FROLITICKS

Satirical commentary on Canadian and American current political issues

Bombardier and the Corporate Welfare State are Alive and Well in Canada

The term “corporate welfare” was reportedly invented in 1956 by an American of distinction, Ralph Nader. In the 1972 federal election campaign, the New Democratic Party (NDP) of Canada picked up the term as a major campaign theme.  At the same time, David Lewis, the then leader of the NDP, used the term in the title of his popular book, Louder Voices: The Corporate Welfare Bums. The term is often used to describe a government’s bestowal of money grants, tax breaks, or other special favorable treatment for corporations.

Remember, not long ago in the U.S. and Canada, federal governments provided bailout funds and loans to the auto industry, primarily to Chrysler and General Motors. In addition, Canadian taxpayers reportedly fell about $3.5-billion (Canadian) short of breaking even on the money that the federal and Ontario governments invested in the bailouts of Chrysler and General Motors in 2009.

Now, we have the case of a plan that includes federal and provincial money — a $372.5-million federal loan and $1 billion from the province of Quebec — for the CSeries and Global 7000 aircraft programs of Canada’s Bombardier Corporation. Bombardier is eliminating 14,500 jobs around the world by the end of next year, part of a restructuring plan aimed at helping the company turn itself around. However, as part of a PR disaster, six executive officers decided to give themselves a 50% raise bringing their total salaries to $32.6 million (U.S.) in 2016. Given that Canadian taxpayers are subsidizing the above payments and Bombardier’s planned lay-offs, there was an immediate public outcry against the planned increases in executive compensation. As evidenced over the last 50 years, this was not the first time that Bombardier had received federal and provincial assistance, totaling billions of government dollars.

Despite praising the benefits of free enterprise and the market place, governments of all stripes continue to use taxpayers’ monies to subsidize corporations for political reasons. Conservatives like to preach the benefits of reducing corporate income taxes, referred to as ‘tax expenditures’ in budgets. Governments even subsidize the oil and gas industry through such tax expenditures. Tax expenditures are now a huge part of governments’ budgets, and unlike actual expenditures reduce government revenues that could be used in support of public services and programs, including those directed at the poor and disadvantaged.

As well, a current tax loophole allows people to pay less tax on for income earned on stock options than they do if they are paid in cash. Corporate executives in particular greatly benefit since they receive much of their compensation in the form of stock options. The federal Liberals had pledged to close this tax loophole, but have backed off in their last two budgets. This loophole represents millions of savings for the wealthy and millions in revenue losses for governments. Moreover, the corporate welfare state is alive and well in Canada.

Leave a comment »

Are Canadian Conservatives Regressing in the Face of 21rst Century Human Rights?

There used to be a federal party in Canada called the ‘Progressive Conservative Party’. In addition, between 1987 to 2000 the Reform Party of Canada emerged federally as a right-wing populist political party. This party then merged with the Progressive Conservatives to form the current ‘Conservative Party of Canada’.  Note that they lost the ‘progressive’ portion of the party’s nomenclature.  However, today there are growing concerns about how Canadian conservatives view ‘human rights’ issues, both federally and provincially.

After all, it was John Diefenbaker, as a Conservative prime minister, who in 1960 successfully introduced the Canadian Bill of Rights, the precursor of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  Diefenbaker thought that individuals’ freedoms of religion, press, speech and association were threatened by the state.  He believed that a Bill of Rights was needed to take a “forthright stand against discrimination based on colour, creed or racial origin.”

However, lately there has been a conspicuous trend in the stated views of several conservatives in Canada, as exemplified by the following:

  • Federal conservative leadership candidate Kellie Leitch was seen shaking the hands of a ‘Rise Canada’ senior advisor, who represents an organization that has called for a permanent ban on all Muslim immigrants plus the mass deportation of existing Muslims. Leitch has also pushed for the stricter vetting of potential immigrants/refugees based on so-called ‘Canadian values’.
  • Federal Conservative Party leadership candidate Brad Trost’s campaign is not backing down after controversial comments about his stated discomfort with the idea of people being gay.
  • Federal conservative leadership candidate Kevin O’Leary enjoys severely criticizing the policies and qualities of female provincial premiers such as Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne and Alberta Premier Rachel Notley. He appears to imply that male premiers are more capable leaders, especially when it comes to economic matters.
  •  Ontario provincial Conservative MPP Jack MacLaren was forced to apologize after speaking against the provincial government’s proclaimed “zero tolerance” policy for the sexual abuse of patients by medical professionals.
  •  Jason Kenney, leader of the Progressive Conservative Association of Alberta, stated that Alberta schools should notify parents when their children join a gay-straight alliance club at school. This without fully understanding the nature of such school clubs and the resulting danger of putting some students at real physical and emotional risk.
  • Conservative Senator Lynn Beyak was roundly criticized in Parliament after she shocked other senators by defending those who had worked in the church-run schools, and saying that the residential-school experience had positive aspects for the Indigenous children. This despite the findings of the 7-year national Truth and Reconciliation Commission concluding that the residential school system was a program of assimilation and “cultural genocide.”

Canada is generally recognized for its enviable record for respecting individual human rights, societal tolerance and inclusion of groups and their beliefs, cultural diversity and progressive social policies. The above several incidences are but a few representing an alarming trend regarding conservative thinking and attitudes.  Hopefully, they won’t have to change their federal and provincial parties’ names to ‘Regressive Conservatives’.

Leave a comment »

Does Quasi-Isolationism Really Work?

Who is it that once said? “No man is an island unto himself”.  According to Wikpedia, this originally was a famous line from Devotions upon Emergent Occasions, a 1624 prose work by English poet John Donne.  Moreover, the gist of the saying is that human beings do not thrive well when isolated from others.  One has to ask whether the quasi-isolationism adhered to by Trumpism will really work in the era of globalization?

Since the start of the industrialized age, the world has become an increasingly smaller planet. What affects one region of the world can affect most regions.  Technological advances in communication, transportation, cybernetics, medical fields, agriculture, energies, etc., etc. have brought continents together.  As for trade among countries, years ago it was recognized that there are advantages to having freer trade.  Most economists argue that everyone benefits from promoting freer trade because each country produces or provides cheaper goods and services by creating economies of scale and greater efficiencies in output and costs.  Such freer trade promotion is also supported by numerous international oversight forums which emerged post-World War II.

For some time now, we have lived in a world of commerce involving multi-national corporations operating in several regions. Besides providing greater access to investment capital, technical expertise and business savvy, multi-nationals develop local labour markets and service industries.  To be certain, their primary goal is to increase their profits by taking advantage of local markets, natural resources, cheaper labour and government assistance.  Multi-nationals out the U.S. have greatly benefited from access to overseas markets. Recognizing however that there are also regional socio-economic costs involved — be they environmental, political or social.

Who has certainly benefited from increased trade is the American consumer. Next time that you go to a Walmart or Target, think about the variety and quantity of affordable goods available.  “Buy American” is a nice slogan, but would be an expensive one to act upon.  To effectively compete on the international stage, American businesses have to continue to develop knowledge-based products and services and promote greater innovation wherever possible and cost-effective.  Backing ‘quasi-isolationist’ doctrines will not only backfire economically and politically, but will cause the rest of the world to minimize their trade dealings with the U.S.  Countries have formed more-and-more regional trade blocs and will continue to do so, often out of necessity.  After all, no one can afford to become isolated on an island.

Leave a comment »

A Letter to Precedent Trump

C/O Trump Tower, New York, N.Y., LOL999XOXO

Dear Precedent Trump:

Hi. Big fan here! I think that you are doing a tremendous job.  I don’t read or watch the fake news media which are always totally negative and the enemy of the American people according to your left-hand man Steve Bannon.  Instead, I rely on Brietbart and Fox News which gives us the real insight and alternative facts.  As for all those nasty terrorists, I fully support your ban on Moslums wanting to travel to our wonderful country and do harm.  These are bad dudes and need to be stopped.  Don’t let a bunch of supposed judges stop you.

As for your tweets, please keep them coming. I find them so informative and precedential. It’s important to get information right from the horse’s mouth.  Don’t let those late night TV shows discourage you, because they’re only concerned about ratings.  The American people need to know firsthand what you’re thinking, just like when you were on the ‘Apprentice’.

As for the Washington establishment, keep giving them the boot. Keep the campaign going.  Most good Republicans will continue to back you no matter what.  There are a lot of government agencies that we could do without, like the Environmental Protection Agency, the Labor Department and the Occupational Safety and Health Agency.  They just get in the way of businesses wanting to create good paying American jobs.  Chinese businesses don’t have to put up with all those environmental and health and safety regs.  Oops, that reminds me to fix my made-in-China glasses.

I am fully supportive of enlarging our brave armed forces, especially our ability to nuke other countries. It’s not enough that we already outspend Russia and China for defense by double and triple the amounts. Good for you telling those so-called NATO partners to contribute more to their own defenses.  They’re all a bunch of loafers.  Besides, Russians love you and Putin is really the nicest guy.  Nevertheless, it’s always good to have those nukes in your back pocket, just in case.

As for the planned wall with Mexico, I’m going to adorn it with good old American graffiti. If you need more bodies to patrol the border, I know a few fellows who would be more than happy to help out.  They’ll even bring their military-grade rifles and equipment.  Know what I mean?

Precedent Trump, keep up the terrific work. As we saw from the election, there are millions and millions of Americans behind you, given that you won the popular vote.  Keep on tweeting.

Sincerely, a fan.

Leave a comment »

George W. Bush is an Enigma in Many Ways as a President and a Person

The other day, former president George W. Bush was on the Ellen Show.  He was promoting a book containing portraits of American veterans that he had painted.  Apparently, he took up painting as a past time some five years ago.  Ellen Dejeneres is a friend of the Bush family, including Bush senior.  President Bush stated his admiration for vets, particularly those wounded in battle.  As always, he displayed his known sense of humour during Ellen’s polite interview, noting that historians will inevitably judge his presidency.

Having lived through the period of his presidency, nine-eleven and the invasion and occupation of Iraq, I have mixed feelings about the former president. I remember seeing him standing at the site of the destroyed twin towers in New York, giving warm thanks to first responders and those who aided them. The event was to change the direction of his presidency toward a commitment to wage war on terrorism.  Indeed, this was to be his legacy to the American people.

However, after that tragic event, a number of wrong turns were taken by President Bush and his administration. Remember that this was an administration that included the likes of Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Colin Powell — the first two who were definitely ‘hawks’. Suddenly, the U.S. was to take on the so-called axis of evil, unfortunately including Iraq’s Saddam Hussein. The administration perpetuated the belief that Hussein had ‘weapons of mass destruction’, which of course was never true.  I firmly believe that President Bush was goaded into accepting this assertion by his immediate advisors – despite intelligence to the contrary.  However, no one in the administration had a viable ‘exit’ strategy once the Iraq occupation was over — something even George H. W. Bush had warned his son was a crucial consideration. Following the speedy fall of Hussein’s regime, Bush junior declared ‘mission accomplished’ aboard an American aircraft carrier.  The rest is the sad history of over a decade of American military actions in Iraq, amid corrupt and incompetent Iraqi governments and sectarian fighting among various religious factions. Thousands of Americans and many more Iraqis loss their lives or became refugees during the decade.  Once U.S. forces withdrew from Iraq, this led to the re-emergence of Al Qaeda and eventually the spin-off terrorists who formed the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Otherwise, the whole region became a bigger mess with even more explosive potential among the warring factions.

President Bush was the puppet on a string for a hawkish administration that used American military might for all the wrong reasons. Subsequent presidents have and will have to deal with the consequences of such tragic mistakes.  American troops returned home from Iraq as amputees, many having incurred the loss of limbs, brain trauma, post-traumatic stress disorder, etc. Iraq continues to be embroiled in ugly urban guerrilla warfare, this time involving ISIS. Sorry President Bush, although you may be a somewhat likeable person, the heartbreaking outcome of your administration’s decisions is no laughing matter.  I believe that history will judge it so.

Leave a comment »

Trump is Now Being Called the ‘Blamer-in-Chief’ President

Apparently, former President Harry S. Truman kept a plaque on his White House desk that noted that the “buck stops here”. He was also quoted as saying: “If you can’t convince them; confuse them.” This latter quote appears to be Trump’s primary modus operandi.  As Commander-in-Chief he blames others, including former President Obama, and inanimate objects, like microphones, for problems that he is having or events that took place during the first month of his presidency and during his campaign.

Well, Mr. President, the buck stops with you. You wanted the job, now you’ve got it.  Deal with it.  I know that it’s hard for you — especially being an ‘extreme narcissist’. Blaming others rather than taking responsibility for your actions, including your administration’s mistakes, has a lot to do with narcissism.  In your previous life, you could control and manipulate the tabloids.  However, trying to blame mainstream media won’t work and inventing something referred to as “fake news” doesn’t hold water.  You need to take responsibility for the failure to get the facts right.

I pity your advisors who have to regularly interpret to the Press and the American public just what it is that you have said or have tweeted. It’s gets all very confusing and is not very presidential to say the least.  I suspect that following the recent resignation of your national security adviser, retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, the use of “you’re fired” in the Oval Office will be heard loudly once again. Furthermore, there will be the continuing tendency to blame indiscretions by appointed advisors and Cabinet members on leaks for federal departments and agencies.

Mr. President, you need to get on with the job at hand, that of the nation’s highest elective office, and to stop whining. This is not a TV reality show called the ‘Blame Game’.  This is reality itself.  A president will make mistakes or have problems arise within and under his or her administration, just as a CEO incurs in any business.  Along with the high profile and perks, the president or CEO must accept accountability, whether personally justified or not.  It’s not enough to acknowledge successes, one must also take responsibility for failures.

Leave a comment »

Is There a Difference Between a Failure to Tell the Truth and a Lie?

As a student of the English language, I find that the use of certain phrases and words is becoming somewhat confusing. This is particularly true within the “bafflegab” found in political speeches, government pronouncements and social media.  For example, decorum dictates that one should suggest that the person wasn’t exactly truthful or had misrepresented the truth.  We never imply that the person lied, as lying is considered disreputable in societal terms, except apparently when applied to politicians.

A “fact” is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as “a thing that is indisputably the case”. A “lie” is defined as “an intentionally false statement”.  Usually facts are founded on science-based investigations or the results of thorough studies.  Yet, now we hear about something referred to as “alternative facts”.  I suppose it is O.K. to cherry pick and manipulate the facts if it can be rationalized.  However, wouldn’t such actions border on encouraging “lies”.

Then there is the new phenomenon referred to as “fake news”, which appears to alter facts in order to better reflect one’s preconceived ideas or opinions. Editorialists are known to interpret events and facts to support their views and opinions on issues.  Journalists on the other hand are supposed to base their reporting on the facts as they are known.  How reliable the facts are is in turn based on the dependability and accuracy of their sources.  Thorough fact-finding requirements do not occur in the case of “fake news”, which has increased with the growth of ‘social media’.  Recent studies have shown that about half the population depends on social media for their daily news, including fake news.

We also have individuals who, after being interviewed or speaking, declare that they “misspoke” at the time. Otherwise, they did not mean to say what they said at that time.  This gives the impression that they didn’t think before their mouth uttered certain statements.  Politicians apparently misspeak a lot nowadays.  However, they never lie!  All any of us can do is obtain our information from as many ‘reliable’ sources as possible.  We will then hopefully be in a better position to discern what are facts, lies, opinions or fake news.  Good luck, you’ll need it.

Leave a comment »

Just How Open Is Canada to Accepting Refugees?

In recent months — especially since the start of President Trump’s administration, his travel ban involving seven predominantly-Muslim countries and indications of plans to increase the deportation of illegal immigrants — a substantial number of people have crossed into Canada via the Manitoba and Quebec borders with the U.S. They are doing so in order to claim refugee status, despite having entered the U.S. as refugees or illegal immigrants. A number come from predominantly-Muslim countries such as Somalia. They are crossing at open border points to avoid being turned around at Custom’s land crossings due to the ‘Safe Third Country Agreement’ with the U.S. This agreement has been in effect for more than 12 years.  The agreement’s premise is that the U.S. is a perfectly good place to claim asylum, and people have to apply in which country they arrive in first.  So far, we are not talking about thousands such as is the case in Europe, but hundreds.

Already, there are some Canadian politicians, such as Michelle Rempel and Tony Clement of the federal Conservative Party, who are demanding that the federal government act to stop the flow of people illegally crossing the United States border into Canada. Just how you do this is not easy given the length of the open border!  Unlike President Trump, Canada has no intention of building a wall along the border. The resources necessary to police the entire border are simply not there.  These refugees, including women and children, are not seen as a security threat and normally present themselves to Canadian authorities in order to apply for refugee status.  The easiest way to stop the illegal border crossings is to suspend the Safe Third Country Agreement and allow people to request refugee status at official border crossings without endangering the lives of these people.

Public opinion in the past has been favourable as to the number of refugees coming to Canada. A recent poll by the Angus Reid Institute suggests that close to half of Canadians polled say the government has hit the mark with 40,000 total refugees (Syrian and other nationalities) expected to be entering the country this year. However, 41 percent say that the total is too high in what has become a notable split of opinion.  The reports of an increasing number of refugees crossing into Canada could influence future public opinion on the matter. The above poll also found that one-in-four Canadians believe that this country should have responded to President Trump’s executive order by adopting the same policy – including a temporary ban on Syrian refugees.

While legal immigration is important to Canada, the acceptance of refugees and their numbers is contentious, especially those that come from predominantly-Muslim countries where terrorism is a concern. There is a segment of the Canadian population that wants to restrict their entry and increase security vetting.  Whether or not you agree, there is no question that the refugee issue has become a touchy one.  Hopefully, Canada will not fall into the same illogical and ideological trap that occurred in the U.S.  However, there is little doubt that the question of how open Canada is to accepting more refugees will be severely tested in the coming months.

Leave a comment »

President Trump, Please Keep Your Immigration Ban On

As a Canadian, I’m hoping that the President can keep some form of ban on the entry of people from certain countries. Why?  Simple, it may help Canada to fill a shortage of ‘knowledge workers’ in several industries. Needless-to-say, such a ban will hurt a number of sectors in the U.S.  A Canadian study in 2016 concluded that there will be as many as 182,000 high-paying technology jobs up for grabs in Canada by 2019. However, the country’s school systems aren’t producing enough high technology expertise to fill those positions.  Close to a million people are working in information and communications technology jobs in Canada, and almost half of all technology workers are employed in the professional and technical services industry. They also have a significant showing in health care, the public sector and in manufacturing.

The U.S. is also experiencing shortages of ‘knowledge workers’ in several sectors, forcing companies to recruit and bring in skilled labour from other countries. This includes countries such as the seven predominately Muslim countries listed in the immigration ban.  Let’s consider a couple of facts.  A recent research report by Goldman Sachs estimates that 900,000 to a million H-1B visa holders (highly skilled foreign workers) now reside in the United States, and that they account for up to 13 percent of U.S. technology jobs. Technology giants like Microsoft and Google, among some 97 American companies, have pressed for increases in the annual quotas, saying there are not enough Americans with the skills they need. The high tech sector is only one of several that will suffer because of such restrictions.  Reports are coming out of persons on visas now working in the medical field, university research and financial services.

Several American tech companies already keep satellite offices in Vancouver, British Columbia. A number of these firms are looking into the possibility of expanding their operations in Canada.  Immigration lawyers are reporting a steep uptick in inquiries from foreign-born tech workers worried their U.S. visas may disappear.  Canada is a country that welcomes immigrants with open arms, especially those with much needed skills.  Canadian entrepreneurs also have programs to help Bay Area immigrants and others relocate to Canada, particularly the hundreds of persons on temporary H-1B work visas affected by this temporary travel ban.

Canadian companies, hospitals and universities are not the only organizations ready to capitalize on Trump’s immigration executive order should it remain in place. A number of European firms and organizations are also in the market for ‘knowledge workers’, no matter what their countries of origin. Whether or not one agrees with such a travel ban, there are always those who will benefit from its shortfalls and short-sightedness.  After all, as is the case for trade and commerce, we live and work in a global labour market.

Leave a comment »

Don’t Compare the Position of U.S. President to Canada’s Prime Minister

Recently, there was a poll taken in Canada comparing approval rates by Canadians for President Trump and Prime Minister Trudeau. The poll looked at everything from the handling of policies related to the economy, security, immigration, foreign policy and health care — to name a few. However, such a comparison is really like comparing apples and oranges.  The role of the executive branch in the two governments varies greatly and the constitutional powers are significantly different.

Canada follows the Westminster system based on ‘parliamentary sovereignty’ and ‘responsible government’. The Prime Minister represents the political party with a majority of seats in the House of Commons, and the Cabinet is chosen from among the party’s elected sitting Members of Parliament.  For this reason, the PM depends on the support of his/her party to make policy and to pass laws in Parliament.  The President on the other hand is elected separately and chooses his/her cabinet usually from non-elected persons who support his/her policies.  While the PM sits in Parliament, the President must work to gather support from Congress to implement his/her policies.  The PM must maintain the confidence of the House of Commons to continue to form the government.  Otherwise, loss of a confidence vote in the House would mean that he/she must dissolve Parliament and usually call an election.  Moreover, the PM’s ability to formulate policies is very much dependent on the support of his party in Parliament, thereby limiting the PM’s ability to independently issue executive orders.  The President, unless he/she is impeached, normally resides comfortably for a four-year term.

The President is the civilian Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States. He has the authority to command them to take appropriate military action in the event of a sudden crisis and certain circumstances.  In Canada, the Queen is the head of state, and the Governor General officially represents her in the country.  The Queen is therefore the Commander in Chief, although through the Governor General as her representative.  The PM and the Government is somewhat limited in what military actions can be undertaken without Parliamentary approval, especially where new funding is required.  None-the-less, in domestic or foreign crisis, the PM and the Cabinet can react as needed under certain circumstances.  However, as in the U.S., there can be political consequences and negative electorate reactions to such actions.

Let’s face it, President Trump does not reflect all the views and positions of Republicans in both houses of Congress, especially when it comes to matters of free trade and immigration. Prime Minister Trudeau has no choice but to reflect the majority wishes of his party, which in this case is the governing Liberal Party.  Therefore, to compare the policies of a President and Prime Minister isn’t really a fair comparison, especially when you have a President issuing so many ‘executive statements’ without any direct Congressional involvement.  Furthermore, there appear to be a substantial amount of overt differences of positions between President Trump’s policies and the Republican Party.  Such overt differences could not happen in Canada given the need for Party solidarity to continue governing under the Parliamentary system. Thus, forget any irrelevant comparisons between the two and polls like the one by the National Post.

Leave a comment »