Entries from March 2007 ↓

Thursday morning, Stephane Dion addresssed a packed room of media, MPs and supporters on Parliament Hill, firing what seemed to be his first volley in the looming federal election. MPtv was there, and will soon upload the entire speech and the context of the event for you. In the meantime, this is what Dion told a cheering crowd.

My fellow Liberals, the next two weeks are key. When we return to our ridings in the coming days, we have a lot to talk to Canadians about.

I’m counting on you to explain to Canadians why the Conservative budget is wrong for Canada. It fails to meet the priorities of Canadians – but in doing so, it spends an enormous amount of money.

This government is now the biggest spender in Canadian history.

I gave Canada Clarity. Stephen Harper gave Canada Flaherty. And look at the result. Never before has a Canadian government done so little with so much.

This budget is unfair. This budget is shortsighted. This budget is dishonest. And this budget is divisive. This budget is unfair. It does nothing for students. It does nothing for the poor. It does nothing for Aboriginals.

It does nothing for single working mothers trying to make ends meet. Only people that make more than $30,000 per year can benefit from the Conservative child benefit. Canada’s poorest families get nothing from this budget.

Instead, this budget increases the gap between the haves and have-nots.

To quote the Caledon Institute, the worst part of this budget is what it lacks: “No measures to reduce child poverty, no early childhood education or meaningful national child care, no plans to address real infrastructure needs now, no commitment to tackle the abysmal reality of Aboriginal life in Canada, and no housing program.”

This budget is shortsighted. The government has the responsibility to ask, where do we want Canada to be in ten years, and how do we get there?

In ten years, I want a richer Canada, a fairer Canada, and a greener Canada. To get there, we need to invest in research. We need to invest in education. And we need broad-based tax cuts. This budget does none of that.

Maybe Mr. Harper thinks that the world owes Canada a living. The world economy is becoming tougher and more competitive. The environmental challenges are becoming larger. I want Canada to be on the podium of the sustainable economy. I want to take Canada in the right direction.

Nancy Hughes-Anthony, the president of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce said about the budget, “This government promised to make Canada more competitive, and I think they broke that promise today.”

The Conservatives broke more than one promise on budget day. This budget is dishonest. The Conservatives said they would hold the line on spending. Instead, Jim Flaherty is now the biggest-spending finance minister in Canadian history. He has increased spending by $25 billion over two years – an increase that the Vancouver Board of Trade calls “unsustainable.”

The Conservatives said they would help middle class Canadians. Instead, they raised income taxes, taking an extra $1.4 billion out of Canadians’ paychecks.

The Conservatives promised not to tax income trusts. Mr. Harper made that promise himself. Then he went back on his word – and a million Canadians paid the price. The Liberal income trust plan would soften the blow, and put back some of the money that was ripped out of Canadians’ savings.

This budget is divisive. Jim Flaherty told the House that fiscal disagreements between the federal government and the provinces are over. He was wrong.

Mr. Harper and Mr. Flaherty wrapped themselves in their promise to fix the so-called fiscal imbalance – then failed to define it, and to put a dollar figure on it. They said the issue was done. The Premiers disagree.

Premier Danny Williams called this budget a betrayal. Premier Lorne Calvert called this budget a betrayal. The premiers of New Brunswick and British Columbia said the same. The Premier of Nova Scotia is taking the federal government to court. So much for the end of bickering.

An unfair budget. A shortsighted budget. A dishonest budget. And a divisive budget. Never has a government done so little with so much. Canadians from every province deserve better than this government.

The voters of Quebec certainly deserve better than this government.

Never before has a Canadian Prime Minister tried to interfere with a provincial election in such a manipulative way.

Mr. Harper said that his policy on the federal spending power would depend on how Quebecers chose to cast their ballots. That language was denounced as blackmail by every party in Quebec, and it certainly didn’t help Premier Jean Charest.

The Prime Minister must now explain, to all Canadians, how and why he wants to further limit the role of the federal government. He must explain which powers, which responsibilities, he wants to take away from the federal government. And he must justify it in terms of the public interest – not in terms of blackmail and electoral manipulations.

Canadians in every province deserve better. I will always say the same thing to all Canadians, in both official languages, in every corner of this country: that we need to work together, for a richer Canada, a fairer Canada, and a greener Canada.

Canadians don’t want another election, and the Liberals don’t want an election. But the Prime Minister seems determined to force an election on Canadians.

Millions of dollars spent on negative ads; boot camp for Conservative candidates; sending a spy to follow me around the country. And now, a budget so discriminatory it must have been written by a pollster.

If the Prime Minister wants to force an election on Canadians, so be it. The Liberal Party is ready. Whereas Stephen Harper tries to pick and choose which Canadians deserve help from their government, we’re ready to fight for every Canadian.

Whereas Stephen Harper practices division and manipulation, we’re ready to offer hope, unity, and ideas for the future. Whereas Stephen Harper plays games with the provinces, we’re ready to offer partnership and respect.

Whereas Stephen Harper focuses only on the next election, we’re ready to offer a vision of success for the next generation. We’re ready to build a richer Canada, a fairer Canada, and a greener Canada – for us, for the next generations, and for the role of Canada in the world.

Macleans magazine, writing about this Conservative budget, says that Canada’s future prosperity remains a cause without a leader. With your help, my fellow Liberals, I will be that leader.

Let me make one more point. I am a very determined person. I will fight this coming election, whenever it may come. And I will fight hard.

Canadians will know who I am and what I stand for. And they will know what Mr. Harper’s regime will do to this country. The smallness of ideology. The meanness of spirit. The inability to understand the enormity of Canada’s future.

Canadians deserve better.

I count on you to bring our message to Canadians. We don’t want an election. But if an election comes, it’s an election we’re going to win.

Thank you.

The last in MPtv’s post-election series today, as we bring you more expert analysis on what the heck that surprise result meant in Quebec on Monday night. The question in the House of Commons once again today was the timing of the federal election, in the wake of yet another poll (one a day now), showing the Tories trumping the Liberals by ten points.

So, how much does Mario Dumont’s triumph further PMSH’s plans, if at all? We hear from Laval-area MP Raymonde Folco on this topic, and also on her area of expertise, federal immigration policy.

To view the video, click ici.

Are you disillusioned with politicians? With parties?

Some people are saying this week that the stunning out-of-nowhere ascent of Mario Dumont and the ADQ in Quebec shows voters were looking for somewhere else to park their vote. The guy seems to have attracted federalist and separatist voters, young and old, urban and regional. His candidates were no-name nobodies, and yet in riding after riding they knocked off experienced, respected, name-brand professional politicians and cabinet ministers.

Some people also believe the emergence of Elizabeth May and the Green Party shows just the same thing. From a five per cent national showing in the last election, to a stunning 25% share for May in last November’s by-election, and even talk the vivacious leader may be a part of the next national leaders’ debates.

Some people will never forgive me for joining the federal Liberal caucus after sitting as an indie. They fell in love with the image of a lone wolf MP, prowling the stone corridors, wild and free, untamable even by the Conservatives. They want to believe in a non-party member of Parliament, whose escape from the cage of the political establishment would encourage others to slip their bonds.

Voters today – at least some of them, maybe a lot of them – are not happy with their leaders. Polls show us they do not want majority governments. When it comes to the main federal parties there exists a sense the Liberals, despite a new leader, have not yet atoned enough for past sins. The Conservatives, meanwhile, have proven to be an arrogant, hectoring bunch who break promises and appear not to care. In both cases, a sense of disappointment is being picked up by the pollsters.

Is it a lack of charismatic leadership? Are politicians talking about things people don’t care to hear? Have great expectations for change and renewal and reform been dashed on the rocks of same old, same old? Or, in this Google age of digital empowerment and direct communications, is the process of electing people to represent us just a dying idea?

All of the above, most likely. And the old way of doing things may not be salvageable.

We may be entering the age of romantic notions. Voters, at least a lot of them I’d say, are hungry for a none-of-the-above alternative to politics as usual. It may manifest itself as it did Monday night in Quebec, or last November in the London by-election. It may take form as a new kind of leadership, practiced by a new kind of leader – who consults with people using today’s technologies and opens the doors and windows of Parliament as never before. It could be one of the parties willing to forego the mushy, centrist policies of something for everything, and launches a crusade.

Why can’t we have a flat tax, or proportional representation, or a digital citizen’s assembly, or a green economy, or a guaranteed annual income, or a family tax return, or dignify our first nations, or ban capital taxes, or truly support families, or have property rights or environmental rights or animal rights or investor rights?

Where are the big ideas today? What does Canada stand for? Is this it?

The man or woman who can stride outside of the establishment one day, talk directly to the people and move them to consider achieving the improbable, the noble and the slightly untamed, may find the time is precisely right.

Or, maybe I’m being romantic again.