Life in Canada

The Conservative budget in my opinion was not a serious budget at all, and was never intended to be. Instead, it was in my view, craftily designed with an election in mind, to position Stephen Harper in the political center, into Liberal territory, allowing his candidates to enter the campaign as moderates, diligently managing the economy out of recession, helping the poor, helping the elderly, helping cities, helping children take art lessons, helping the Calgary Stampede celebrate its centennial. Of course, the document is more pastiche than an economic program. I Call it the phony budget. Time will tell on Canadians - Conservatives are no-more

Canada could have benefited from some leadership at this point, a confident economic agenda focused on innovation and rebuilding the public finances. This is Canada's fiscal situation: over $30-billion deficit; federal debt now equaling more than a third of national output; and interest on debt charges slated to increase by almost 10 per cent a year. A budget that sought to deal with Canada's spending problem would be a budget worth fighting an election over, one with the potential to clear the stale air in Ottawa and give Canada a majority government.

Instead, Flaherty, the 'Finance' Minister, deferred the tough choices. The budget would actually increase the deficit this year and next year, by $2.2-billion over two years, compared with the status quo. That's largely due to the panoply of electoral goodies Mr. Flaherty would distribute to taxpayers to pay for piano lessons, volunteer firefighters or home contractors who install double-glazed windows (all winners in the various targeted tax giveaways). The added-up cost of these three benefits alone was $650-million over two years; not a huge amount given the scale of Canada's deficit, but not exactly an example of fiscal rectitude either.

On top of these social-engineering efforts, another $730-million was earmarked for two big-ticket items that would help more than one million people in real need: Canada's poorest seniors (through a topped-up Guaranteed Income Supplement) and those who are caring for sick relatives (through a new tax credit). This is surely intended to hurt the Liberals and the NDP. Mr. Harper can now justifiably tell the elderly and their family caregivers that he tried to offer them some relief, but Michael Ignatieff and Jack Layton wouldn't let him.

With another 'immediate rejection of the budget' by opposition parties, Canada is headed for an election, surely the outcome anticipated by Tory strategists. The party is in much better shape than its opponents, organizationally and financially. But the real danger to the government in the resulting campaign might not come so much from the those whom the budget is designed to defeat -- Liberals, NDP and Bloc -- but the possibility that Conservative voters might sit on their hands this time. After years now of witnessing Tory ministers sprinkle tax dollars like fairy dust, you would think there would be some pent-up frustration.

For all the machinations, the crafty budget is not very compelling to me even as a political document, and is unlikely to set the narrative for the campaign. By leaving the key spending questions of the government unaddressed in the budget, they cannot be simply wished away. Information on expected cost increases in the F-35 fighter jet and prison-building programs, well documented by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, is nowhere in sight, but will not presumably be forgotten by the opposition parties, or voters. And where is the government's plan for the fiscal impact of a new health-care deal with the provinces? For that matter, where will they find, as promised, another $11-billion in savings, to be achieved over four years?

Mr. Flaherty could have changed a life time habit and chosen boldness – a path that put fiscal sustainability, tax relief and economic growth and transparency at the fore. To the extent that there were funds available, they should have been used to reduce the deficit, for imaginative, trans-formative economic investments, and for across-the-board tax relief (such as income-tax cuts or a slowing down of the ongoing Employment Insurance premium-rate hikes). At the end of the day, this “Low-Tax Plan for Jobs and Growth” does not actually lower taxes for most Canadians.

Does the budget justify a return to the polls? It's a question as much in the minds of Conservative voters, ultimately, as opposition party supporters. They must be longing for a conservative Conservative government.

The Opposition concerns with the government are unlikely to focus long on the shortcomings of the budget – instead, they will focus on ethics, spending priorities (read F-35) and corporate taxes, with the Bloc, as usual, looking for what's in it for Quebec and First Nations just looking I pray not to squander more money. Maybe we should all move to Quebec?

Ultimately, a budget is not just for political parties. Canada needs an economic vision. The Conservatives instead provided an election plan. It's worth reflecting on Mr. Flaherty's own apt words spoken in the House of Commons Tuesday, “Canada needs a principled, stable government.”

The Ghetto Called Facebook

Facebook is an enclosed, controlled, and manipulated environment for meek, tech losers. It's like a reality TV show—things are kind of real, but they're not.

The way I see it, Facebook's main competitor is Second Life. But while second life would represent something like a good fantasy novel, Facebook is more like a reality TV show—things are kind of real, but they're not. And like a reality TV show, Facebook is enclosed, controlled, and manipulated. In the end, it's all weak and without substance.

I think it's brilliant that the boys at Facebook are taking on Netflix by developing their own streaming service. It's yet another hinge on the door used to lock people into the self-contained world of Facebook, where the skittish can comfortably dwell. I'm wondering exactly when Facebook will buy out Second Life and reveal its true intent.

I'd like to remind people what I think of Facebook: It is the second coming of AOL. Anyone remember them? It's what AOL should have morphed into if it hadn't failed. It's a community evolved from the ideas of MySpace and LiveJournal and a number of AOL ideas and all rolled into one cogent vision. Mark Zuckerberg's vision for Facebook was made in the image of his own introverted self—with a little Second Life thrown in.

I know many people who rely on Facebook to create an amorphous, plasmodial, shape-shifting version of themselves with an online personality (within the confines of Facebook).

"Friend me, like me, look at me." Oh no! Someone dropped me as a friend. Now I have to hound him to find out why.

Facebook is a world unto itself and has created what has to be refered to a second class citizenry online. It's laughable. When the Net was blooming in the mid-1990s, suddenly, all the isolated online services were forced to link into the Internet. This allowed people to explore outside the domain of a CompuServe or AOL.

This soon devolved into the meme that AOL was "training wheels for the Internet." Not long after that, people were telling me that they didn't need AOL anymore, since the Internet had all that AOL offered and more for free!

AOL never handled any of it right and became what it is today, a collection of services and Web sites that are dissociated. Then along came Facebook. It emphasized the associative nature of a community site, and suddenly people flocked away from the Net and back into a fake community, like nothing we've ever seen before.

So we went from saying AOL is like training wheels and diving into the rich Internet, back into a version of AOL. Did we like training wheels all along? Or do we actually need this kind of overall total control in general? Is Facebook actually representative of a lost spirit of independence worldwide?

Is that really what's going on? Or am I reading too much into this when I see Facebook as kind of a refuge for the meek and wary. I see Facebook as a ghetto for netizens who cannot survive on the real Internet; people who could never learn to ride a bike and would have stayed with AOL if it had not abandoned them.

Now corporations and the PR agencies representing them are further encouraging Facebook. I cannot tell you how many times I have been told to find out more by going to Facebook. You can't send me a pdf file? You cannot produce a simple Web site, but instead resort to Facebook? How hard is it to post something outside of the confines of Facebook?

What we are witnessing is the ghettoization of a self-selected class of people who are going to eventually find themselves categorized as tech losers. I mean, come on, these people flock to Farmville on Facebook as if it is a game worth wasting time on? Load World of Warcraft and play something that reflects real development efforts rather than cute marketing tricks.

I understand how hard it is for some people to keep up with technology and the ever-changing landscape, but cowering under the rock known as Facebook will not benefit you, that's for sure.


Let me know if you agree.. I am sure you will if you disagree..

If the Harper government is found to be found in contempt; it could trigger election call next week. Unless of course he wriggles out of it once more..Watch out for the three flying pigs in the sky!

Justice Minister Rob Nicholson and Public Safety Minister Vic Toews prepare to testify for a second day at a Commons committee hearing into allegations of contempt against the Harper government on March 17, 2011. (THE CANADIAN PRESS)

Opposition parties have agreed they will find the Harper government in contempt of Parliament and have begun efforts to put the matter to a vote in the Commons – a move that would set the stage for an election call as early as next week. Have they got the guts at last or will Harper ride roughshod over them once more..?

The Liberals, NDP and Bloc Québécois confirmed Thursday they have made up their minds and will work via a committee they control to produce a report for the Commons saying the government’s failure to divulge sufficient cost details about its crime bills “constitutes a contempt of Parliament.”

Amazingly, the Conservatives are attempting to slow the effort, however, and Tory MPs stalled opposition attempts Thursday to begin writing a draft report at the Commons procedure and House affairs committee that would recommend the Commons cite the government for contempt. Is this a Harper NEW surprise tactic...

It’s not clear which day the opposition will be able to deliver the report to Parliament, where they outnumber the Tories, but once they do it clears the path for a vote that officially censures the Harper government. If this happens this will be the first time in Canadian history a government’s been found in contempt of Parliament.

The battle over whether the Tories are stonewalling on the costs of their justice legislation has morphed into a broader debate over Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s secretive and controlling approach to running government. Last week, Commons Speaker Peter Milliken issued a historic rebuke to the Conservatives for flouting the will and rights of Parliament by refusing to provide sufficient details of its agenda to the Commons.

On Wednesday, the Conservatives grudgingly released a 4.5-centimetre-thick stack of documents that backed up their assertion 18 crime bills will cost $631-million – on top of earlier estimates that expanding prisons will cost taxpayers $2.1-billion over half a decade.

This failed to placate their rivals. The opposition say they still believe the Tories are continuing to low-ball the figures and hide information.

Parliamentary budget watchdog Kevin Page buttressed the opposition’s case Thursday by releasing a report that says the Tories have failed to release more than 55 per cent of the information requested by opposition parties on the tough-on-crime laws.

“There remain significant gaps between the information requested by parliamentarians and the documentation that was provided by the [government], which will limit the ability of parliamentarians to fulfill their fiduciary obligations,” the Parliamentary Budget Office said.

Hearings resume Friday to consider separate contempt charges against International Co-operation Minister Bev Oda for allegedly misleading the Commons. Opposition parties will try to move a motion to draw up their draft report recommending the government be found in contempt.

The Liberals, NDP and Bloc will have a tactical decision to make next week if all parties are bent on an election. It’s possible a confidence vote on the budget could come before the opposition has a chance to vote Tories in contempt of Parliament. They will have to decide whether to defeat the Tories on the budget or hold their fire until they can vote the Conservatives in contempt, an judgment they may want to officially render before heading to the polls.

Separately, a U.S. government watchdog estimated this week the average procurement cost of the F-35 fighter has climbed to $133-million a plane – 80 per cent more than what the Harper government is predicting and in line with what Mr. Page’s office recently forecast.

The cost of buying 65 stealth fighter jets – and the Harper government’s decision to purchase them without a competitive bidding process – will be a major political football in an election.

The U.S. Government Accountability Office – similar to Ottawa’s Auditor-General – issued a statement this week that warned: “Affordability for the U.S. and partners is challenged by a near doubling in average unit prices since program start and higher estimated life-cycle costs.”

The Canadian Department of Defence, however, stands by its much lower estimates of $70-million to $75-million a plane, saying the U.S. figures include costs that Canada is not paying.

The Defence Department also questions Mr. Page’s predictions that buying 65 F-35s would cost $29.3-billion over 30 years, including maintenance. The Forces say a 20-year life cycle for the fighters is more realistic and the total bill would be about $15-billion.

Welcome back, George Abbott.

It’s not the role he wanted when he quit his post as education minister to run for the B.C. Liberal leadership, but Mr. Abbott is back at his old job in the unruly world of contract negotiations with the B.C. Teachers’ Federation.

Mr. Abbott’s task is to avert a teachers’ strike this fall, right around the time Premier Christy Clark might want to call a general election.

Or maybe not. A battle with teachers, as a wedge issue in an election campaign, isn’t necessarily a bad thing for the BC Liberals.

“We’re talking British Columbia here.… You can make the argument either way,” observed Mr. Abbott, who, between his careers as a blueberry farmer and a politician, has been a political science instructor. “There have been some instances where governments may have benefited from that, but probably an equal number where it’s been challenging for governments.”

Nonetheless, there is no clearer signal that the Clark government would rather achieve a rare settlement with teachers at the bargaining table than Mr. Abbott’s reappointment to education. After all, there has been only one negotiated settlement since the teachers were forced into provincewide bargaining 17 years ago, and that was when the government offered several thousand dollars in signing bonuses to all civil servants. Even then, the teachers agreed only 90 minutes prior to the deadline.

Ms. Clark defined the combative relationship between government and the teachers’ union during her own tenure as education minister. She refused to meet with the union president for months and imposed a collective agreement on teachers. She also stripped the union of significant powers, including the ability to negotiate class size, school hours and the school year. It triggered a one-day illegal walkout.

By contrast, the first time Mr. Abbott met with B.C. Teachers’ Federation president Susan Lambert, he handed out his cellphone number – an unprecedented gesture of open communication. She was floored.

So when Premier Christy Clark reappointed Mr. Abbott to education this week, there was a sigh of relief at the BCTF headquarters.

The negotiations are just getting under way. The teachers’ contract expires in June, and there would be no point taking job action before school resumes in the fall – who would notice? So there is time enough for the “respectful and professional” negotiations Mr. Abbott has promised.

But judging from each side’s opening positions, it will take more than goodwill to settle this round of bargaining.

The teachers’ union wants parity with their Alberta counterparts, which would mean wage hikes of nearly 20 per cent. It wants the right to negotiate class size again – a reversal of a policy imposed by Ms. Clark. And it wants to tear down the provincewide bargaining model.

The government, meanwhile, has set a two-year, “net zero” mandate for the entire public service. (Net zero means the teachers could negotiate pay raises if they are willing to give up something else, but there is no additional money.)

“We are polls apart,” Ms. Lambert acknowledged. “I think [the union demands are] realistic and it’s very different from the government mandate. There is going to have to be a shift somewhere along the line.”

It is possible that Ms. Clark, who won the Liberal leadership as a champion of families, might find more cash for education. But the signals so far are not good. She has reduced the size of cabinet by 25 per cent to send a message that her government will be frugal. The net zero mandate has been reinforced. And Mr. Abbott this week was unsympathetic to the wage parity pitch.

“I don’t think labour market adjustments would be warranted with respect to the teachers. I’m not understanding them to be an occupational group that is in short supply,” he said.

If all that wasn’t challenging enough, the B.C. Supreme Court is set to rule, as early as April, on the teachers’ Charter challenge to the initiatives introduced by Ms. Clark back in 2002. If the teachers regain the right to bargain on class size, staff levels and school hours, Mr. Abbott’s rowdy class will score the upper hand.

Arithmetic in B.C. classrooms:

$79,633: top rate a ‘category five’ Vancouver teacher can earn

$91,213: maximum rate for a teacher in Edmonton in the same category

$85,322: equivalent rate for a Toronto elementary teacher

Two weeks: last strike by B.C. teachers, in October, 2005

202: schools closed between 2001 and 2010

$1.7-billion: capital spending on 83 new schools and other improvements

59,300: decline in student enrollment since 2000

Canada's boreal forest holds half of the world's lakes larger than a square kilometre in size, and its wetlands encompass 1.2 million square kilometres. (Chad Delany/Pew Environment Group)

An American research centre says Canada’s boreal forest provides hundreds of billions of dollars of value every year, mostly by sucking up greenhouse gas emissions, and its preservation must become a global priority.

The Pew Environment Group released a report Wednesday called Canada’s Boreal Forest, The World’s Waterkeeper, which relies on the calculations of a major environmental lobby group to suggest the forest provides about $700-billion in “services” to the world every year.

While the authors say Canada is doing much to protect the vast boreal wilderness that contains 25 per cent of the world’s wetlands, they argue that greater controls should be slapped on development in the forested region – specifically oil and gas extraction, logging, mining and hydroelectric projects.

The area remains largely pristine, a fact that is attributable to its relative inaccessibility. But, as resources elsewhere grow scarce, the footprint of those industries will expand. The Pew Group argues that the importance of the forest to the world’s ecosystem justifies greater restrictions on that expansion.

How big is Canada’s boreal forest?

The boreal forest of Canada stretches across the top of Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba and Northern Canada and covers 60 per cent of the land mass of the country.

It holds half of the world’s lakes larger than a square kilometre in size, five of the world’s 50 largest rivers, 81 million hectares of surface water and the world’s biggest remaining unpolluted body of fresh water – Great Bear Lake.

Canada’s boreal forest also contains what may be the world’s largest total area of wetland habitats, extending over 1.2 million square kilometres.

How does the boreal forest provide about $700-billion in services?

The Pembina Institute, an environmental policy organization, conducted an analysis in 2009 that arrived at this figure, which has been adopted by the Pew Environment Group in its report released Wednesday.

Some of that value is provided by the forests themselves – including, among many other things, nearly $180-billion for the annual amortized value of carbon storage, $5.4-billion for natural pest-control provided by birds, $575-million in subsistence value for aboriginal peoples and $18.3-million in watershed services such as municipal water use.

Some of that value is provided by the wetlands and peatlands, including $401-billion for the annual amortized value of stored carbon and more than $110-billion for flood control, water filtering and biodiversity promotion.

The Pembina Institute added those “non-market” values to “market values,” including the values of the forest, mining, fossil fuel and hydroelectric industries, subtracted the “regrettable costs,” including pollution, carbon emissions and government subsidies, and arrived at $703.2-billion.

What does the Pew Environment Group report recommend?

Primarily, it says all public land-use policies and management plans should protect at least 50 per cent of Canada’s boreal forest from industrial activity and require “state-of-the-art sustainability practices” on the remaining areas. In addition, it says:

» Mining legislation must be reformed to require aboriginal consultation and improve habitat protection and water quality.

» New hydroelectric facilities should not be approved unless it can be proved there will be minimal impact on ecosystems and there has been a comprehensive environmental review.

» Canada should follow Manitoba’s lead and develop a national peatlands stewardship strategy.

» The Mackenzie Basin Agreement, which links land-use policies in several provinces and territories aimed at preserving the watershed, should be fully implemented.

Why is an American research group telling Canadians what to do with their forests?

The Pew Research Group says it is actually applauding Canadian efforts to protect the boreal forest in this country. But it argues that more must be done.

Peter Raven, the chair of earth and life science at the U.S. National Research Council, said the world must be seen as an interconnected ecosystem that is managed globally, much like world economies are connected and managed globally.

“It’s estimated that human beings are currently using 55 per cent of the world’s supplies of fresh water,” Dr. Raven said, “and, therefore, what there is in Canada shows up as a precious resource and one that’s been little commented on.”

According to the 2009 General Social Survey (GSS) on Victimization, Aboriginal people age 15 years and older reported 173,600 incidents involving sexual assault, robbery or physical assault committed by someone other than a spouse or common-law partner.

This represents 12% of Aboriginal people in this age group who were living in the provinces. This proportion is more than double the 5% of non-Aboriginal people who reported that they had been a victim of one of these violent crimes.

Of the three violent crimes examined, physical assaults were most commonly reported by Aboriginal people. They were about three times as likely as non-Aboriginal people to report being sexually assaulted, and nearly twice as likely to report that they had been physically assaulted.

One of the unique aspects about the GSS is that it captures information on whether criminal incidents were reported to police. About 26% of Aboriginal victims said they reported incidents of the three violent crimes to police, compared with 29% of non-Aboriginal people.

The GSS also examined spousal violence, that is, the incidence of sexual assaults and physical assaults committed either by a spouse or a common-law partner.

About 10% of Aboriginal people reported that they were a victim of spousal violence in the five years prior to the survey, compared with 6% of non-Aboriginal people.

Note: This Juristat article presents self-reported information from the 2009 General Social Survey on Victimization on the personal experiences of Aboriginal people living in the provinces with respect to crime, particularly violent crime. It analyses the characteristics associated with such incidents, including the socio-demographic risk factors, consequences of victimization, reasons for reporting (and not reporting) incidents to police, perceptions of personal safety and perceptions of the criminal justice system. In addition, it presents information on Aboriginal victims and persons accused of homicide.

Definitions, data sources and methods: survey number 4504.

The Juristat article "Violent victimization of Aboriginal people in the Canadian provinces, 2009", (85-002-X, free), is now available. From the Key resource module of our website under Publications, choose All subjects, then Crime and Justice, and Juristat.

According to the 2009 General Social Survey (GSS) on Victimization, Aboriginal people age 15 years and older reported 173,600 incidents involving sexual assault, robbery or physical assault committed by someone other than a spouse or common-law partner.

This represents 12% of Aboriginal people in this age group who were living in the provinces. This proportion is more than double the 5% of non-Aboriginal people who reported that they had been a victim of one of these violent crimes.

Of the three violent crimes examined, physical assaults were most commonly reported by Aboriginal people. They were about three times as likely as non-Aboriginal people to report being sexually assaulted, and nearly twice as likely to report that they had been physically assaulted.

One of the unique aspects about the GSS is that it captures information on whether criminal incidents were reported to police. About 26% of Aboriginal victims said they reported incidents of the three violent crimes to police, compared with 29% of non-Aboriginal people.

The GSS also examined spousal violence, that is, the incidence of sexual assaults and physical assaults committed either by a spouse or a common-law partner.

About 10% of Aboriginal people reported that they were a victim of spousal violence in the five years prior to the survey, compared with 6% of non-Aboriginal people.

Note: This Juristat article presents self-reported information from the 2009 General Social Survey on Victimization on the personal experiences of Aboriginal people living in the provinces with respect to crime, particularly violent crime. It analyses the characteristics associated with such incidents, including the socio-demographic risk factors, consequences of victimization, reasons for reporting (and not reporting) incidents to police, perceptions of personal safety and perceptions of the criminal justice system. In addition, it presents information on Aboriginal victims and persons accused of homicide.

Definitions, data sources and methods: survey number 4504.

The Juristat article "Violent victimization of Aboriginal people in the Canadian provinces, 2009", (85-002-X, free), is now available. From the Key resource module of our website under Publications, choose All subjects, then Crime and Justice, and Juristat.

A flailing U.S. economy has helped push down prices for medical procedures, allowing middle class Canadians who previously couldn’t afford it to head south for heart operations, hip replacements and other procedures.

Open-heart surgery once cost upwards of $100,000 in the United States, but a triple bypass can now be had for as little as $16,000 U.S. And there are bargains on hip and knee replacements too: the going rate of $53,000 can be negotiated to less than $19,000.
While no one tracks how many Canadians travel to the United States for medical care, the issue has prompted university studies in both countries. And medical brokers – of which there are about two dozen across the country – say the numbers of people traveling for care are up.

“More and more facilities are contacting us, saying, ‘How can we get in on the action,’ ” said Rick Baker, founder of Timely Medical Alternatives, which has seen revenues more than double over the past year. “We have negotiated prices that are rock bottom.”

A troubled U.S. economy, a health-care system with empty beds, and a strong Canadian dollar have created medical bargains for people who have the cash. They are finding treatment that once cost as much as a house is now available for the price of an economy car.

Canadian patients paying upfront means less paperwork; administration is one reason U.S. health care is so costly.

“It’s an industry that’s going through the roof,” said Mark Semple, president of Vancouver-based Passport Medical. “It’s wait times, it’s cost, it’s price, it’s quality and accessibility.”

Retired accountant Gary Davidge of Calgary started looking into hip replacements two years ago when they cost $45,000 U.S. in Arizona. When the arthritis pain in his hip intensified in December, a medical broker found him a price of $18,800 in Montana.

Although Mr. Davidge’s preference would have been to have his operation at home funded by Canada’s public health system, the average wait was a year to 18 months, and no one could tell him with certainty when the surgery would take place.

“Hip replacements are a big improvement in one’s life,” said Mr. Davidge, 67, who is in rehabilitation in Calgary after his Dec. 29 operation. “For whatever reason, they can’t afford to get everybody caught up. Forcing people to wait a two- or three-year time frame is not fair.”

Joint replacements – hip and knees – are the most frequent procedures Canadians have in U.S. hospitals, said Mr. Baker. That is despite a $5.5-billion federal initiative to reduce waits for joint replacements and four other procedures. Patients also frequently travel for spinal and heart procedures.

Mr. Baker said he has sent about 3,500 patients to the United States for care over the past eight years. He used to have to persuade hospitals to drop their prices, but now they contact him and offer to match low prices he has negotiated elsewhere.

For example, when Oklahoma Heart Hospital in Oklahoma City – which boasts one of the lowest prices for cardiac-bypass surgery – opened a second $98-million U.S. facility in the same city, it contacted Mr. Baker wanting to get some of his business. He told them he already had a hospital that did those operations for $16,000 U.S. in Wichita, Kan.

“I said, ‘Look, here are the prices we’re getting at this other hospital. We would dearly love to send them to you, but the price is the price and people can’t afford more,” Mr. Baker said in a telephone interview from Vancouver. “And they said: ‘Until we can fill this hospital, we will match this price.’ ”

Mr Harper will claim waiting list are down in numbers..now you know why!

Alas, as we’ve so often seen, a sense of decency can’t be expected of the Conservatives’ attack machine. In the UK what factual information follows below is called being 'two faced' Readers please correct me if I am even a tiny bit wrong with the facts

The Conservative machine dredged up ads and a quote from 2001, when Mr. Ignatieff was living outside Canada, about feeling American, and another quote about not ruling out an increase in the GST, and one favouring a carbon tax. Mr. Ignatieff has clearly and repeatedly repudiated these positions, yet the Conservative attack ads suggest he still holds them. Not only do these ads deliberately deform Mr. Ignatieff’s current thinking, they impugn his motives for returning to Canada. He is held responsible in these ads for views he no longer holds.

Put the shoe on the other foot. If you were a Conservative, would you think it fair or accurate to be hammered today for some of Stephen Harper’s previous positions?

In 1999, a right-wing doctor, David Gratzer, wrote a book, Code Blue, that tore apart medicare, suggesting it should be replaced by U.S.-style private medicine and medical savings accounts. Dr. Gratzer now advises Republicans on health care.

Commenting on the book, Mr. Harper said: “Gratzer proposes a workable solution for the biggest policy problem of the coming generation – government-controlled health-care monopoly. Canada needs Gratzer’s solution.” Mr. Harper’s praise appeared on the cover jacket of Code Blue.

As Canadian Alliance and Conservative leader, Mr. Harper never repeated those views. On the contrary, he has repeatedly said he favours Canadian-style medicare. Would it be fair to run an attack against him for views he held in 1999?

Mr. Harper once suggested that, instead of Canada’s approach to official bilingualism, we should adopt the Belgian model of parallel institutions for everything, one in English, the other in French. As Prime Minister, he has ditched such thinking and tries to speak French on all official occasions, even in English-speaking parts of Canada. Would it be fair to hold his earlier, foolish views against him?

Mr. Harper once lamented a culture of defeatism and dependency in Atlantic Canada, and had little good to say for regional development agencies. He subsequently recanted those views. As Prime Minister, he has created ( I ask) new regional development agencies for the Far North and Southern Ontario. Should his earlier views be held against him?

Mr. Harper, as a Reform MP and later, while living in Calgary, opposed special status for any province (read Quebec) and hewed to the party’s official line that all provinces are equal. As Prime Minister, however, he declared that the Québécois constituted a “nation” within a united Canada. Should he be blasted for his previous position, or debated on the one he now holds?

Mr. Harper, in exile in Calgary, wrote that a “firewall” should be erected around Alberta to protect it from a predatory and insensitive federal government. The Martin Liberals tried to use this inflammatory foolishness against him. Would it be fair to now drag up those comments?

Mr. Harper once co-authored a defence of proportional representation, arguing that it would be in the best interests of small-c conservatives to adopt such a system since they would never form a majority government. He hasn’t said a word about PR since re-entering public life. Should he be accused of still harbouring a hidden agenda to impose PR on Canadians?

Mr. Harper once favoured Canada’s participation in the invasion of Iraq (Mr. Ignatieff, then at Harvard, favoured the invasion, too). He was part of a political party, Reform, that cast doubt on the science of climate change, a position his government’s websites don’t support today.

These recollections of some of Mr. Harper’s previous positions aren’t intended to demean him, but rather to give him the benefit of the doubt, or even of acquired wisdom. He no longer holds these views and shouldn’t be lashed for having once held them.

It would be just as inappropriate to tie him to long-abandoned positions as it is for the Conservatives, in their disgusting attack ads, to tie Mr. Ignatieff to positions he’s since rejected.

Alas, as we’ve so often seen and becasue of apathy in Canada will continue not to see, a sense of decency can’t be expected of the Conservatives’ attack machine.