Leaving the poor out in the cold - again...

Less than 1% of $1.9-billion social-housing fund spent so far

Less than 1 per cent of a $1.9-billion federal fund for social housing has actually been spent – more than a year after it was announced by the Harper government in the midst of the 2008 election campaign.

[...]

The figures released by Human Resources Minister Diane Finley show the three other funds are also moving slowly.

Only 4.6 per cent of a $1-billion fund to renovate existing social housing units has been spent, while 1.9 per cent of a $400-million fund for low-income seniors' housing is out the door. Only 0.1 per cent of a $75-million construction fund to house people with disabilities has been spent.

The percentages of money actually spent are dramatically lower than the 80- to 90-per-cent figures cited in government-funded Economic Action Plan ads that use terms like “already being implemented.”

Well, that last line is quite the dramatic understatement, isn't it?

These clowns are supposed to be held accountable by the Liberals and their useless report cards. But they know that, even if they get an F, the Libs are too scared to call an election.

So, who loses in the end - again? Certainly not all of those opposition MPs who have nice, cozy places to go home to.

Not to worry though, I'm sure Checky will be on his way soon.

Good thing the Libs voted for the budget!

Hey, with expert money-managers like these Conservatives, why didn't all of the opposition parties vote with them?

If this little trifecta of news stories doesn't convince you that the Cons are competent to handle our money, I just don't know what possibly could:

Feds can't prove their costly green programs work: commissioner

Auditor General's Delayed Report Shows How Gov't. Is Wasting Your Money

Budget overly optimistic about economy, Page says

And, as if the Libs support of the budget wasn't boneheaded enough for you, check out the latest news:

On Thursday, the Liberals served notice that the further deterioration of the economy has them worried that last month's aid package is insufficient. It was only three days ago they kept alive the minority Conservative government – and its stimulus package – by voting for the 2009 budget over the objections of the NDP and Bloc Québécois.

John McCallum, the Liberal finance critic and a senior member of Leader Michael Ignatieff's policy team, told reporters he's worried Ottawa may need to come up with a second stimulus package before Parliament breaks in June.

He said there's growing evidence the economy is worsening beyond expectations and that the amount of stimulus in the Jan. 27 budget is less than advertised.

Gee, maybe you should have done your damn homework before you let Harper dance on your lap.

What's that? The Liberal party isn't ready for an election? New leader and no cash and all of that? Too bad. These are peoples' lives you're screwing around with while you're playing politics. And if you think the Cons give a flying f*ck about the little report cards you've asked them to submit this year, think about how seriously they might be taking your threats every time you look into parliamentary secretary to the minister of finance Ted What, me worry? Menzies' goofy-looking mug each time he gets up to defend the Cons during question period - because that really is just how much they don't care about what Canada needs to do to get through this depression.
 

Cons Will Support Iggy's Report Card Amendment

The Cons, via Josee Verner, have announced in the house that they'll bend over for the soft little slap on the bum to be delivered by Michael Ignatieff. Then they'll get right onto that homework he assigned i.e. those "reports" the Liberals want in exchange for propping up the budget of Steve and his Lying Band of Neocon Misfits.

I'll tell you this: watching the debate in the house with Liberals like Judy Sgro and Paul Szabo justifying this deal Iggy has made and actually shelling out some praise for the budget, it must be (or should be) a wholly embarrassing day to be a Liberal. How Liberal MPs can rationalize this cave without visibly cringing is beyond me. (The NDP's Mulcair did a good job of humiliating them while ripping the Cons a new one in the house in response but one word to that party: will you please stop acting like every public appearance is some sort of campaign stop? You're looking pathetic. Repeating "join us" at every opportunity is just plain annoying.)

The political theatre continues. Good thing that's still free, at least.
 

Ignatieff Puts Harper on Notice; Liberal Party Caves

In true Harvard professorial style, interim Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff announced today that (as predicted) the Liberal government will support the Cons' new throw everything against the wall and see what sticks budget as long as Harper agrees to submit 3 reports while being on probation over the next year. That begs the question: if Steve fails, will he get the strap?

So, what's this really about? Politics as usual.

Delaying a possible election until next year (really - don't expect the Liberals to vote against this government before that time) gives Ignatieff time to be rubber-stamped during the spring convention as the new Liberal leader. If the party had chosen to defeat the government now, Iggy obviously would not have any kind of track record to provide Canadians that might show what kind of PM he would be. If you listened to his press conference or read the transcript, you'll know that he referred to himself much more often that the party - a lot of "I" and very little "we". And if you really paid attention, you caught the fact that he's not all that schooled on parliamentary procedure - preferring to answer those types of questions with political philosophy or using slippery slope faulty logic such as, 'if we propose fiscal amendments to the budget, that process will never end'. Never? Really? C'mon now.

In other words, he needs time to learn what he needs to know to do his job as the leader of a party and as a possible future leader of this country.

As for the opposition coalition, as Jack Layton put it, "Mr Ignatieff has chosen to form a new coalition with Mr Harper." Duceppe called Ignatieff's "absolutely ridiculous" amendment "a smokescreen". Exactly. He's nobody's fool and formally announced, in response to the Liberal party's decision, that the coalition is dead. RIP.

As for the budget, what can you say about a finance minister who lied to the public about an upcoming surplus and who now says that the economy should show a turnaround by July? No one knows when the global economy will show real signs of recovery and the experts I've listened to are predicting possible progress in about 18 months at the earliest. In fact, today the IMF has predicted a "weaker Canadian rebound".

Referring to the IMF's 2010 outlook, Eric Lascelles, chief economics and rates strategist at TD Securities, said it is “the weakest figure we have seen, and it appears that the IMF has revised the Canadian outlook downward by the most of any ‘advanced economy.' “In the Canadian context, what is most noteworthy is that the Bank of Canada and the federal government are of the minority opinion regarding prospects for a short-lived period of weakness in the Canadian economy followed by a strong 2010 rebound,” said Derek Holt and Karen Cordes at Scotia Capital.

Throwing financial crumbs out to a starving public is no way to ensure a solid, timely recovery but that apparently doesn't bother the Liberal party enough to bring down this government. It's politics first. What else is new?
 

Quote du jour: He said what?

From the Shouldn't this guy have been fired already? department:

Senior officials from the Prime Minister's Office have already said the stimulus package would plunge the country into a $64-billion deficit over the next two years.

The massive deficit estimates are a far cry from the slim $800 million surplus predicted by Flaherty for the next fiscal year in his economic update in November.

Memo to Cons: Blame Steve

The (self) righteous indignation of Conservative party supporters is palpable. Heads are exploding all over western Canada. Beware grey matter splatter. Dress appropriately.

Fueled by right-wing radio talk show hosts on stations like Corus Entertainment's QR77 in Calgary, the angry mobs on the airwaves have their virtual torches and pitchforks ready to go while they rail against what they characterize as an attempted "coup d'etat" by the federal opposition parties who've threatened to form a coalition government to bring down the Harper regime.

The funny thing is that radio hosts blowhards like Charles Adler and Roy Green (I'll get to him later) both admit that Steve's decision to gut federal financing of political parties was a mistake - a "weapon", as Adler put it, simply handed to the opposition at a very bad time. Steve seems to have received that message since he announced on Saturday that he's running away from that decision. Typical bully - taunt and taunt and when someone calls you on it, run as fast as you can in the other direction.

As for Green, I'm not a regular listener (thankfully) but I sure let him know that I was listening to his show today after he was absolutely rude, petulant, and childish in the way he treated MP Libby Davies, whom he had invited onto his show as a guest. He battered her with his non-stop anger and refused to give her a chance to answer. When she did manage to get a few words in though, she stayed calm and chided him for his ridiculously emotional behaviour and then went on to try to explain the NDP's viewpoint. Kudos to her.

Green was nowhere as rude to Bob Rae or John Baird (who came onto the show 2 hours late - yes, I listened to his show for 2 hours - the horror). Green was appalled - appalled I tell ya! - at the idea that the Liberals and NDP would get support from the Bloc to bring this coalition to fruition. He continually denied the fact that the Conservative party has repeatedly used the Bloc's support while it's attempted to lead a minority government because it had to. Rae was quick to point that out (as was I in an e-mail to Green). Hypocrisy might be entertaining but it's no substitute for the truth.

So much misdirected anger. Conservative supporters need to take a good, long look at the fact that their party failed to step up to the plate at a moment in time when the economic situation needs immediate action and active solutions. "Wait until Flaherty announces his new budget next year" is not acceptable. If your house was burning down, would you appreciate being put on hold by a 911 operator? No, I didn't think so. And if that 911 operator didn't effectively deal with your situation, wouldn't you want him or her fired? No doubt. Well, guess what? Canada's economy is on fire. And not in a good way. We're dialing 911 and being put on hold.

We know what "taking responsibility" looks like after watching years of Harper in office. It's simple: blame the Liberals. Blame anyone else you can. That's why there's so much right-wing anger out there today. It's so much easier to spew misplaced, red-faced rage than it is to look at your own role in your impending demise. So, be angry. The rest of us will be responsible and rational. Somebody has to be. Maybe we'll even save your house while we're at it.

Related:

G-G would have little choice but to accept coalition, experts say
Harper scrambles to retain power
Flaherty's instinct to cut out of step with world
 

Harper's Secret Bank Bailout Deal

How's this for transparency?

As Canadians go to the polls, the Conservatives have privately told the country's biggest banks they are ready to step in and guarantee new borrowing because of fears financial institutions will be frozen out of international credit markets for "months," according to people familiar with the discussions.

The extraordinary pledge was made behind closed doors after Canada's banks disclosed they were being starved of desperately-needed financing and could not continue to fund normal operations without government help, despite signs of a rebound in stock markets.
[...]
Confirmed on the eve of the election, the implicit public guarantee of private debt by the Conservatives represents a historic departure from free-market principles and signals a profound loss of confidence in the global banking system.

It means Ottawa is prepared to publicly guarantee repayment of any new money banks borrow from each other and from foreign banks, to make sure Canada's financial institutions do not fall behind their peers.
[...]
Stephen Harper, the Conservative leader, is reluctant to officially declare this policy, but is likely to do so if Washington moves first because of the detrimental impact a U.S.-only guarantee could have on Canada's financial institutions.

Before pulling the trigger, the Conservatives first aim to try and meet the funding needs of Bay Street directly by aggressively expanding a scheme to buy up mortgages from banks.

After initially putting up $25 billion of public money to buy mortgages, the Department of Finance is prepared to increase that limit as needed up to $225 billion, at which point the risk of taxpayer losses starts to rise sharply.

After spending weeks trying to reassure Canadians that "the fundamentals of the economy are solid", it's obvious that Stephen Harper has completely misjudged the impact of the global economic meltdown in our country and has lied to us about the state of our financial institutions. The fact that he and his incompetent finance minister Flaherty have chosen to use vague, lofty and nasty rhetoric to fool Canadians into believing that the Conservatives are best suited to handle this crisis is an absolute sham.

Unfortunately, the news of this secret bailout deal comes on a day when we're headed to the polls with virtually no time for fiscal, free market conservatives to examine how this might affect their support of a federal government that is violating, in their estimation, core conservative principles. It's also an insult to swing voters who've moved towards the Conservative party after being told that every other party is bound to destroy our economy.

Just one more slap in the face brought to you by Harper and the Conservatives. Whether this is a necessary move or not is debatable. What isn't, however, is the fact that this has been dropped in our laps on election day by way of leaks to the media.

Related:

Bush Defends Government Bank Investment
 
 

Royal Bank Under Investigation

While Stephen Harper has been crossing the country trying to reassure Canadians that the fundamentals of our economy are solid, insisting as well that our financial institutions are "solid", US regulators have announced that the RBC is under investigation:

U.S. federal enforcement officials are turning their sights to the Royal Bank of Canada as they crack down on financial institutions amid mounting public anger over a plan to bail out banks exposed to the credit crisis at the expense of taxpayers, according to officials.

Canada's largest bank is at the top of the list for enforcement agents at the Securities Exchange Commission who are pursuing financial institutions implicated in the collapse of the $330-billion auction-rate securities market, according to two federal officials.

The collapse of the market in the spring left many Americans unable to access funds they believed would be there for them to pay for short-term needs like college tuition and medical expenses, according to the SEC.

The disclosure is the first time officials at the agency have acknowledged they are preparing a federal enforcement action against RBC, and follows a parallel probe being pursued by state authorities. The pending enforcement action would make RBC one of the first Canadian banks to be called to account for its role in the credit crisis.
[...]
An RBC executive said the bank was working with regulators, and indicated management at the bank's capital markets operations expected to reach a comprehensive settlement with U.S. authorities.

The bank faces an estimated payout of $1 billion based on precedent-setting agreements negotiated with other U.S. and international institutions by state and federal authorities to buy back securities held by individual customers, charities and small businesses, and to reimburse those clients for damages.

RBC is also the target of a class-action law suit from customers of the bank alleging there was mis-selling of the securities pursuant to "top down management directives", according to a filing submitted to in a U.S. District Court by law-firm Girard Gibbs.

Did newly-retired RBC Capital Markets chairman Chuck Winograd see this coming? Is that why he retired?

Ironically, the governor of the Bank of Canada gave a press conference this morning about the state of our economy standing in front of the RBC's logo. Carney, contradicting Sweater Vest Steve's assurances, warned that "any slowdown in the U.S. economy would have consequences for Canada". Well of course it will and, as he noted, it already has.

Related:

Slump will hurt Canada: TD
TSX sinks on commodities
Royal Bank makes bid to clear U.S probe
 

Canadian Election Watch - Day 9

The economy is the hot topic du jour, of course, with the US meltdown and the TSX closing the day at a loss of 500+ points. The Globe & Mail (coincidentally?) takes a look at the economic policies of the Liberals and Conservatives as part of their weekly series identifying various policy differences.

Note: I had written a section here about how anyone should have been able to predict the breach of the economic levees based on fiscally irresponsible conservative/centrist economic policies that historically have not worked and that have harmed Joe and Jane Average Citizen, but Blogger ate that part of my draft so I'm not writing it again. You'll get the drift from the rest of my post though and it did leave this link at the end of that bit intact: Free government cheese? That pretty much sums it up.

Now, back to that G&M article.

Tory cuts to the goods and services tax aside, in recent election campaigns the two parties have differed in the economic bells and whistles, but their general approaches to fiscal policy have been similar. Governments of the past decade have enjoyed healthy surpluses, and could promise new spending, tax cuts and improved transfers to the provinces without worrying much about where the money would come from.

Now, the global economy is on the brink of recession, Canada's economy has stalled and the surplus is slim. Some economists believe a further slide in the price of oil will push Ottawa into deficit for the first time since 1997. Politicians can no longer promise the world - especially if, like both the Tories and the Liberals, they also promise to stay out of the red.

As the economy zooms to the top of the list of public concerns, voters can pick, for the first time in over a decade, between two contrasting visions of how the government should interact with the economy. Well aware of the contrast, the parties intend to make as much political hay as they can.

We've seen the pattern here and in the US: left-leaning governments generally create surpluses (from all of those scary taxes) while the past few decades have seen right-leaning parties squandering them while cutting vital social programs, leaving their huge messes for someone else to clean up. It's become as predictable a cycle and the sun rising and setting.

If you're paying attention to the American election, you'll know that McCain is trying to pretend that his economic policies differ enough from the Bush administration's to make him The Reformer™. The problem with that, of course, is that he buys conservative economic policies in theory (whether he knows it or not since he admits he really doesn't know much about the economy to begin with) and, as much as he'd like to bring his style of change to Washington, he'd be fought tooth and nail every step of the way by the corporate interests and lobby groups that expect something in return for their undying support of the Republican party. I seriously doubt Mr So-called Maverick could stand up enough against the powers that be to make a dent in the status quo. Not that I think Obama stands much of a chance either. His willingness to "compromise" has shown that he can be persuaded to change his mind about basic liberal principles. No matter who wins, it'll either be more centrism or more right-leaning centrism.

As for their Canadian counterparts, we've already seen the ramifications of the broken income trust promise the Conservatives made the last time around. Apparently, they thought they could make up for that loss of billions for Canadians by slashing the GST a tad. A bandaid solution - just as last week's announcement of a diesel tax cut was yet another attempted stop gap measure that will be of little use in the long run.

What can we expect from the Conservatives this time? Witness the spin:

At the heart of the Conservatives' economic thrust is tax reduction. The Tories are campaigning on the GST cut already implemented, as well as their more recent cuts to income and corporate taxes. By kicking off their campaign with the diesel tax announcement, they're suggesting that the plethora of small but targeted tax cuts that worked well for them in the last election will likely figure prominently again.

Tax cuts, they say, have protected the Canadian economy from the U.S. downturn. Some troubled sectors may require direct measures on a short-term basis, but the preference is for permanent tax cuts, explained Jim Flaherty, the Finance Minister and MP running for re-election in Whitby, Ont.

"If we talk about fiscal and tax policy, we approach things in a fundamental, permanent way," he said in an interview. One-time subsidies "thrown at" troubled parts of the economy are often a waste of money, he argued.

"I'm not interested in that sort of ad hoc activity," he said, adding that the millions handed to the auto sector in the days before the election call came from a previously announced fund to spur innovation and does not constitute a subsidy.

Whatever you say there, Jim. Perhaps Mr Flaherty would like to explain why other parts of the manufacturing sector have been treated so brutally by his government. Where's their "innovation" investment? Flaherty and Steve will have a hard time convincing Ontarions and Quebecers that Conservative policies have helped their economic status.

The projected economic sag deepens in the other major cities of central Canada with Ottawa-Gatineau on track to post growth of only 1.8 per cent, its weakest performance in more than a decade, despite strong public-sector employment as the high-tech sector expansion has stalled and construction activity has been weak.

Montreal is expected to suffer its weakest growth in half a decade at 1.7 per cent, as its manufacturing sector struggles despite strength in the aerospace sector, and in its construction and services industries.

Toronto's manufacturing sector is also expected to fall again this year, offsetting solid construction activity and domestic demand, and limiting growth in its giant diversified economy to an anemic 1.3 per cent

Hamilton, meanwhile, will post the weakest growth of the cities covered in the latest outlook at 0.3 per cent, its worst performance since the early 1990s.

While the growth of cities in Western Canada has been outpacing those in the rest of the country most of the this decade, a separate report by a Western-based think-tank also released Monday, raised questions about whether those cities will have the long-term financing to sustain their expansions.

"The future fiscal sustainability of the West's big cities remains in doubt," said Casey Vander Ploeg, author of the report by the Canada West Foundation. "A lot depends on whether or not recently increased provincial and federal support for infrastructure will be sustained over the long-term and whether or not those governments are going to stay in the urban infrastructure game for the duration."

There are huge economic challenges ahead and the Conservatives have yet to prove that their plans will work to suit the changing landscape in this country.

On the other side of the coin we have the Liberals whose biggest obstacle right now is selling their carbon tax idea to the Canadian public. If they can't clearly and succinctly articulate exactly how their plan works - which I don't think they've done so far - they simply won't be able to sell it. The Cons, as they always do, simply cast the Liberals as the "tax and spend" party and for some Canadians, that seems to be enough of a reason not to support them. The philosophy of "tax and spend" however, has certainly not yielded the kind of economic collapse that Conservative (so-called "prudent") policies have wrought. That's where the disconnect lays in the minds of voters who view the word "tax" as evil - who refuse to admit that taxes are necessary to keep the country going. How else would we pay for our infrastructure, education programs, health care and so many other things? And just how does the average Canadian tax payer get ahead when tax cuts are going to corporations? That's the trickle down theory again. Cut them slack and they'll create more jobs unless, that is, they go bankrupt or use creative accounting while discouraging unionization to keep themselves afloat.

Does our tax system need to be reformed? Yes. You can't trust the Cons to do that in any meaningful way for Joe and Jane Average Canadian though and the Liberals need to improve their messaging. This kind of summary is not enough:

At the centre of the Liberals' fiscal proposals is a $15-billion shuffle of taxes and spending in the hopes of tackling global warming, cutting income tax and alleviating poverty at the same time.

Their Green Shift proposal would thrust the federal government's fiscal power into the centre of business operations, by imposing a carbon tax on greenhouse-gas emitters. The plan fully expects corporations to pass along the costs of the tax to consumers. And to help consumers and companies cover the cost, the Liberals would use their carbon-tax revenue to cut personal and corporate income tax.

The plan would likely be the biggest tax reform seen in decades in Canada, economists say.

It's not that I disagree with this plan. It's that I, along with too many others, need to know the direct impact it will have on my life and my economic status (ie. poverty).

The G&M article concludes with a handy summary of the fiscal policies of the two major parties. But, as I've written here before - and as we've seen again and again - what we see on paper often either vanishes or changes completely once the winning party takes over. I do know this, however: I would not trust a Conservative government to handle the current economic slowdown, recession, or whatever you'd like to call it and I'm not convinced that the centrist Liberals will differ enough and as quickly as necessary to really have an impact.

Put me in the "income redistribution" ie. Godless commie column. Something needs to change. We're a rich enough country to pull all of our poor out of poverty. We have absolutely no will to do it though. Since the centrists are so fond of the middle class, you'd think that boosting the poor a notch to actually make it to that economic level would be a winning strategy - a larger tax base with more spending and investment power. As it stands, however, it's just another day in paradise for far too many of us (especially those of us who are chronically ill) - in both countries. Hope? Change? I'm not seeing it.