Welcome

Published
by
admin
on May 31, 2008
in Announcements
. 0 Comments

Welcome to your local Liberal Riding Association.Stephane Dion and Simcoe-Grey Liberal Candidate Andrea Matrosovs

If you would like to help promote the values of a fairer, greener, more prosperous Canada, one dedicated to ensuring the health of our children, our environment and our country into the future, you’ve come to the right place.

The Riding Association is where politics become local. This is where people come together to promote their ideas of what makes, and will make Canada great.

Through participation in the Riding Association you can forward your good ideas to the national level, meet our nations leaders and contribute in a real way to that leadership.

We welcome your interest and enthusiasm, feel free to contact us with any questions, concerns, ideas you might have.

Let me offer Flaherty a bit of free advice

Published
by
Adam
on September 1, 2008
in Arts and Culture, Economy, Finance and Funding
. 0 Comments

The Toronto Star
Mon 01 Sep 2008
Page: AA06
Section: Opinion
Byline: Martin Knelman
Source: Toronto Star

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty has made it clear he plans to ignore my advice.

I had been presumptuous enough to suggest that in light of widespread distress in the cultural community about Ottawa’s series of shocking cuts to arts funding, he should find an excuse to be elsewhere on Thursday, rather than attend opening night of the Toronto International Film Festival at Roy Thomson Hall.

In a letter to the editor of the Star published last week, Flaherty wrote: “I would like to inform Martin Knelman that I plan on attending the Toronto International Film Festival again this year. It is a personal highlight, but more importantly it allows us to showcase some of our best and brightest Canadian filmmakers.”

That is why, he explains, the Harper government is contributing $25 million to the building of the TIFF Group’s new home, the Bell Lightbox, currently under construction at the corner of King and John Sts.

No doubt this show of support from Flaherty, who also happens to be the minister in charge of the GTA, is gratifying. The only trouble is that is in total contradiction to the mood of fear and loathing that has engulfed the entire cultural community of this country over the past few weeks in light of more than $45 million in arbitrary and destructive funding cuts - with hints that more devastation lies ahead - made by this alleged champion of the arts.

Even more alarming, Telefilm Canada, the arm’s-length federal agency which has invested $3.5 million in TIFF’s gala opening movie, Passchendaele, is at risk of losing $15 million in funding for new media. In the circumstances, I would like to inform Flaherty that one of us is delusional - and I don’t think it’s me.

To put the dilemma into terms that film lovers will recognize, the man who controls the nation’s coffers has been giving a long-running, Oscar-worthy performance as Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.

Dr. Jekyll takes credit for increasing the budget of the Canada Council - even though the increase fell far short of what had been put in place by the previous Liberal government, despite a Tory election pledge to honour the Liberal plan.

Dr. Jekyll takes credit for help funding the Bell Lightbox, even though the $25 million in question was committed by the previous government a year before the Harper Tories came to power.

And he waxes eloquent, assuring me: “Our government believes that culture and art are the cornerstone of Canadian society, and should be nurtured and supported.”

It’s lovely to hear such fine sentiments, but in the middle of the night, a scary Mr. Hyde emerges from an Ottawa cellar with an axe and chops millions of dollars that were doing a fine job of nurturing and supporting the arts.

All this happens with no warning, no consultation, and the flimsiest explanation about not wasting taxpayers’ dollars - along with muttering that too much money is going to leftists who presumably don’t share their wholesome family values.

Upshot: Artists across the country feel like mugging victims in a dark alley.

As Karen Kain, artistic director of the National Ballet, noted in a letter to Stephen Harper the other day, recent funding cuts will make it impossible for Canadian dance companies to perform in other countries. So much for showcasing our talent abroad.

Economically, it makes no sense. Ottawa’s $2.3 billion investment in culture brings an economic payoff of over $80 billion (according to the Conference Board of Canada). And presenting our talent abroad enhances this country’s global profile and attracts foreign dollars.

Another senseless cut hacks close to $1 million out of the budget of the Canadian Film Centre - which means less money to train and develop those talented, bright filmmakers showcased for the world at TIFF.

No wonder virtually every arts organization in Canada has condemned the cuts, and 2,500 people turned out in Montreal the other day to protest. No wonder the opposition is demanding a parliamentary review of what strikes many as a war on culture.

Not to worry, Mr. Flaherty. Ignore the fallout and enjoy the film festival.

Martin Knelman’s column on the arts appears every other Monday on this page.

Carbon levies among business tax reforms urged; Conference Board

Published
by
Adam
on September 1, 2008
in British Columbia, Business, Economy and Environment
. 0 Comments

National Post
Thu 28 Aug 2008
Section: Financial Post
Byline: Eric Beauchesne
Dateline: OTTAWA
Source: Canwest News Service

OTTAWA - The federal and provincial governments should accelerate business tax reforms to help Canadian firms be more productive to deal with the strong dollar, the Conference Board argued in a report yesterday.

“Canadian firms are facing two major obstacles in their efforts to compete globally, lagging productivity growth and the strong dollar,” said Glen Hodgson, the think-tank’s chief economist. “Broad business tax reform would help Canadian firms invest in productivity-enhancing machinery and equipment, give companies a competitive advantage in global competition, and encourage investment in leading-edge environmental technologies.”

The reforms should include the introduction of controversial carbon taxes, along the lines of what British Columbia has already introduced and what federal opposition Liberals have proposed, which would not only help reduce greenhouse gases but would provide additional revenues to cover the costs of accelerating tax cuts in other areas, such as corporate income taxes, Mr. Hodgson said in an interview.

“The easiest way to do it, frankly, is by putting a tax on fuel related to the amount of CO2 produced by a litre of gasoline or heating fuel in the home,” he said, noting that the federal Liberal carbon-tax proposal draws upon an earlier conference board recommendation. “Any time you raise the price of something people are going to look for alternatives or ways to become more efficient.

“Green taxes are coming; it’s only a question of when,” he said.

Governments should also introduce an environmental technology investment tax credit, the board said.

“It’s a carrot-and-stick approach,” Mr. Hodgson said, noting that the carbon tax is the stick and the tax credit the carrot to get firms to look for cleaner processes.

Other reforms the board wants to see accelerated include cutting corporate income tax rates to the low end of the range in the Group of Seven major industrial nations to meet the federal government’s target of a combined federal-provincial corporate income tax rate of 25%.

It also urges that provinces that haven’t yet done so eliminate any remaining capital taxes, which are a tax on the assets of a firm and applied whether a company is profitable or not.

Harper is in a fix; The prime minister’s claim that he can ignore his own fixed election date is legally dubious and morally even worse

Published
by
Adam
on September 1, 2008
in Uncategorized
. 0 Comments

The Ottawa Citizen
Thu 28 Aug 2008
Page: A15
Section: News
Byline: Errol P. Mendes
Source: Citizen Special

It now seems almost certain that Stephen Harper will visit the governor general just after Labour Day to seek an early election. This is despite the fixed election date of October 2009 which was established by a law that his own government was eager to pass as a demonstration of political fairness, accountability and transparency. It was also a key Reform party core belief and part of the Conservatives’ 2006 election platform.

He will claim the right to do so on two grounds. First, he will claim that he is legally able to do so despite the law he championed. This is because he will claim the law, which is a minor amendment to the Canada Elections Act, still gives the governor general the right to dissolve Parliament on the advice of the prime minister. Some experts claim that the prime minister would only be bound by a constitutional amendment that entrenches a fixed date for elections. The experts could well be wrong.

Much of the powers of the prime minister and the governor general are governed not by the written Constitution, but by constitutional conventions, including who has the right to dissolve Parliament and call for elections. Constitutional convention gives the prime minister only the right to advise the governor general to call for dissolution of Parliament and thereby trigger an election. The governor general has an uncontested residual power to deny a prime minister’s request for dissolution.

Constitutional conventions can be both entrenched in and overridden by statute law. That is precisely what the Conservatives did when they decided to constrain the conventional power of the prime minister to seek dissolution whenever he smelled political advantage to do so.

However, the fixed election law does not constrain the residual power of the governor general as it expressly stipulates that “Nothing in this section affects the powers of the governor general, including the power to dissolve Parliament at the governor general’s discretion.”

Historical precedent demonstrates that the use of the conventional residual power by the governor general contrary to the advice of the prime minister has the potential to cause political controversy and create trouble for the Crown in Canada. In the 1926 King-Byng affair, governor general Lord Byng refused William Lyon Mackenzie King’s request to dissolve Parliament after losing a confidence vote and called on the Conservative opposition leader Arthur Meighen to form the government. When Meighen could not gain the confidence of the House, Lord Byng granted dissolution of Parliament and Mackenzie King won a majority government, in part by campaigning against the decision of Lord Byng. This precedent, while not a constitutional convention, would present a serious political hurdle for a governor general to refuse to grant the request of a prime minister for dissolution, no matter how contrived.

Even if the fixed elections law does not constrain the governor general’s discretion to grant dissolution of Parliament, one could argue that the law constrains the prime minister’s power to ask for one until October 2009. Hiding under the political constraints of the governor general’s residual power is nevertheless a violation of a statute. Some aggrieved citizen may even consider seeking court action to stop this legally dubious move.

The imminent violation of the fixed elections law is even more distasteful when one considers the second reason for Mr. Harper’s claim to ignore his own law. He claims that he may seek the dissolution because Parliament is dysfunctional and will continue to be so with the next session to start soon after Labour Day.

Ignoring the fact that most of his agenda has passed through Parliament and become law, Mr. Harper and other Conservatives point to the dysfunctional nature of parliamentary committees such as the one examining whether the advertising expenses practices of the Conservatives breached the Elections Act. The parliamentary channel’s coverage of the proceedings has revealed that it was primarily the disruptive antics of the Conservative party members on the committee and the failure of Conservative witnesses to appear before the committee that was the cause of the dysfunction of this committee. The secret, 200-page Conservative guidebook to disrupt and manipulate parliamentary committees — including chairs storming out of meetings — is proof that it is the Conservatives who are orchestrating the dysfunction in Parliament and then blaming it on the opposition parties.

It is as if this Conservative government is convinced that opposition parties have no right to object and oppose policies and practices that they may find repugnant.

There is also the damning logic of Mr. Harper’s own admission that any election will result in another minority government. So why call it now if that is the case? To continue the alleged dysfunctional Parliament with a new minority government at the cost of almost $200 million to the Canadian taxpayer? Or is it to put off more scrutiny on the alleged wrongdoings of the Conservatives that fly in the face of their promise of transparency, honesty and accountability?

If the prime minister does decide to ignore the fixed election date and ask the governor general to dissolve Parliament soon after Labour Day because it is dysfunctional, it would be akin to a person who has blown up his own house asking the rest of us to build him a new one.

If not the rule of law, a most basic sense of political morality should make the prime minister think twice about breaking his own law.

Errol P. Mendes is a professor of international, constitutional and human rights law at the University of Ottawa and editor-in-chief of the National Journal of Constitutional Law.

PM’s political games

Published
by
Adam
on September 1, 2008
in Election
. 0 Comments

The Toronto Star
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Page: AA06
Section: Editorial

Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s arguments for a snap election are both self-serving and specious, and they threaten to undermine his carefully cultivated reputation as a straight shooter.

Harper suggests an election is necessary now because Parliament has become “dysfunctional” due to opposition obstructionism. “The country must have a government that can function during a time of economic uncertainty,” he says.

But what is the evidence that Parliament has ceased to function, given that the Conservative government’s three budgets and virtually all its major pieces of legislation have been passed?

Harper says that he is looking ahead and foresees “an impasse on a range of issues.” But we won’t know if such an impasse actually exists unless and until Parliament resumes sitting on Sept. 15. That now seems most unlikely as Harper is widely expected to call the election next week for Oct. 14 or Oct. 20. Governor General Michaelle Jean has even cancelled her trip to China to be available when Harper calls.

What about the Conservative legislation fixing the election date for October 2009? Harper says that fixed-election dates only really make sense in the context of majority Parliaments, not minorities. Unfortunately, he didn’t tell us that when the legislation was introduced two years ago.

What is really going on here is not that Parliament has become dysfunctional. Rather, it is that Parliament is functioning all too well for the Prime Minister’s liking and doing its job in holding the government to account.

This is especially true on parliamentary committees, which the opposition parties control and are using as vehicles to investigate Conservative wrongdoing, such as the “in-and-out” election financing scheme and the Bernier affair. Harper calls them “kangaroo courts.”

Looking ahead, a parliamentary inquiry into the government’s role in the listeriosis breakout is a near certainty this fall if no election is called.

So Harper is poised to use a loophole in the fixed-election-date law to dissolve Parliament in order to avoid further public scrutiny. A snap election would also put the Conservatives in front of more bad economic news, Julie Couillard’s memoir and the U.S. election. (If the winds of change are blowing south of the border, there may be some spillover effect in Canada.)

Far from a man of probity, this suggests that Harper is more like Jean Chretien, whom he used to castigate for “shameful” manipulation of the political system.

The conveyors of conventional wisdom predict that the voters will not care about the trumped-up excuse for an election once it has begun, and they may be right. After all, Chretien called a snap election in 2000 to take advantage of his opponents’ unpreparedness, and he got away with it.

But it will be a little more difficult for Harper to take the high moral ground in this coming election, as he did so successfully in 2006.

Green Shift can benefit Alberta; Rather than siphoning money out of the province, Liberals’ proposed carbon tax may result in Alberta receiving revenue transfers

Published
by
Adam
on August 27, 2008
in Alberta, Canada, Economy, Environment, Leadership and Tax
. 0 Comments

The Edmonton Journal
Wed 27 Aug 2008
Page: A19
Section: Ideas
Byline: Grant Mitchell
Source: Freelance

The following article by Liberal Senator Grant Mitchell is the first of an occasional series on environmental policy that will appear in these pages in coming weeks in anticipation of a federal election.

On Saturday, Edmonton-Leduc MP James Rajotte, chair of the Commons committee on Industry Science and Technology, will sketch out the Conservatives’ approach to the country’s environmental challenges.

- - -

Stéphane Dion is offering us the kind of politics that we say that we want. He has taken a stand on the Green Shift to deal with the climate-change crisis in a way that no self-serving politician would ever do. He has accorded Canadians and Albertans the level of respect they deserve for their intelligence and thoughtfulness.

The Green Shift premise is this: Let’s stop taxing those things we want to encourage like income and profit, and start taxing those things we must discourage, like greenhouse gases (GHGs).

The money raised from GHGs will be used to reduce income and corporate taxes, create further tax benefits for families, provide additional support for low-income Canadians, and help rural and Northern Canadians meet their particular fuel demands.

Canada’s auditor general will confirm that the shift will be revenue neutral, in an annual audit required by law.

It seems so anachronistic, so 19th-century, to continue to tax income and profit, when there is a far less acceptable output in our economy to tax.

A DAUNTING CHALLENGE

Our policy reflects the severity of the climate-change crisis. If you doubt climate change, just consider the increasingly violent weather events on the news every night; the pictures of melting ice caps and glaciers; the advance of the pine beetle; the melting permafrost in the North; rain in December in Inuvik.

Despite the skeptics, there is unprecedented, peer-reviewed, and international scientific consensus on the conclusion that climate change is occurring and it is caused by human activity.

Those opposed to the Green Shift try to frame the debate as if there are two sets of choices.

First, they imply that there is a choice between doing something and doing nothing; that, if governments do nothing, economic life will go on unchanged. However, apart from the economic havoc that climate change will wreak, even if we do nothing there will be huge economic pressure from a world that believes climate change is occurring, and that will change its market decisions accordingly.

In response to those who say they do not believe climate change, we are not talking religion here; we are talking business.

Recently, the U.S. Congress passed a law that will prohibit U.S. government agencies (like the army) from buying energy products derived from oil that produces more GHGs in its production than conventional oil. Oilsands oil produces three times as much GHG emissions. A conference of big-city U.S. mayors recently passed a resolution calling for the same ban.

For those who think our friendship with the U.S. would prevent this, consider the value of our friendship in the BSE and softwood lumber issues.

Second, those opposed to action imply there is a choice between a party that will do something and one that will do nothing. But that is not the case. There will be a choice between Dion’s Green Shift and Stephen Harper’s cap-and-trade system which the prime minister says will reduce GHGs by 20 per cent of 2006 levels by 2020 — a target that in no way approaches the levels demanded by the science.

The Green Shift may raise costs to consumers, and so will Harper’s cap and trade.

But, the Green Shift will raise money from GHGs, which will be shifted to tax cuts and other payments to help Canadians deal with any cost increases.

MONEY IN CANADIANS’ POCKETS

In the Liberal plan, income taxes will be reduced by 1.5, one and one percentage points on the lowest three income tax brackets respectively.

Families will receive a child tax benefit of $350 per child annually, in addition to existing child benefits, whether or not they pay income taxes. That is a total annual benefit of $1,326 for a family of four with two $50,000 incomes.

A new guaranteed family supplement will provide up to $1,225 to low-income families. Families with incomes up to $26,000, rather than $21,000, will keep all of the national child benefit supplement. The working income tax benefit will be enhanced.

Low-income individuals with disabilities will receive the disability tax credit, even if they pay no income tax.

Rural residents will receive an annual green rural tax credit of $150, even if they pay no income tax. Northern Canadians will receive this $150 too, plus a boost to the northern residents deduction.

The employment tax credit will increase to $1,850, providing an additional $250 to people earning less than $50,000.

Low-income seniors will receive $600 in additional guaranteed income supplement funding.

Small business and corporate taxes will go down by one percentage point. Businesses will be able to write off investments in green technologies faster. The current research and development tax credit will be 25-per-cent refundable.

LITTLE BUREAUCRACY NEEDED

The Green Shift can be implemented right away with little bureaucracy. It introduces incentives to the market, allowing business and consumers to maximize their interests without direct government intervention.

It is argued that there will be a drain from Alberta to the rest of the country. But Alberta may actually have an advantage over other provinces in reducing CO2 emissions because the vast majority of our emissions can be captured from our relatively few oilsands and coal-powered electricity plants. We do not have to develop a multitude of technologies to apply to a multitude of different CO2 emitters. And, Premier Ed Stelmach has announced a $2-billion initiative to finalize the technology to capture oilsands’ CO2 emissions.

When we begin to capture the CO2 from our oilsands plants, suddenly we may well be producing considerably less CO2 than many other provinces, raising the likelihood that Alberta might actually be the recipient of transfers. It is within our capacity to control this ourselves. Industry just needs leadership to “kick-start” the implementation of mitigative measures.

INDUSTRIES ARE TAKING ACTION

Significant industries have already beaten even Canada’s Kyoto target GHG emissions of six per cent below 1990 levels.

The Canadian Petroleum Products Institute member companies, accounting for 80 per cent of Canadian refining, much of which is done in Alberta, have reduced their emissions to 7.5 per cent below 1990 levels, while producing 20 per cent more product.

The Forest Products Association of Canada membership has reduced its carbon footprint to 44 per cent below 1990 levels — seven times Canada’s Kyoto target.

The Canadian Chemical Producers’ Association members have reduced to 56 per cent below 1990 levels, nine times Kyoto. The Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters are at 7.4 per cent below 1990 levels, while increasing productivity by almost 50 per cent.

The Conservatives argue that climate- change initiatives will hurt the economy. Yet, they never say that spending billions of dollars on tanks, helicopters, and military transport planes will hurt the economy.

IT’S BEEN DONE BEFORE

Canadians completely restructured the economy to win the Second World War and that did not hurt the economy. In fact, it built a modern industrialized economy that has sustained one of the best standards of living in the world for the last 60 years.

Attacking climate change will be the next industrial revolution. Continuing to do nothing is what will hurt our economy.

Many major environmental efforts, like dealing with the impact of CFCs on the ozone layer and with acid rain, have encountered dire warnings of economic disaster, lost jobs, an “acid rain recession,” or industries going under. None of this ever happened.

Major environmental initiatives are generally accomplished with much less cost and in much less time than originally anticipated.

There are always reasons why great challenges are resisted. Weak leaders have a litany of them. Great leaders find ways to meet them.

Grant Mitchell was appointed to the Canadian Senate in 2005. He was leader of the Alberta Liberal Party from 1994-1998

Tories’ tactics insult democracy

Published
by
Adam
on August 15, 2008
in Democracy, Government and the Rule of Law, Election and Investigation
. 0 Comments

The Toronto Star
Fri 15 Aug 2008
Page: AA04
Section: Editorial

If history is any guide, the hardball tactics being deployed against a parliamentary committee this month are being carefully choreographed by Conservative party strategists. Doubtless they believe the best defence is a strong offence - no matter how offensive to the precepts of a parliamentary democracy.

By denigrating the parliamentary process, they may hope to distract voters from the substance of Elections Canada’s allegations of co-ordinated spending abuses in the last campaign, in which Conservative headquarters - then as now - was seen to be calling the shots.

But even by the low standards of this dysfunctional minority Parliament, the latest standoff is unprecedented. Not content to hurl insults across the table about allegations of under-the-table dealings, some Conservatives have opted to duck the table entirely.

One after another, Conservative party officials, former candidates and their representatives who were served with notices to testify have snubbed Parliament and left the witness chairs empty. Some say they were told by headquarters to stay away.

Campaign director Doug Finley added his own unique twist by refusing to appear on his scheduled day and demanding to kick off the hearings so he could no doubt deliver a coup de grace. In a performance that would have embarrassed previous Tory leaders who had an underlying respect for the institution, Finley behaved like a juvenile squatter who had to be evicted by the Sargent-at-arms.

This disrespect fits the pattern behind the Conservatives’ so-called “in-and- out” scheme, which pooled untapped advertising spending limits from local ridings so that the national campaign could exceed permissible ceilings by more than $1 million. Elections Canada says $1.3 million was transferred into the local bank accounts of 67 candidates, then sent back to the national campaign.

It was a dubious moral calculation back then. And the party’s latest theatrics may be another miscalculation. By thumbing their noses at Parliament, and aggressively casting aspersions against Elections Canada, the Conservatives are giving voters fresh insights into their modus operandi in the last campaign - and the next one.

Opposition MPs have accused the Conservatives of contempt of Parliament. By turning the committee hearings into a three-ring circus, on a fundamental question of election fairness, the Conservatives are showing their disdain for democracy itself.

The politics of culture

Published
by
Adam
on August 15, 2008
in Arts and Culture
. 0 Comments

The Toronto Star
Thu 14 Aug 2008
Page: AA06
Section: Editorial

The Royal Winnipeg Ballet, the Canadian Museum of Civilization and Toronto-based baroque orchestra Tafelmusik are hardly known as hotbeds of left- wing radicalism.

Yet the Conservative government is spinning its recent decision to axe PromArt - a $4.7 million program that helped promote Canadian culture abroad - as a way to stop subsidizing the frivolous wanderings of well-heeled activists and dilettantes. The targets were “people with narrow ideological agendas or people who are rich celebrities or really very fringe groups,” according to Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s director of communications, Kory Teneycke.

The cause of the government’s sudden dyspepsia appears to be a handful of grants doled out by the foreign affairs department. In a leaked internal document, Gwynne Dyer, who received $3,000 to give lectures on Canadian foreign policy in Cuba, is characterized “a left-wing columnist and author who has plenty of money to travel on his own.” (In fact, Dyer says, he travelled to Cuba at the invitation of the Canadian foreign affairs department, which offered to pay his travel costs.)

Former CBC broadcaster Avi Lewis, who along with his production company was awarded $3,500 to promote a film in Australia and New Zealand, is described as “a general radical.”

Combined with another decision to cancel a Canadian Heritage program that helps arts organizations sell to international markets, the hardball tactics smack of an ideological sop to core Conservative voters who may be deeply suspicious of public funding for the arts.

If the government feels eligibility criteria for this modest effort at cultural diplomacy need to be tightened, it is within its rights to do just that. But by cutting off funding to the many superb artists and cultural institutions that rely on these grants to appear on the world stage, the Conservatives are only showcasing their own philistinism.

‘Left-winger’ stands up for arts funding

Published
by
Adam
on August 14, 2008
in Arts and Culture and International
. 0 Comments

The Toronto Star
Thu 14 Aug 2008
Page: AA08
Section: Opinion
Byline: Avi Lewis

Having worked outside Canada for almost two years, I was surprised that the Prime Minister’s Office was still following my career. But there I was, singled out in a leaked memo, as a “general radical” undeserving of public funding, an “ideological activist” who should never have received money from the government to promote a Canadian documentary at foreign film festivals.

Last week, the Stephen Harper government axed two programs - PromArt and Trade Routes - that helped promote Canadian culture abroad. Also targeted, as grant recipients who would “raise the eyebrows of any typical Canadian,” were “left-wing columnist” Gwynne Dyer, and “wealthy rock star” Tal Bachman, son of Randy.

But make no mistake, these cuts have nothing to do with any of us. By singling us out, the government hopes to obscure what it is really doing: mounting a fundamental attack on arts funding in Canada.

The strategy has certainly succeeded in spinning the story as fuel for AM radio rage, but the real significance of the attack on individuals - the supposed cultural elites - is the window it offers us into the Machiavellian art of killing these small but important government programs.

If you support public funding for the arts, which is a proven economic and cultural stimulus that the vast majority of Canadians embrace, then it’s obvious that you should support those cultural products as they enter a crowded global market.

The government knows this, and knows that if its actions are reported honestly, there will be little support for the cuts. And so, in the middle of a summer when Canadians are having trouble paying for gas, they find a few examples that will enrage their Conservative base (hence the emphasis on Gwynne Dyer going to Cuba and my current work with Al Jazeera English) and use them as political cover. Now they’ve framed the story in terms of who deserves public funding, rather than who supports it - mission accomplished.

My actual experience of the PromArt program says a lot about why it is worth more than the cheap shots being lobbed its way.

In 2005, I was invited to screen The Take, a documentary I directed, at a small film festival in Perth, Australia. It was actually the festival that told me about the program for promoting Canadian culture abroad. Thanks to the program, and the trip that it paid for, I found an Australian distributor.

The film had a successful commercial release on another continent due to a well-timed and modest injection of public funding. So in market terms, it was a no-brainer - the proceeds of the sale went straight to the National Film Board, defraying the public money that had helped to make the film in the first place.

Stoking taxpayer outrage may be politically expedient, but it’s cheap. This is not about who can afford airfare for foreign jaunts - and I was hardly on a vacation - it’s about whether or not we can afford to support our artists abroad. I am among many Canadians who believe we can. And that’s exactly the point of drowning out the policy conversation with a water cooler’s worth of bubbling resentment.

In my case, the most distracting detail is the fact that I now work at Al Jazeera - supposed proof of my radical distance from the Canadian mainstream, and therefore my unworthiness as a grantee.

Yet Al Jazeera English is a widely respected international news network. Launched 18 months ago, it has already garnered a global audience reach of 120 million.

The two programs that have been killed were models of public funding for the arts, which have been crucial in developing our internationally recognized writers, musicians and other artists. The government’s appeal to prejudice is a classic example of how far Canada’s political discourse has drifted from real policy debate.

Avi Lewis is a former CBC broadcaster who hosts Inside U.S.A., a weekly program on Al Jazeera English TV.

The Bernier whitewash

Published
by
Adam
on August 11, 2008
in Investigation and Leadership
. 0 Comments

The Toronto Star
Mon 11 Aug 2008
Section: Editorial

The internal government report on “the Bernier affair” - released quietly over the August long weekend - was essentially a whitewash.

Yes, the report did raise concerns over the “tarnishing (of) Canada’s good reputation” by former foreign affairs minister Maxime Bernier when he left classified documents about an upcoming NATO summit at the home of his then girlfriend, Julie Couillard, a former biker moll.

But the report - prepared by officials in the foreign affairs department - essentially takes Bernier’s side in the sordid affair. That is, it says that he did not know of Couillard’s past until it hit the press and that when he left her home “he was unaware (the secret documents) were no longer in his briefcase. ” The suggestion in the report is that Couillard removed the documents from the briefcase without telling Bernier. (For the record, Couillard’s lawyer has categorically denied this allegation.)

It is unsurprising that the report sides with Bernier because he, his aides and departmental officials were the only ones interviewed. On the advice of her lawyer, Couillard refused to talk.

All the more reason, then, for the parliamentary committee on national security to resume its inquiries into the affair and to summon Bernier, Couillard and others to testify.

The committee is supposed to meet this month to decide on its next steps. But its Conservative chair, Garry Breitkreuz, has shown no inclination to convene that meeting. He is likely taking his cue from Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who has disparaged committee investigations into “scandals that never occurred.”

Fortunately, in a minority Parliament the Prime Minister does not always get the last word. The opposition members of the committee can get together and convene a meeting despite the Conservative chair. In this case, they should not hesitate to do so.