If your gay marriage breaks down, don't think about running with the kids

There's been a potential complication in the struggle of right-wing groups in the United States to stop gay and lesbian marriages and even civil unions. A court in of all places Virginia have said it doesn't matter whether they're illegal in that state; if a couple got united in another state Virginia must still honour that union as being valid and everything that flows from that -- including custody disputes from failed unions. This can only be seen as a huge defeat for the religious right and other socially conservative groups. Many states where the issue has been debated -- such issue mostly pushed by the right = have passed amendments to the state constitutions which not only ban such unions but also prohibit state courts from recognizing unions formed in other states.

Such laws, to be blunt, are a throwback to a time when most Southern States made it illegal for people of different races to marry. They too refused to recognize the legitimacy of interrace marriages from other states, so it was technically against the law for a black-white couple in, say New York, from going on vacation in Florida. The US Supreme Court said nearly forty years ago in Loving v Virginia ruled such laws violated the "Full Faith and Credit" section of the US Constitution. (This was a case where a Virginia couple got married in the District of Columbia, went back to live in Virginia, were arrested and ordered banished from the state for twenty-five years.) Article IV, Section 1 says a state court must recognize as valid a decision implemented by a court in another state. So if an arrest warrant is issued in, say, Kentucky, it's also valid in Tennessee and everywhere else in America. As far as marriage goes, "full faith and credit" means if you're married in one state, you're married in all fifty.

Fast forward to this week. WaPo reports that the Virginia Court of Appeals ordered the state to recognize as valid a child custody order emanating from the breakdown of a civil union in Vermont. The biological mother defied a ruling that said her partner in the failed lesbian partnership had equal rights as a parent and fled to Virginia -- a state which, as noted above, bans gay marriage -- hoping that would give her refuge. It did not, of course; and the court has ruled correctly that not only must the Commonwealth of Virginia force the natural mother to share custody with her former partner, but also the federal kidnappng law is applicable in this case since it makes no distinction between straight or gay parents.

This should serve as a reminder to gay and lesbian couples everywhere: If you want marriage, fine -- but you have to accept the responsibilities that come with it. A gay divorce is the same as a straight-sex divorce and you will not be able to forum shop. No doubt this is bound to be an issue as such marriages break down in Canada and our courts will have to sort out custody issues as well. The laws of equity should dictate in this case everyone gets fair treatment; but what must also be remembered is that the interests of kids from broken marriages must always take precedence over the selfishness of the parents -- regardess of what sex they are.

Vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers.

Remember Bill S-7?

I'm going to try to do something different from many of my fellow bloggers and not talk about what's going on at the Liberal Convention -- until after a new leader is chosen. There is, after all, a whole world out there. There are a few things on my mind, though; and after watching former Vice-President Al Gore last night on Leno promoting the DVD of An Inconvenient Truth, I think we need to remember something the Reform Party did a few years ago that might explain a big part of their current anti-environment agenda today.

The year was 1995. One of the things the Chrétien Administration promised was they'd give private members' bills a greater chance of being heard on the floor. That's a promise that was kept; by my count an average of a half-dozen or so per year were passed over and above the pro forma acts which inevitably do pass regarding changing the name of an electoral district. One of those was a bill presented by the Senate. Bill S-7, which managed to get through both Houses of Parliament and was enacted as Chapter 20 of the 1995 Statutes, committed the federal government to come up with a plan to get the executive branch to use its purchasing power to buy or lease alternate fuel vehicles. The reasoning being, leadership comes from the top and if one creates the market for such fleet purchases, it will drive down the prices for everyone else including consumers.

The target set was 75% of all government and Crown Corporation cars and trucks -- very ambitious but not totally unreasonable. The Liberals were persuaded, as were the NDP, the Bloc and the rump Progressive Conservatives (both of them). Guess who voted against final passage? That's right, the Reform Party.

One can only explain such a vote by presuming the lions' share of political contributions from corporations out West went to Team Manning and the MPs from a party that chose Green as its official colour were bleeding oil and not blood. After all, Alberta but also to a lesser extent the other Western provinces rely on energy royalties and they would not want to been as shooting themselves in the foot by not getting as much money as possible from gas-guzzling vehicles. However, this was a complete about-face for Reform and a total betrayal of their Blue Book promise to be the environmental "conscience" of Canada.

I don't know if the feds ever managed to meet the 75% alternate fuel vehicles target. But I can only imagine what things would be like right now if Stephen Harper had a majority. Kyoto really would be dead in the water. As it stands right now, a pro-Kyoto bill -- also a private members' bill -- is now before the House Environment Committee and has a good chance of getting final approval.

Then I watched Leno last night and saw Gore imitating Schwarzenegger and his promise earlier this year to "get rid of his 'ummer." At least Ahnold did, and he gets it when it comes to the environment and alternate fuels. Why won't the Conservative Party of Canada? To paraphrase Joni Mitchell, we don't know what we have until it's gone forever. And sooner or later the oil will run out.

Vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers.

So they found polonium on planes ... what else?

Late word today was that Polonium-210, the rare element (remember, it's #84 on the periodic table) that killed Alexander Litvinenko, was found on two British Airways planes. This raises the spectre that it was in fact imported illicitly into the UK for the purposes of getting rid of those working against Vladimir Putin from abroad.

Not sure what to make of it, but the fact is that the bi-partisan Freedom House downgraded Russia to a "not free" country quite some time ago, in the same class as Zimbabwe and most Arab states. It just makes me wonder what the Russian Government is trying to prove by endangering the lives of civilians like that, let alone committing murder. It's not like they haven't been up to no good before. From 1962 to 1979, the Soviets beamed what became known the "Moscow Signal" at the US Embassy at levels of radiation far below what the Politburo deemed safe (which, it should be pointed out, was a standard that was also 10,000 times safer than the US safe level) but it was a deliberate attempt to spy on the US Ambassador. At least two, maybe three, who served in Moscow later died from cancer in an operation that might be more commonly known as Project Pandora.

And pretty much every Canadian knows who Igor Guzenko was. His bombshell revelation that the Soviets had been spying on the West for years, even before World War II, sparked the Cold War. Legend has it that the Canadians, worried about having the identity of his family leaked, ran his 1982 funeral down a major expressway so no one could catch them. Even now, spies are regularly rounded up although now the concern isn't so much government intelligence as it is technology transfers of our top corporations.

It's not like our hands are clean either, but at least we're trying to promote a sense of democracy and goodwill. Speaking truth to power is counter to everything Putin believes in. The jig may be up, and I'm wondering if the current detente will degenerate into a new round of sniping and high tensions. Given the situation in the Middle East, we actually need Russia on our side but alienating us won't do anyone any good.

Vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers.

Three things I hope for from Leadership 2006

The Liberal Convention begins today, and for the second time in two years it picks a new nominee for the Prime Ministership of Canada; although this time it won't be automatic, the new leader will actually have to win an election. What will happen over the next four days. I am not in Montréal so will have to rely on the reports of those of my fellow bloggers at ProgBlogs and LibLogs, among ohers, who are on the ground.

There are a few things that I hope will come out of it. First, the campaign really hasn't generated the kind of national spark that some past classic conventions did, such as the 1983 Progressive Conservative battle that saw Joe Clark ousted by Brian Mulroney. So I hope the Liberal Party will emerge not just with a new leader but also a new sense of itself, which it needs desperately after being so rightly hung out to dry by Sponsorgate. We need policies that show us to be pro-business and pro-environment but also differentiate ourselves from the other parties -- and that does include the Greens which can no longer be seen as just a fringe group.

Second, the party has to become more democratic and bottom up. The delegate selection process introduced some time back has made the process more transparent but it still operates as a US style caucus or closed primary. I'm hopeful the party moves to either one member, one vote or some kind of weighted system that gives some power to the regions of the country; but still takes out the ultimate decision away from the party insiders. For, let's face it, it's those ex officios or "superdelegates" who will ultimately decide who leads on the first ballot this Saturday, and maybe wins the entire convention.

Third, we need to come out united and support who wins no matter who he or she is. This is stating the obvious, for sure, but we've seen too many situatons where a party comes out of a convention totally bruised and still at odds. They either lose the coming election, or the winner purges out the runner-up, or the person who comes up short just quits and joins another party. This must not happen now. We need to get rid of Stephen Harper, and we're only as strong as we are united.

Vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers.

Contempt of court finding against co-called "eyeglass dispensary"

One of the stupidest things the current Ontario Liberal Government did was end funding for eye examinations. Fortunately, I still don't have to pay for my biennial exams as I have a standing referral from my general practitioner. But having to pay sixty bucks a pop for an exam has led some people to leave their eyes unchecked for potentially harmful conditions like glaucoma and cataracts -- the latter of which my father had surgery for a couple of years ago.

The law in Ontario stipulates eyeglasses or contact lenses must be dispensed by an optician, after getting a prescription from a physician, optometrist or opthamologist. That ensures a patient gets the right Rx for his or her current condition. Tell that to Bruce Bergez of the Great Glasses chain. He's the only licensed optician in his chain of 17 stores, and has been claiming for the last few years that he can do eye exams using a computer analysis method not recognized anywhere. The College of Optometrists and the College of Opticians both cried foul, and got a restraining order. Bergez refused to comply. So yesterday, Judge David Crane said enough and fined Bergez $1 million, the largest contempt of court fine in Canadian history -- plus $50,000 a day each day he does not get into compliance herein. If he doesn't, he and his wife Joanne who co-owns the chain are going to prison. (PDF of the decision is here.)

In addition, the other day the College of Opticians suspended Bergez' licence and pending a further investigation he may be ordered out of the business all together.

Bergez has said he's going to appeal. Good luck with that, pal.

Frankly, I can't afford laser surgery. And I don't like the idea of contacts, so I'm stuck with my high-index glasses for now. But I've always gone to a reputable chain store, for regardless of the cost I want to make sure it's done right and my spectacles made for me -- as do most people for theirs. I'd rather pay a high price for one pair of quality corrective lenses than peanuts for three pairs that are crap. Bergez should either get with the program or get out of the business. We don't need people playing with other people's emotions claiming they "don't need an eye exam" or they can get one for free.

For his part, Dalton McGuinty should just bite the bullet and start paying for eye exams again. They are medically necessary procedures after all -- and if he had done so all this time we would never have had sleaze like Bergez to put up with. True, he was playing fast and hard by the rules before McGuinty when the restraining order first took effect, but Pointy Head made it worse.

Vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers.

Comments:
(no name)04/12/2006 9:48:32 PM
This cat was doing free exams before deinsurance. He still advertises free exams on his website. He's a lunatic. He takes his inspiration from a film called Boiler Room. He actually makes it mandatory that his staff sits through this film to better understand his motivation.

Eight minutes of ads are enough -- and DON'T mess with time-shifting!

The Canadian networks are at the CRTC right now for yet another round of hearings. This time, they're talking about advertising rules. The nets want more than the twelve minutes per hour of commercials that are currently allowed.

That seems to be fine by the CBC, who has a mandate to broadcast across the country and to do so is forced to run those expensive Low-Power Relay Transmitters (LPRTs) which carry distant signals from far away; and running them eats up a big part of their budget. People up in the Greenstone communities of Beardmore and Geraldtown, for instance, must still wonder why they must put up with news and commercials from CBC Toronto; and who might prefer getting information and community events from a closer regional source -- say, Sault Sainte Marie or Thunder Bay. CBC, which like the other networks are facing massive conversion costs for HDTV, would rather have just 40 transmitters, strategically located in the largest population centres, and have the rest of their viewers get their signals by digital cable or satellite, which most do anyway. That would free up some of their money to actually do quality programs and late local news again -- and with less commercials.

The private networks, however, are crying poverty. They're clobbering CBC and they're still crying poor. Why? Well, for one thing, among those twelve minutes per hour include promotions for upcoming shows, which they say shouldn't count. For another, they say local cable companies don't pay to carry their signals. The CRTC's position has always been that's the price they have to pay -- zero -- in exchange for their preferred positions on the dial, way down. Cable channels, most of which are higher up, charge subscriber fees for being higher up and as a consequence having lower commercial rates and fewer viewers.

It's hard to understand the networks' position. Cable and satellite-only channels have actually been eating away at the networks for years. They've done so because they actually have good shows, not the crap the networks usually put out. I could understand it if, say, the CBC moved to a licensing system like the BBC has -- provided they got rid of commercials all together. But why should we have to pay the networks -- including the CBC, it should be pointed out, which also wants to be paid for carriage -- for signals which are free-to-air? Shouldn't people who don't have cable and get their signals by antenna only, and there are still quite a few of them out there, have to be sent a bill to make things fair, too?

Twelve minutes of commercials is plenty. Matter of fact, it's too much. Things were fine when the rules only allowed for eight minutes, and they should go back to that. And no subscriber fees to them either, at least for the local signals. Not until the CBC moves to licensing, which given the political vagrancies in this country will be never.

There is one other item, however, that could really cause a revolt. The networks are bitching cable and satellite companies aren't compensating them enough for "time shifting." This is a very nifty feature that was introduced to persuade people to switch their analogue service to digital. It allows people to get network affiliates from all five (and a half) time zones in Canada. Not only does this allow us to see our favourite programs when we want (for example, people on the West Coast can actually see Saturday Night Live in prime-time and LIVE), but also to watch local news programs "from away." We think we have problems in Southern Ontario. Wait till you watch the nightly news on CBC Yellowknife. At least one network, CTV, is planning to stop feeding their microwave signals to redistributors if they don't get more money.

That might be something where there could be a compromise, as long as the new carriage fees for out-of-market signals aren't prohibitive. But if they even think Canadians will stand to lose time-shifting, then they don't know what a revolution is.

Vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers.

"Nation" resolution passes; and the race in London North Centre

So it's not just Gerard Kennedy who has a problem with Québec -- or the Québecois -- being called a "nation." Joe Volpe and Ken Dryden, who both actually sit in the House, voted against the resolution tonight (which nonetheless passed overwhelmingly, 266-16). Even more surprising was the resignation of the Intergovernmental Affairs Minister, Michael Chong, who wasn't even consulted by Harper before the resolution was tabled last week.

Meanwhile, all eyes are on London North Centre, with the Liberals running ahead, the Green Party in second place, and -- as I write these words -- Dianne Haskett of the Conservatives trailing quite a bit behind. Regardless of who wins tonight, this must be good news for progressives -- for people are actually looking for an alternative and the Greens appear to be it. While I am a Liberal now and hope to be for quite some time to come, it's not inconceivable anymore that one day a Red-Green coalition could govern Canada. Such pairings have existed in some European countries -- France and Germany, for instance -- and they have provided competent administration. A Cabinet with members from both parties could provide Canada with a government that is both pro-business and pro-environment.

I don't think we've seen the last of Elizabeth May ... which is a good thing. But I also think we haven't seen the last of Haskett either which is ... well, I'll let God be the judge of that one.

Vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers.

NBC makes it official: It's a civil war

The White House is frowning this morning, but at long last at least one of the Big Four US networks is calling a spade a spade. This morning on the Today Show, NBC said the situation in Iraq is definitely a civil war. One of the criteria they used to come to that determination is the fact the insurgency is now self-sustaining. More significant is Gen. Barry McCaffrey's assessment that there are not just two, but three sides to the war and a Baghdad administration that refuses to take sides so as not to alienate any disaffected side -- Sunni, Shi'ite, or Kurds -- and things won't turn around until Prime Minister Nouri al-Malaki actually does make his stand.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out what those of us in the real world have known for nearly four years. Fighting a war isn't just about taking territory, it's also about winning the hearts and minds of people on the ground. Unless you have willing participants who can shepherd the way in, you're only setting up a situation where you don't know who's loyal and who isn't. By contrast, consider the Normandy invasion in 1944. The Allied Forces from Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom were able to succeed in part because there was a well organized resistance in France but who were lying low until they got a coded message on the radio -- beamed from across the English Channel -- that the time had come. True, the casualties were extensive, but the mission succeeded because the Nazis found themselves surrounded.

It's my feeling that notwithstanding American claims about WMD (there were none), or it not being about the oil (of course it was), it's the Americans that took sides. They took a gamble and decided to side with the majority Shi'ites, in spite of the States' history with another country's regime being dominated by that particular sect of Islam (namely, Iran). When the Sunnis started fighting back, the US was trapped and suddenly had to change on the fly to a military occupation force trying to broker a peace between the two sides. Except there was no peace to keep -- in fact, it was impossible to even make the peace.

Sadly, Canada is also caught up in another civil war, the one in Afghanistan. We and the rest of NATO seem incapable of trying to strike the right balance between deterrence, defence and development. Our main focus should be on the third "D" but instead we're so busy helping facilitate the drug trade that the Taliban has gotten their second wind.

NBC got it right and It's time for the rest of the media to get rid of their semantics and tell the truth. When Canada's media refers to the October Crisis of 1970, they say Trudeau "proclaimed the War Measures Act," rather than just saying he imposed martial law. When they talk about the destruction of the Africktown section of Halifax, they talk about it being a demolition when it fact it was ethnic cleansing.

A civil war, by any other name -- including "insurgency" -- is still a civil war.

Vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers.

Kennedy stands out, gets desperate

One has to admire Gerard Kennedy for taking a stand. He says he will not support the upcoming resolution saying that Quebeckers constitute a nation within a united Canada. Given the resolution now has the support of most Liberals, he's probably going to be standing out as being diferent along with a handful of MPs who say they will vote "no" -- but we do need more people, especially in Parliament, to stand on their principles. It's the same reason why I respect people currently in the legislature like Garth Turner and alumni like John Nunziata and Janice Brown.

The Liberal Convention begins in just two days in Montréal, and "Steve" Harper's bombshell announcement last week forced the Liberals to think fast on their feet.

And while I supported Kennedy at the delegate selection for reasons entirely unconnected to the "nation" stance first proposed by Michael Ignatieff earlier this year, one has to wonder how much traction he has left. His French is adequate enough for conversational tête-à-têtes, but it's not good enough for the bureaucratic and commercial French that is essential to getting things done in Ottawa. That may explain his lacklustre support in Québec. If he defies kismet and pulls off a victory, or even if he doesn't, he desperately needs to get into a crash course to get up to speed.

That being said, it takes guts to say what Kennedy has said. We kind of expect the same kind of talk from Trudeau's kids as we have heard the last week. But many associate "Trudeau" with the past. This is the present, and Kennedy may have put his finger on what might end up a tangled mess. Personally I have no problem with the resolution as currently written. But Kennedy may have found his ace in the hole, the chip that may make him kingmaker on a second or third ballot.

On the other hand, some may see it as an act of desperation. Would any potential winner be willing to accept his entreaties and at what price? Or will Kennedy just lead a charge of delegates who walk off the convention floor in disgust? Either way, Saturday's vote is far from certain now.

Vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers.

Why I am not a member of PETA

There was a time when People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals actually did good work in the United States and Canada. Some methods of harvesting animals for food and for fur truly were inhumane and uncompassionate, and they had to be stopped. In the last couple of decades, I've begun to wonder, however. I may have been put off by k.d. lang's infamous "Beef Stinks" commercial that made many people in Alberta want to run her out of town for "treason," real or imagined. But the tactics of PETA have gotten worse and worse and their commercials so bizarre that most stations don't even air them.

This animal rights group is now targeting Nativity scenes. That's right, Nativity scenes. The Associated Press reports PETA sent an e-mail to a Free Methodist congregation in Anchorage, Alaska, asking them not to use live animals in their annual Christmas pageant. The clincher is, they never have. Seems PETA got put off by the church's use of the phrase "living nativity," which to the congregation and its pastor Rev. Jason Armstrong actually means people in character standing in silent tribute to the infant Jesus.

"'No one's come by protesting or thrown bloodstained fur at us or anything,' Armstrong said. "We even use a plastic baby.'"

Truly, the lion shall dwell with the lamb, and a little child shall lead them. (Isaiah 11:6) Unless, of course, they've all been "liberated" by PETA. Give me a break.

Vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers.

Where does politics end and religion begin?

When is it appropriate for a church to get involved in politics? Where does lobbying end, and social advocacy begin? For the most part, Canada's mainline churches (Roman Catholic, Presbyterian, Anglican, United) as well as a majority of the evangelical churches (I include in this group such churches as the Lutherans and the Salvation Army) know where to draw the line -- it's a fine one and ever shifting, but it's almost never crossed. Some don't, believing church and politics should be the same thing, and that's what I want to touch on today.

This weekend, perhaps not too coincidentally when the Western Christian Churches mark the feast of Christ the King, Alberta Progressive Conservatives are participating in the first round of balloting to pick the successor to "King" Ralph Klein. Most people, however, thinks it will be a showdown next weekend between Jim Dinning and Ted Morton. Whoever wins will have to try to rebrand the party as he or she prepares the party for the next provincial election, probably in 2008. And it could be much tougher than before -- although gerrymandering (intentional or not) gives overweight to rural areas the province is no longer a one party fiefdom, with both the Liberals and New Democrats having strong showings in the popular vote last time as well as the far-right Alberta Alliance, which picked up 10% of the vote and a seat in the legislature in Edmonton.

There is, however, a slight complication that could taint the final results. Seems as if our old friends at Lethbridge TV station CJIL (a.k.a. The Miracle Channel), amongst the chief exponents of the Seed of Faith heresy in this country, may be up to some new and dangerous tricks. A couple of weeks ago, Tim Thibault mentioned at his TMC monitoring website (The Miracle Channel Review) that Dick Dewert, who effectively controls TMC, sent out a mailer with this: "For all residents of Alberta, I will be sending an email in the next week regarding how you can be involved in the selection process for Alberta's next premier. Be sure to watch your email for this important information." Among the information, said Thibault, was a membership application for the Alberta PC Party; as well as "links to websites telling people who to vote for."

This could very well be a clear contravention of Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) rules, which allow churches and other registered charities to distribute general information about elections (such as when to vote and who the candidates are), but prohibits them from actually endorsing any one particular party or candidate. Furthermore, if a "voter information guide" is created, it must clearly state how all candidates -- not just the one they favour -- voted or would have voted on issues.

It's bad enough that money intended to keep the channel on the air is being used to send mailers which are blatantly partisan. What's clear to me, however, is that based on the views expressed on the station regarding social issues -- which fall under the convenient header "traditional family values" (meaning barefoot and messy mothers, gays and lesbians in prison, reviving the so-called "rule of thumb") the on-air personalities favour one of two candidates and them alone: Ted Morton or Lyle Olberg, and are hoping their followers in Alberta will vote in like manner.

In Canada, the "rules" have been used to strip some left-wing groups of their tax-free status, such as the Council of Canadians. (They seem to be inconsistently applied, however; Campaign 2000 takes some strong policy positions but is still a registered charity, as is the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.) Few if any churches have faced similar wrath -- maybe because the vast majority do good work in the community; and do so without favour to any group and without condescension towards any group, even the ones they disagree with. Perhaps the fear is by singling out those who go too far, a widespread rumour of "persecution" will spread the land.

Maybe it's time the CRA did. Using reason and sound Biblical principles doesn't seem to persuade TMC to change its ways. Citation after citation from the CRTC doesn't seem to do the trick. Pulling tax-free status over this might. I wouldn't have minded if they had given the addresses and toll-free numbers of all the parties in Alberta. Sending information about memberships in one party alone is way over the line -- no other group in the country would be alowed to even attempt that, and I can only wonder if knowing Stephen Harper is in office is their Blessed Assurance that any further sanctions by either the CRTC or the CRA will be their salvation since the Cabinet can overrule any findings from either.

The MSM is finally starting to catch on to TMC and some of its outlandish methods -- such as this clip from CBC Saskatchewan. It's time the rest of us did and said enough is enough. People of faith in politics, yes. People using their faith to change the course of politics, no.

Vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers.

Flaherty's economic update: Playing the shell game

In my last post, I took to task Jim Flaherty's assertion that he could get rid of Canada's "net debt" in just 15 years, by the end of Fiscal Year (FY) 2022. I'll talk a bit more about that later in this post. First, I have a major problem with the Harper Government suddenly deciding they're no longer going to respect private sector forecasts about economic growth or contraction, which tends to be more conservative (small "c") than what the bean counters at the Finance Department come up with. From now on, it will be pie in the sky, hope for the best. This is just plain nuts. It's the same thinking the Mulroney Administration used and it's why the debt tripled under his watch.

It is true that the previous Liberal government lowballed expectations, over and over again. But that was actually smart thinking. By coming up with a worst case scenario, the executive branch was able to pay the bills. When surpluses helped pay down the debt, we Canadians got a tax break -- not a big one, but modest enough that we had more money in our pockets.

But let's presume that Flaherty is acting on good faith, and his numbers manage to stick. This includes his projection this year's surplus will be double that forecast -- from $3.6 billion to $7.2 billion once the accounts are closed next year. One would hope they do stick, because we're still the only G-7 country running an annual surplus and drawing down the accumulated deficit -- an advantage the States is far from achieving even if it froze spending at current levels today. Based on Flaherty being totally honest about the numbers, I'll go through some of the highlights of the economic statement -- what I like, what I don't.

• The debt-to-GDP ratio, as we understand the term in its current context, is planned to be reduced to 25 percent by FY 2013, one year ahead of schedule. That's a very good thing. At 25%, we would no longer have to rely on foreign borrowing and could finance the debt solely through Canadian sources. It's possible the government would no longer even have to issue Canada Savings Bonds from that time on. It wouldn't quite put us near Australia whose debt-to-GDP ratio is about 16% right now. (We're at 38.3%, at present.) But self-reliance would be a win-win, both for our economy as well as the viewpoint of foreign investors who park their money only if know they're going to get their money back.
• Surpluses will continue to go to debt retirement, whilst interest savings will go towards tax reductions. Big deal. That's what's happening right now -- the devil is in the details of the tax cuts. They should go towards increasing the basic personal exemption, every year. The marriage penalty should also be eliminated -- I'd do it over five years.
• One reason why the surplus is expected to be higher is because the cap on which EI premiums are charged is going up -- $1,000 to $40,000 of employment income -- even as the premiums drop next year; and they're considered part of general revenues. The cap, frozen for the last ten years, will continue to go up with inflation. In the next couple of years, the CPP and RRQ premiums have to be reset and I expect those to go up as well and while they do go into trust funds (and are therefore "off the books") the contributions are deductible and they'll find ways to negate the value of the increased deduction.
• The government proposes a "working income supplement." I touched on this in a post a little while back, but the idea is simply to give low to middle income Canadians more money in their pocket -- either through a monthly cheque or lower withholding taxes, on a sliding scale until they get over the official "poverty line." This could help rebuff the common criticism that tax cuts usually help the more well off. If it gets people off of welfare and back to work and paying taxes, that would be great. The best social program is a job, after all. But if the money amounts to peanuts, then those on social assistance might think they're better off staying there. We won't find out more about this until May -- and that's another thing; we're kind of used to hearing the budget before the start of the fiscal year.
• Reducing the GST by another percent: A giveaway to the rich. Don't even think about it until after debt-to-GDP gets below 25%, which would push it back to 2013 or 2014.
• Cutting the capital gains tax further: Why? They're already below the rates in most of the G-7. It's true more people than ever play the market, but giving wealthier Canadians even more money defeats the purpose of a progressive taxation system which is to redistribute income from richer people to the less well off.

As I mentioned yesterday, the idea of "net debt" is a joke. It's so harebrained it could have came out of Termite Terrace, the Warner Brothers unit where all the Looney Tunes were produced. As the government says in its own papers, net debt includes provincial and territorial debts and unfunded public service pension liabilities, as well as the surpluses in trust accounts such as the CPP and RRQ. Since the public pension plans are doing extremely well as of late -- thanks to mostly prudent investment decisions by the CPP Investment Board and the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, respectively, not to mention an unfunded surplus in EI of about $35 billion, net debt is probably much less than the official figure of 38%. But it's not comparing apples to apples, but apples to oranges.

It's stupid math. It's crooked math. And any accountant would shoot down the concept -- as I hope the Auditor General, Sheila Fraser, will.

What would I do differently is to say that each year Canada commits to reducing its debt-to-GDP ratio by a minimum of one percentage point per year. This is easily achievable -- we've averaged a reduction of about 4.1% per year over the last eight years. (On this count, John McCallum has no right to be as sanctimonious as he was yesterday -- claiming it'll take 161 years to pay off the debt. After all, he's famous for helping to orchestrate the "inverted surplus" -- when the Liberals predicted it would be $1.9 billion in FY 2004, and wound up as being actually $9.1 billion.) But by setting a target of one percent, we allow for recessions and set a more realistic goal of paying off the debt -- the federal accumulated deficit, not "net debt" -- in 38 years. Being totally debt free, however, would make Canada the envy of the world, especially the Americans -- among other things it would allow for a 20% tax cut, right across the board.

I really look forward to the day when we pay less taxes than the Americans. I really do.

One other point: Unless I missed something, there was absolutely nothing about fixing the fiscal imbalance between the national government and the 13 jurisdictions that make up the Canadian federation. This needs addressing as well -- except for Alberta, there are bills that have to paid, and the provinces and territories all bear the brunt of health care costs. People went ballistic a few years back over the infamous "Alberta firewall" letter that Stephen Harper co-signed, but it's gotten to the point where maybe Ontario should be considering withdrawing from the Canada Pension Plan, the maternity benefits portion of EI and collecting its own income taxes -- things which Québec all does for itself already.

The mere threat of losing all that money might be the wakeup call Harper needs to fix equalization for the next generation. It's way past time for the have-not provinces to be lifted out of their quagmires and into the kind of prosperity that people in Ontario and Alberta are accustomed to -- and British Columbia used to be.

Overall grade: C+. It would have been B-, but for Flaherty's new math.

Vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers.

What do they mean by "net debt" anyway?

One of the most convenient ways to try to make a surplus larger or a deficit smaller than it really is, is to "cook the books." This was a perennial complaint of finance ministers at both the federal and provincial levels, who sought to blame their fiscal woes on their predecessors' bad management. To put a stop to this, the Liberals introduced the private sector standard of accrual accounting. This means nothing more than making sure payments and receipts are recorded at the time they are deemed to have happened, not when cash changes hands. For example, when we file a tax return and expect a refund, the refund is charged to the government as of December 31st -- not when it is paid out a few months later; if we have a balance owing it's due immediately even if we post-date the cheque to April 30th. It's based on this method that we have a debt owing of $481 billion as at March 31st of this year, when the 2006 fiscal year ended.

This is prudence at its simplest. What has Jim Flaherty done today? He's thrown all that out and introduced the concept of "net debt." He claims we can pay off the debt in just fifteen years. To do this, he has subtracted the unfunded surpluses in the Canada and Québec Pension Plans and the Employment Insurance Plan, then added back in provincial fiscal debts and unfunded liabilities in the provinces' respective Workers' Compensation Boards and Criminal Injuries Compensation Boards. (For those who are interested, here is the update in PDF format -- I will try to comment on what I like and don't some more tomorrow.)

Is that prudence? No. It's bullshit, plain and simple. As is Flaherty's announcement he cut income taxes earlier this year -- actually, he raised them, a half percentage point on the lowest tier, which hits everyone rich or poor.

There are some positive announcements in today's statement, such as the prospect of a working income supplement to get people off of welfare and up to a minimum income -- sort of a negative income tax. Thing is, that's exactly what the Liberals proposed a year ago. He also seems hell bent on reducing the GST another percentage point when our health, education and welfare systems simply can't afford it.

But the bottom line is, if Flaherty wants to eliminate the debt, he should play by the rules that the private sector plays by. They're called Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and they ensure that a dollar of debt or a dollar of surplus equals a dollar. No more, no less. Raising expectations like he did today is nothing short of irresponsible -- the kind of irresponsibility he showed when he created the private school tax credit in Ontario that was rightly repealed by the provincial Liberals a couple of years later.

Maybe having a snap election now isn't such a bad idea after all.

Vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers.

Why the Power Workers Union is running those ads

Happy Thanksgiving to my American readers.

The last few weeks, there's been a radio campaign going on singing the virtues of clean coal and nuclear power in the province of Ontario. Not from the usual suspects, but from CUPE Local 1000 a.k.a. the Power Workers Union.

Both are necessary evils, and given we're still too reliant on the power of the atom as well as the "dirtier" kind of coal they're going to be with us for some time to come. But one of the ads, where a rock concert suddenly shuts down due to a shortage of power is just plain silly. It's completely dismissive of photovoltaic (solar) and wind power -- even though Ontario Power Generation does use those sources for a small but not insignificant percentage of the total supply.

What this is really all about is where the new nuclear power plants are going to be situated. It's more than obvious that PWU wants it at Nanticoke, a 45 minute drive south of where I live, because Canada's largest coal power plant is already there as well as the infrastructure for transmission lines. It would be nice if they actually admitted their conflict of interest.

Vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers.

Harper: Québec a "nation within a united Canada"

It was quite a political shock, but Stephen Harper -- with backing from Bill Graham and Jack Layton -- introduced a resolution to declare that Québecois are a nation within a united Canada. This was quite deliberate, to undercut a resolution from Gilles Duceppe, the separatist leader in Ottawa, that Québec is a nation, period.

It seems to me that Harper has backed himself into a corner these last few weeks. Not only does he had to explain why he has chucked out the autonomy of MPs to a level of party discipline not seen in years, but also why he betrayed the oil patch with his government's announcements on income trusts. He was rapidly heading for a no-confidence vote and there's no doubt it would have passed -- whether it was a straight up motion or the vote on the Ways and Means Motion dealing with tomorrow's economic statement.

I don't think any of the federalist parties are actually ready for an election -- they need at least until the spring to get organized in a meaningful fashion. So I think what happened today is really a way of buying Steve, Jack and whoever wins the Liberal leadership next week time; time to get ready for what promises to be an even nastier round of hustings than the last one. Two things are pretty obvious to me from this: One, the Cons and the other federalist parties want the Bloc off the political map once and for all and return Parliament to an all-federalist institution. Two, Harper wants a showdown with Michael Ignatieff, who has been pushing the nationhood idea for Québec the most aggressively; so much so that the main contenders for the leadership actually had to sit down this morning to come up with a compromise position.

What is less clear is how it will play out with the people. Since the resolution has no more binding effect than the Nickle Resolution which supposedly prohibits Canadians from accepting honours from Great Britain, people in Québec will probably just give it a shrug and say, "Well, at least they realize what we have been all along," but it probably won't change the dynamic that much in provincal politics. Out West, however, where the Conservatives have their base and are actually "in" after saying for years they wanted "in," they're probably going to ask: "Is this the same Stephen Harper who fought so hard against Meech Lake and Charlottetown? Why has he suddenly become like the old boys, and so fast?"

I wrote a few weeks ago that it was my feeling that all French Canadians, regardless of the province they live in, were the real nation within Canada. But I figure, it probably won't do much harm to just state the obvious here. If the Scots are a nation within the UK, the Basques a nation within Spain, and the Tartars a nation within Russia, then what makes Québec not a nation within Canada? If it undercuts separatism, it's a good thing.

Vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers.