CalgaryLiberal

Archive for the ‘Economy’ Category

Conservative Industry Minister Tony Clement might have some issues to resolve. It seems there is a tinge of favouritism for his very own riding of Parry Sound—Muskoka.

Note the following facts:

His riding received the highest amount of infrastructure funding at $35.8 million. His riding has therefore received the highest amount of all northern Ontario ridings, double the average.

The riding of Parry Sound—Muskoka has the second highest number of arena and community centres projects in Ontario at $2.4million).

Parry Sound—Muskoka has the third highest amount of Building Canada Fund community component funding at $25.9million.

Tony Clement nabbed his riding the highest amount of Community Adjustment Funds in Northern Ontario, and 39 million in funding through the G8 Legacy Infrastructure Fund.

Seeing that he is in charge of such funding, and there is a larger portion of the funding is being pushed to his riding, there seems to be an emphasis on supporting this single Conservative riding.

It isn’t like his riding is in more trouble than the rest of the country. His riding’s unemployment is 6.8%, which is almost on par with the rest of the nation. So it is not like the money is directly needed there more than anywhere else in the country.

The first thought in my mind is that the Conservative government is playing political games with the public penny. Seeing that the Tories are not giving a full disclosure of spending there cannot be anything more than just speculation by the citizenry of Canada.

So the Harper government is taxing me, and my family, more now. Along with the working people of Canada.

Issue being, however, is that they’re not calling it a tax. Simply enough, the Conservatives are increasing payroll taxes without mentioning it to anyone. A media release on liberal.ca deals with this:

Stephen Harper has introduced a secret $15-billion payroll tax on employees and employers.

By one estimate, Canadians will see their EI premiums rise by $1264 for the average two income family and $8884 for a small business with 10 employees.

The title of this post is from Dale Orr’s article in Canadian Press from about two days ago. The Canadian Press details this further.

I am not an economist. However, the threat to the Canadian economy over having an election seems to stem from three pathways of thinking: (1) an election would create a situation in which business and consumers could not forecast nor predict the actions of the next elected government thus making economic choices halted or stopped, (2) it’s a waste of money that the government could spend elsewhere, and (3) it threatens the approval certain areas of the stimulus package being sent out on time.

It is in my opinion that all three points are crock.

First of all, the first point is a ghastly attempt at fear mongering. We are not a third world country, and we do not have parties that differ to the extremes on any spectrum. The business community and general consumers can most definitely rely most parties in the Canadian electoral system to engage in fruitful, steady, and clear guidelines for anything that they do. The Liberals have a proven track record of slaying deficits and the debt, in addition to guiding the economy of Canada through turbulent times.

Conservatives, if they attain another minority, will be doomed to continue on their little escapade. They definitely will not get a majority according to the latest EKOS polling. The NDP will never form government. The Communists haven’t had a seat since the 1930s, the Greens sunk their electoral ship when Mays/Dione made their deal, and there aren’t any other contenders that can really provide much a fight in any riding.

There’ll be a steady hand at the keel in any case. Also, if the election swings power to a party that most of the people of Canada like it will increase business and consumer confidence.

The second point is almost a valid claim. The issue is, however, is that the cost of an election to the government (an estimated 250 million by most guesses and Elections Canada did spend $277.8 million on the 2004 general election [including reimbursements to parties, by the way]) pales in comparison to the hundreds of millions of dollars spent by campaigns and businesses on advertising, polls, data companies, printshops everywhere, and software development–all out of the pockets of party members and not the general tax paying population.

In 2008, the groups seeking to be elected paid a lot of money. This went directly into the economy for services. Thing is, however, is that Canadians are not too sure on how much was put into use because of Conservative spending scandals, like the amount set aside to bribe a certain member of parliament. Election Canada, however, reports that the total spent by the Bloc, Cons, NDP, and Liberals in 2008′s election hit a record $55,643,927.6. This ignores all the activities of smaller parties, single-issue groups, and general actions by people who want to impact the election (ei: newspapers selling more papers by having their own polling and debates).

Almost 60 million pumped into the economy by non-government, non-tax payer support initiatives, and then the other economic benefits, puts an serious doubt on the complaint that the cost of an election makes it “not worth it”.

Please note that the spending during an election is immediate, puts cash into the pockets of numerous enterprises, and forces Elections Canada to hire more staff–all of which causes immediate benefit to Canadians seeing that more people will be employed and more money will be put into play.

In addition to the money arguments, the fundamental importance of encouraging and employing our democratic rights should not be impeded by money. An argument against the emancipation (giving the vote to) non-land owning white people, women, blacks, and natives, was this one. It would be too expensive to have elections in which these people would be allowed to vote, supposedly. Well, err, the democratic principle, of every person being given and encouraged to participate in our democracy, trumps the eccentricities and bigotry of yesteryear’s generation.

Cost should not imperil our democratic liberty and freedoms. To say otherwise acknowledges that undemocratic methods are to be encouraged and invoked against citizens of this country. This is a bad.

The third point, the threat of the stimulus not  being put into effect or even put on hold, is also doubtful. As CTV’s interview with TD Bank’s chief economist Don Drummond points out:

… the effect on Ottawa’s $12-billion infrastructure stimulus designed to fight the recession would be minimal (…)

“This would affect only a certain type of infrastructure spending that was coming up for approval, but a lot of it would have already been approved, as the (government) said in their last report,” he pointed out.

“Once it has cabinet approval, the bureaucrats could kick that into action.”

So, again, there is no argument for the election harming the economy. It may, in fact, assist in its recovery. Mr. Harper is incorrect in saying that an election would “screw up” anything. Well, it might screw up his political career, but that’s another topic entirely.