Photo credit www.cat.com.

Yesterday I wrote that Ontario PC Leader Tim Hudak was right to suggest that the McGuinty Government’s tax and related policies were not sending the message that Ontario was open for business. As the header on the Toronto Sun article stated: Ontario business climate pushed Caterpillar out!

Well, it appears that the demands of the CAW and some media coverage of the issues surrounding EMD (Electro-Motive Diesel) and Caterpillar are, even if not deliberately undermining Ontario’s marketability, making sure Ontario stays closed. For example, as Blame Crash wrote in a comment on yesterday’s thread:

“All this fire breathing commentary from the left-wing politician’s, media and unions that is being spewed at Caterpillar and, by extension, all manufacturers and business, is absolutely toxic for the economy. It actually makes it easier for businesses to make the hard decision to pull up stakes and move somewhere a little more hospitable. After all, it’s pretty obvious that they are hated and despised. Same goes for businesses that are thinking about setting up in Ontario.How can these characters not see that? They are blinded by their ideology. They know not what they do.“

However, it is what Andrew Coyne has to say today in the National Post about Caterpillar and EMD that is perhaps the most explosive. Certainly great investigative journalism!

Coyne tells how journalists have allegedly been exaggerating and misleading the public as to the ownership of the company and equipment. (H/T Catherine, a regular reader). Here, for example, is a sampling of what Coyne has written:

“It’s a compelling story – foreigners buy “our” plant, steal “our” technology, and all with our money! Except:

- EMD is not a Canadian company, and never was. Caterpillar bought it from a pair of American private equity firms in 2010; they bought it from General Motors in 2005, who bought it from its Ohio-based founders in 1930. Since 1935 it has been headquartered in La Grange, Ill. The London branch plant was opened in 1950.”

More….. here.

So, why are some people so upset? Is it that the OAS “entitlement” is so untouchable, we can’t face reality? Is that not what we condemned the Greeks and other Europeans for not so long ago? Remember when the Greeks were rioting in the streets over their lost entitlements, we bloggers scratched our heads wondering what was it about affordability or sustainability they didn’t undersand? Well, welcome to our own entitlement awakening. 

But, think about it. In 2011, the first year of the baby boom generation — those born in 1946 – turned sixty-five. Meaning, that for several decades into the future, there are going to be more people retired than working and paying taxes. So, how can we expect our grandchildren and great-granchilden to have a lower standard of living than we had simply because they must pick up the tab for one of the most privileged generations in Canadian history? Well, in my opinion, we shouldn’t.

Remember too, that provinces offer social assistance to seniors in need. Meaning, this is Canada. No senior is going to starve if the OAS age of eligibility is increased. Interesting fact, as I said earlier, age 70 was the age of eligibility for most of the history of the OAS, beginning as early as 1927. For example, this link explains the Ontario plan, which no doubt would have to be adapted if the OAS age of eligibility increased.

Here (for a PDF file on the History of Pensions in Canada) and here are also some quick facts:

(1) The first Old Age Pension Act was passed in 1927 by the William Lyon Mackenzie King Liberal government for seniors who were 70 years of age or older and had resided in Canada for a minimum of 20 years. It was also means tested meaning eligibility was based on financial need. Now, those eligibility criteria would have been very tough. I mean, twenty years in Canada would have eliminated most of the seniors population at that time.

(2) In 1951, under Liberal PM Louis St. Laurent, the Old Age Pension Act was replaced with the Old Age Security Act. Still for seniors aged 70 or older, it became universal in nature in that financial need no longer had to be established. It isn’t clear if the 20 years in Canada expectation still applied or if it was changed to ten years, as it is today.  

(3) “From 1927, Canada had a system of means-tested pensions in effect for British subjects 70 and older who met residence requirements. Not until 1952 was this superseded by a universal pension. Beginning in 1965 the age of eligibility for a universal pension was gradually lowered, reaching 65 years in 1970.” (Source). In other words, the eligibility age of 65 became effective in 1970 — not that long ago.

(4) The Guaranteed Income Supplement, which is income tested, was insituted in 1967, under the direction of Liberal Prime Minister Lester Pearson.

(5) In 1989, under the Brian Mulroney Progressive Conservative government, a clawback of OAS was instituted based on financial need, with the OAS being reduced  by fifteen cents for every dollar that a senior earned over the threshold of $53,215.00. The threshold in 2012 is $66,335.00 – certainly affluence by retirement standards.

(6) In 1996, the Liberal government of Jean Chretien removed OAS universality. What that meant was that the amount of OAS a senior received was pre-determined by the government – with the result that some seniors receive less than others while those who are more affluent receive nothing at all — which remains the current practice.

The crux of the matter is, then, that all things in life change including our entitlements. And, even though I would personally be affected by a change in age of eligibility for the OAS, I know it is going to be the right thing to do.

C/P by Sandy at Crux of the Matter.

The Juggernaut

Mainstream journalist Lawrence Martin refers to the current Conservative majority government and its leader, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, as a “juggernaut” poised to dominate Canadian politics. It’s the second such anti-Conservative rant in only a few days. I wrote about the other instance here.

In this latest column, however, Martin’s allegations of abuse of power can be summed up in his single statement that: “The country is now controlled by one of the most daunting political juggernauts it has seen. ”

Look, given Martin’s record of anti-Conservative writing over the past few years, he obviously believes what he is writing. But, referring to Mr. Harper and his Conservative majority as the most daunting of political juggernauts is simply ignoring Canadian political history.

Posted by Sandy and continued at Crux of the Matter…

Bizarre! It is as though Martin thinks that only Conservatives have an ideology. Well, news flash! Everyone has a world view or ideology, including progressives and liberals (whether small “l” or capital “L” Liberals). Moreover, Martin’s anti-Conservative bias seems to have blinded him as to how government actually works.

For example, riding associations like that found in Liberal MP Irwin Cotler’s constituency, have absolutely nothing to do with the work of Parliament or the levers of power. In fact, it has become obvious that it was polling company staffers who made incorrect claims in their phone calls to Cotler’s constituents, not members of the Conservative caucus or the prime minister.  Do I condone such tactics? Obviously not. Tacky? Yes. But definitely not an abuse of power by the PM or Conservative governing party.

(Posted by Sandy. More at Crux of the Matter…)

Credit SunMedia

Canadians, from coast to coast to coast, should join SunNews and Ezra Levant (twitter.com/ezralevant) and boycott both Chiquita bananas and Avon products. Why? Because both are boycotting individuals or businesses (e.g., transportation or delivery services) who use fossil fuels made with Alberta’s crude oil.

As SunNews writes about the Chiquita boycott, their message has got to represent the worst type of greenwashing possible — particularly since it is based on partial or complete misinformation.

Talk about ignorance. Do the administration of both those multi-national companies not realize that Alberta oil, whether it is crude or refined, is ethical oil, compared to oil that comes out of such dictatorships as Venezuala, Saudia Arabia and Iran? I mean, this is Canada, right? We have democratic and open elections. We have a Charter of Rights. We have a free press. We have free speech. Men and women are considered equal. Moreover, we have an oil industry that is doing something about sustainability and renewal. Here is a page from Suncor, for example.

Yet, Avon, whose company motto is “the company for women,” are not boycotting anyone for using oil from countries who are repressing its people, particularly women — e.g., in Saudia Arabia, women can’t work or can’t drive unless they are accompanied by a male relative. Nor can they show their faces in public! Yet, that kind of middle east oil is somehow greener than that found in Alberta?

Well, it is time that the Alberta Oil Sands stopped being the green scapegoat for the world’s man-caused global warming movement. In reality, it represents minimal CO2 emissions while being a very environmentally responsible sector. It is also the economic engine of Canada, directly and indirectly, supplying tax dollars to fund our equalization programs — money my province of Ontario now needs.

Well, enough is enough. It is time for Canadians to fight back.

Regarding Chiquita:

1. Stop buying Chiquita bananas (try Dole instead);
2. Contact Chiquita asking them to terminate their boycott (link below);
3. Tell the store owner where you do most of your shopping, to no longer use Chiquita products.

Regarding Avon:

1. Boycott all Avon products, be it through buying or direct selling;
2. Contact them asking them to remove their unfair boycott of Alberta oil (e-mail address below).

Because, by making Canada’s oil sands the scapegoat for the world’s need for fossil fuels, these companies are essentially demonizing all Canadians.

Send a message via Chiquita’s contact page here.

Avon’s e-mail address is — hotmail.my@avon.com

Check this Alberta government link for a reliable source of information about the oil sands.

Cross posted by Sandy from Crux of the Matter.

Credit Todd Korol, Reuters Files

Prime Minister Stephen Harper deals with First Nation issues the way he deals with all issues — careful consideration followed by concrete actions.  So, the hysteria by the federal opposition and liberal media about Attawapiskat is not helping anyone, least of all those on the reserve who need help now. 

To begin with, there was the righteous indignation of NDP’s Charlie Angus. At first, he made sense and yes he was correct to bring the matter forward. The Attawapiskat reserve is, after all, in his riding.  But, unfortunately, he went beyond indignation and turned the issue into a political football. 

However, even Angus’ antics for the television cameras pale beside the performance in the House of Commons  by Interim Liberal Leader Bob Rae — who looked like he was about to have a heart attack when he was discussing the matter. Yet, as an Ontarian, I have no memory of his NDP government doing anything for Attawapiskat while he was Premier of Ontario from October 1990 to June 1995.

So, how does PM Harper deal with First Nations issues?

Well, as Kathryn Blaze Carlson writes in today’s National Post, while former PMs Jean Chretien and Paul Martin were well-meaning and shed a few tears for some of the horrible living conditions on so many reserves, it was PM Harper who has actually done something. For example, he was the first Canadian Prime Minister to:

• Stand up in the House of Commons and apologize for the abuse in the Indian Residential School system (as noted in the earlier Harper government accomplishment list, item # 5);
• Endorse the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples;
• Extend the Canadian Human Rights Act to aboriginals living on reserves (Link);
• Appoint two Aboriginals to Cabinet, Peter Penashue and Leona Aglukkaq; (Link) and
• Be named an honourary chief by Alberta’s Blood Tribe (see photo at start of this post).

(More …)

See also related posts — how Attawapiskat Chief is cool to relocating residents and how Grand Chief Shawn Atleo is against a third party manager. It will be interesting to hear what PM Harper can actually do that will improve the situation in Attawapiskat in a way that will be acceptable to those who supposedly speak for that native community. (Sandy)

 Update: Supplies have now reached Attawapiskat!

Ms. Kirsty Duncan (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday the Minister of the Environment stated unequivocally that we do not muzzle our scientists. Yesterday, we were told that Environment Canada scientist Dr. Tarasick was available to speak to responsible media, but the minister’s office has denied access to the National Post, Ottawa Citizen and The Gazette.

If Environment Canada’s ozone scientists are not being muzzled, why have these newspapers been denied access? Does the minister not consider these news organizations to be responsible media?

Ms. Michelle Rempel (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we certainly are proud of the work of our scientists and the contributions they make to protecting Canada’s environment. Ministers speak for the government. That is why we give answers in question period.

“That is why we give answers in question period“?

I am as cognizant as any here that the current government and Prime Minister are not the first, nor will they be the last, to engage in as much message control as they can achieve. The question I believe we need to ask is how much, from the perspective of “we the people“, of this control is too much?

How far can we trust any partisan government we elect to give us the entire message and let us make up our own minds, as opposed to giving us the message they want us to see?

The result of such secrecy is, of course, that the only people who benefit are the teachers accused and later disciplined. Meaning, that the safety and comfort of the students, and the rights of parents, seem to count for nothing. And, as a former teacher and teacher educator, I have to tell you, hearing things like this is very disappointing.

So, how could something like this type of dysfunction happen to an organization that is responsible for the licensing and disciplinary action of the teaching profession, as well as standards of teaching practice? Well, I suspect, it happened very gradually and likely not with the intention of breaking the public trust. But, break the trust they have — in spades!

More at Crux-of-the-Matter…

Of course Hudak is going to have to cut spending. But, the PC “Changebook” makes it clear that the most important services will not be cut. That there will have to be some belt-tightening is simply the reality that is Ontario today. And, since voters are not as gullible as the Liberals obviously think they are,  those of us who are not Liberal supporters know it.

Meaning, whether it is the NDP or the PCs who win a majority government on October 6th, they are going to have to get our financial house in order if we don’t want to look like Greece in very short order. As such, I am not sure I would trust the NDP with that task!

In any event, I can’t help wondering about the wisdom of this current Ontario Liberal ad campaign because all it is doing is reminding people how untrustworthy the McGuinty and his government are.

More at Crux of the Matter…

SPEAKER: PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA[*] OBAMA: Please, everybody, have a seat. Let me first of all just thank Ken and the entire Department of the Interior staff for organizing just an extraordinary conference.

I want to thank my Cabinet members and senior administration officials who participated today. I hear that Dr. Joe Medicine Crow (ph) was around, and so I want to give a shout out to that Congressional Medal of Honor winner. It’s good to see you.

Ah, the dangers of giving shout outs without a teleprompter.  Crow is not a Medal of Honor recipient.  As noted by the Congressional Medal of Honor Society:

The Medal of Honor is the highest award for valor in action against an enemy force which can be bestowed upon an individual serving in the Armed Services of the United States. Generally presented to its recipient by the President of the United States of America in the name of Congress, it is often called the Congressional Medal of Honor.

Crow’s name is not included on the Society’s Medal of Honor recipient list.  He was, however, awarded the Medal of Freedom, the nation’s highest civilian honor, in August.

Obama, often described as “cerebral” by the mainstream media, should know the difference between the Medal of Honor and the Medal of Freedom, especially since he personally awarded the latter to Crow.  Don’t expect his blunder to receive wide coverage.  It’s not something he can blame George Bush for.

[Source]

California

Immigrants from Europe had come to America seeking happiness and a break with their unhappy pasts. But many Americans–from the ’49ers of the Gold Rush to Mark Twain to a young Ronald Reagan–had gone to California to find renewal. California was part of the American frontier, but, as Carey McWilliams points out in California: The Great Exception, it developed outside the framework of the American frontier. It was not an extension of the East or Midwest, but became a state in 1850 before other Western states. It was an island in the sun without Pilgrim winters or windswept prairies. It nourished its own dream of wealth and well-being. It was the American dream all over again, but dreamt within America.

California has fulfilled many of those dreams. It has extended and enhanced the promise of America–from the discovery of gold to the introduction of the movies and television, the aerospace industry, Silicon Valley, and the Central Valley’s giant farms that supply a quarter of America’s food. It has also been a political and cultural vanguard–from John C. Fremont, the first presidential candidate of the anti-slavery Republican Party, to Progressive Governor Hiram Johnson, Socialist Upton Sinclair, old-age-pension agitator Francis Townsend, and down to Richard Nixon, Earl Warren, and Reagan. The New Left staged its first mass protests in Berkeley. Gay rights came out of Los Angeles and San Francisco. And the New Right was spurred by California’s tax revolt and by the backlash against illegal immigration.

[More]

Notes:

John B. Judis is a senior editor of New Republic, where he has worked since 1984. As a visiting scholar at Carnegie, Judis wrote The Folly of Empire: What George W. Bush Could Learn from Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson.

Judis’ articles have appeared in American Prospect, New York Times Magazine, Washington Post, Foreign Affairs, Washington Monthly, American Enterprise, Mother Jones, and Dissent. He has written five books, including The Emerging Democratic Majority (with Ruy Teixeira), The Parodox of American Democracy, and William F. Buckley: Patron Saint of the Conservatives.