seven years have come home to roost as millions of Canadians, depressed and without hope, are succumbing to its worst consequences.

Program cuts and tax reductions for corporations and the wealthy have had a huge, disproportionate impact on the poor, working poor, underemployed, and those with health problems including mental illness.

The massive austerity program translates into less income, decreased services, and reduced health care for many of Canada’s most vulnerable people. It appears that more than 3.5-million Canadians — mainly the poor, the unemployed/underemployed and the under-privileged — are struggling.

The attacks on the vulnerable began soon after the Conservatives came to power in 2006. They launched cuts that were a broadside attack on the government’s ability to finance many of its activities, including these much-needed employment and social support programs.

Ignoring the needs of Canadians living in desperate conditions, Harper and Flaherty initiated the extremely aggressive austerity program because of their determination to reduce the deficit and cut the size of the federal government. Their decisions were based on their own neo-liberal economic beliefs, not what Canadians needed or wanted.

There are numerous examples of needless, brutal cuts. Claiming it was concerned that some people don’t have enough incentive to work, Harper-Flaherty toughened up the Employment Insurance rules. They took millions of dollars away from mostly seasonal workers, leaving them vulnerable.

Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC), the government department that provides the most hands-on support for the poor, is being cut more than any other department. It will lose 5,700 positions — one-quarter of its workforce by 2016. The largest cut in absolute terms is to the Citizen-Centered Services Program, which helps Canadians access government services by phone and online.

Harper also cut funding to the National Aboriginal Health Organization (NAHO) and to a number of Aboriginal women’s health organizations — crucial programs on suicide prevention, women’s health, and diabetes. They also cut the Women’s Health Contribution Program, which funds six women’s health organizations across the country.

The austerity cutting is based on Harper and Flaherty’s near-fanatical determination to cut the deficit and reduce the size of government. The two unwaveringly believe in neo-liberal economics, which enriches corporations and the wealthy at the expense of the rest of us. We have two people running our country who don’t really believe in government!

Unfortunately, the problems of the less fortunate are not acknowledged in the PMO or Department of Finance. It is much more important that interest rates remain low for the benefit of corporations and the one per cent. A Google search for any Harper or Flaherty comments that express any concern or interest in the problems of the poor comes up empty.

Two moves early on by Harper and Flaherty eliminated the ability of the Conservatives to fund the kind of generous, liberal-minded government Canadians have been used to. First, a two-per-cent cut in the Goods and Service Tax income in Flaherty’s first two budgets cost the government a staggering $10-billion to $12-billion annually in revenues that had been used to help support government services.

In addition, Flaherty has cut $60-billion in corporate taxes since the Conservatives took power in 2006 – needlessly reducing the country’s corporate tax rate to the lowest among G8 countries.

The austerity program and other government cuts have had disastrous consequences for millions of Canadians. There are staggering disparities in life expectancy based on the amount of education a person receives and their amount of education. On average, people living in rich neighbourhoods live an average of 86.3 years, while those living in a poor neighborhood live only 65.5 years — a difference of 21 years.

There is more hunger across the country than ever before. In March, 2012, 882,188 people received food from a food bank in Canada — an increase of 2.4 per cent over 2011 and 31 per cent higher than in 2008, when austerity was being launched.

Children are not spared from the suffering. According to UNICEF’s most recent report, Canada is 21st out of 29 top countries for relative child poverty, and 27th for the percentage that were overweight.

Between the years 2007 and 2011, Statistics Canada reported a 20 per cent rise in people who said their mental health was deteriorating. Mental illness is already the number one cause for disability claims in the workplace. According to the Mental Health Commission of Canada, awards for mental injury at work have dramatically increased in recent years because of pressure placed on workers to produce more during the austerity period.

It’s also likely been an increase in suicides in Canada due to the distress suffered by individuals as a result of the austerity program. Two international researchers, David Stuckler and Sanjay Basu, have documented substantial increases in suicide in several European countries and the United States as a result of austerity cuts. Suicides in Canada increased from 3,512 in 2005 to 3,890 in 2009, which takes in the early part of the austerity period. However, Statistics Canada is three years behind in posting its deaths statistics, so no information is available covering a large period of austerity. But, assuming that Canada is experiencing roughly the same fallout as are Europe and the U.S., it is safe to predict a sizeable increase in suicides here.

Throughout the Conservatives’ seven years in office, independent economists argued that the austerity program was not achieving its stated goal of preparing the country for an economic recovery, but Flaherty refused to budge.

Then in April, the world was shocked when the austerity experiment, which was had destroyed the lives of millions in Europe, was totally discredited. Thomas Herndon, a young University of Massachusetts Amherst graduate student in economics, discovered that an influential paper endorsing austerity practices as a way of rebuilding beleaguered economies was incorrect because of spreadsheet coding errors and selective data.

Amazingly, Flaherty continued with the austerity experiment. “What I worry about is those that suggest that austerity should be abandoned,” he noted. “I think that’s the road to ruin quite frankly.”

So more cuts that will affect the poor the most are on the way. Harper and Flaherty will chop another $11.8 billion from government spending by 2014-15; job losses in both the public and private sectors will be 90,000 by 2014-15; and there will be 1.4 million unemployed workers in the country in 2015.

If Harper and Flaherty really wanted to balance the budget and look after people at the margins, they could work harder to collect the $29 billion the government is owned by the rich and corporations in unpaid taxes.

They also could try harder to find the $3.1-billion that was given to the anti-terrorism program but now cannot be accounted for.

The Council of Canadians says if Harper and Flaherty really wanted to both gradually reduce the deficit and look after the needs of the poor, they could continue to stimulate job growth through needed infrastructure projects (water, transit, green energy, roads, etc.), and reverse corporate tax cuts. Not by suffocating those at the very bottom of the pyramid.

Nick Fillmore is a freelance journalist who worked in many areas with the CBC over nearly 30 years. He is a former member of THIS magazine’s editorial board and was publisher of The 4th Estate, an independent weekly in Nova Scotia, during the 1970s. Fillmore was also a founder of the Canadian Association of Journalists. To see other articles, visit his blog.