April 2020 - Page 4 of 5 - Loonie Politics

As people started losing their jobs and facing economic hardship because of the COVID-19 pandemic, governments began to look at measures and aid programs that could be put in place to help people get through the crisis and survive financially to help with the re-starting of the economy on the other side.

One of the first thoughts I had was how many people were relying on their credit cards for their day-to-day purchases such as groceries, gas and hygiene products. And why not? Credit cards are convenient and, unlike cash, gives you protection against fraudulent activities. You also often get to accumulate reward points for vacations or a luxurious items. It also removes the need to handle money and change that could have been touched by who knows who!

The big downside of most credit cards, of course, is the interest rate, which are more often than not over 20%. But that is not a worry for millions of Canadians who usually pay as they go, never carrying a balance on their cards and not even thinking about those rates. People use their card for the month, and make one simple payment from their chequing account to pay it all off at once. Until they couldn't, at no fault of their own.

All of the sudden, people are caught by the throat. They are finding themselves facing difficult choices, with a loaded credit card. With no income, they have been waiting for weeks for the first government check from EI or the Canadian Emergency Relief Benefit. When they get it, it'll be a fraction of what they used to earn.

New Democrats, among others, have been quite vocal about the urgent need to act. "Even before the pandemic, close to half of all Canadians were just a few hundred dollars away from insolvency. These families are probably already relying on credit cards and high interest loans and will likely feel they have no choice but to turn to them even more now," said the NDP Finance critic Peter Julian.

It would have been smart for the banks to act on their own in order to improve their own branding. They showed no leadership. Meanwhile, the Trudeau government has been dragging their feet when it comes to forcing the big banks and other financial institutions to do their share, to do the right thing. Justin Trudeau said he preferred to work hard at establishing a dialogue and that his Finance minister Bill Morneau was on it. It paid off, somewhat: on Monday, Trudeau thanked the six big banks and some credit unions who cut their interest rates in half for those in trouble. "We have to do other things, rather than think about profitability," he told all companies. More needs to be done, he said.

Because yes, interest rates on credit cards have been lowered, reluctantly, by the big players. But even cut in half, they will still be 10% or more! Worse, this is not even a blanket, universal measure. Make no mistake, these new rates are not available to everyone, but only to the personal and small business customers being granted payment deferrals due to the outbreak. In other words, you need to get the bank's approval to postpone a payment! The big banks and even Desjardins will continue to calculate interest during the months the minimum payment is suspended and that will be added to future invoices. Other cardholders will continue to pay the normal, usurious rates, even if, on March 27, the Bank of Canada's key rate was lowered to a record level of only 0.25%.

A reminder that the six major Canadian chartered banks (BMO, RBC, Scotia, CIBC, TD and National) had annual profits of more than $46 billion. Bank defenders have been arguing that it is all about risk and default rates and other management fees. But of course, chances are that at 22% interest with significant income drop and not being fully in charge of their destiny, the default rate will actually increase, which will result in more losses.

Compare that with Vancity's announcement. A BC based, member-owned credit union, Vancity is cutting credit card interest rates to zero and deferring minimum payments for those facing financial difficulty as a result of COVID-19. Let me repeat: personal and business credit card holders who need to defer a payment because of the pandemic, will be offered deferrals of up to six months at a zero per cent interest rate!

Is it so hard?

Photo Credit: Creditwalk.ca

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.

Click here for more

In the wake of the swift passage of two pieces of emergency legislation designed to deal with the fallout of the global COVID-19 pandemic with little-to-no scrutiny, and with yet more emergency legislation on its way as Parliament is set to reconvene sometime in the next few days, the Samara Centre for Democracy decided to take a closer look. On the one hand, it's good to get a somewhat more rigorous look at the metrics of what did and did not happen with these two pieces of legislation but on the other hand, these analyses tend to fall back to some of the usual problems that Samara reports have.

One of the most trenchant parts of analysis in the report was the comparison to how other similar parliaments, both in the UK and Australia, had dealt with their own emergency legislation.

By comparison, the UK government's Coronavirus Bill was introduced four days before being discussed in Parliament. It was debated for six hours by MPs and seven hours by the House of Lords over a three-day period. As with Bill C-13, the Coronavirus Bill originally would have allowed the UK government to use its emergency powers for more than a year. However, rather than negotiating in a back room, opposition pressure eventually forced the Government to put forward a formal amendment during the debate that created a new mechanism allowing MPs to vote every six months on whether to keep the powers in place. Australia's Coronavirus Economic Response Package Omnibus Bill was debated on the same day it was introduced, but it too was amended during passage after receiving more than three hours of debate in each chamber of the Parliament.

This is an important comparison, but one that doesn't have some additional context that colours the Canadian experience, which is the fact that given the evolving situation with the pandemic, the response came on the Friday before a constituency week timed for the March Break around much of the country. If there's one thing that we have seen repeatedly over successive parliaments is that there is an absolute reluctance in this country for MPs to extend their sittings into a weekend, let alone into a constituency week. While we occasionally have seen instances where senators will stay longer, the threat of having to sit on a Friday is fairly often wielded to get more cooperation within that chamber as well.

This is one of the biggest reasons why there was such a rush to ram the first emergency bill through the Commons (along with two Supply bills). At least with the Supply bills, there is some pre-existing chance for MPs and Senators to know what will be in those packages, but this was not the case with Bill C-12, where its contents were only made known through behind-the-scenes negotiation, and it was not even viewable by the public until after it received Royal Assent. The Samara report rightly calls this out, but the fact that it couldn't contextualize this important bit of information hurts their analysis.

Some of the other analysis in the report are unfortunately shallow and add nothing to the issue, such as counting up the fact that the proportion of women in the Chamber for the emergency recall for Bill C-13 to decry that it somehow affected the representativeness of the vote on that legislation, or the fact that most of the MPs present were from Ontario and Quebec which was intentional, because it was supposed to be for MPs who wouldn't need to travel by plane. In fact, in the report calling out that too many members of the respective parties' leaders and not enough backbenchers were represented ignored the fact that the government made a special deal with Andrew Scheer, as well as his House and Senate leaders, to be flown to Ottawa and back for the single-day sittings in each Chamber. The report also glossed over the extent of what happened with the proposed oversight committees in the Senate, which again does a disservice to the nature of how necessary oversight has been impacted by the state of affairs in the Upper Chamber.

In a separate summary to the report, Samara also advises Parliament to work out how to "go remote," which is the next klaxon for me as the Liberal House leader has written to the Speaker asking for advice on how to achieve some kind of virtual sittings of the Commons (which is a spectacularly bad idea).

Parliament must urgently identify ways to ensure that all MPs remain able to effectively represent their constituents and have their voices heard, including through technology-enabled engagement at a distance. We have already seen that the pandemic will impact different parts of the country in different ways. The ability of MPs to share such diverse experiences can help to improve Canada's response, and should not be sacrificed in the name of efficiency.

This particular suggestion is flawed in two respects one in that somehow MPs need to "share diverse experiences" rather than exercise accountability is troubling for an organization that is supposed to help Canadians better understand their parliament. The other is the urging of "technology-enabled engagement," which will be the death knell of our parliament if it actually happens. It doesn't matter that there is a global pandemic parliament is an essential service, and as such, needs to have a physical presence (a fact bolstered by the constitutional requirements around quorum). There are provisions that it can be run with a skeleton crew, and rather than get hung up on the exact representational dynamics as Samara seems to be (though parties could do so if they so choose), we should be more concerned with simply having enough MPs in place to do the work, and who can be seen to relay the concerns of their caucus colleagues from around the country as they do so. It would be great if Samara could be open to such possibilities as well, as opposed to simply counting heads.

Photo Credit: CBC News

Click here for more

Early this week there were 20 people bundled in parkas waiting their turn to enter the CIBC bank in the centre of downtown Edmonton.

Most weren't exercising social distancing.

A couple of blocks away three guys with shopping carts piled high with empty cans and bottles and sleeping bags had staked a claim to a sunny bench on the lip of the city's river valley.

They weren't exercising social distancing either.

For the poor and the homeless living on the margins, social distancing isn't top of mind. Cashing a government cheque at a bank branch that welcomes disadvantaged patrons or finding a warm spot on a sub-zero day is a bigger priority.

Alberta's cities can be tough on the poor, especially when spring is late. Add on a pandemic and getting by seems nearly impossible, and seriously dangerous.

Edmonton's mayor Don Iveson sounded the alarm early on in the outbreak about the plight of the homeless. Getting them indoors in a safe space was crucial to stop a runaway spread of Covid-19 in the vulnerable population.

Provincial and city governments responded with an eye on what can be done practically and quickly. The results are classically institutional convention centres in Calgary and Edmonton with acres of unused space were turned into vast expanses of evenly spaced cots and long tables.

In smaller cities and more suburban areas the sleeping quarters were even less inviting gym matts on hardwood floors in churches and community centres.

Social media erupted about the inhumanity. That was only magnified when the province's Medical Officer of Health Deena Hinshaw defended the scant space between cots for sleeping.

"It's trying to weigh out the risks to those individuals who need to use those shelters, with respect to transmission, and the risks of having them potentially out in the cold," she said.

"The people who are lying next to each other are not just one metre apart from one head to another, but they're actually further apart because of the diagonal distance between the two heads."

Calgary has just taken an initiative to outfit 100 rooms in an empty hotel for shelter residents who need to be isolated due to illness. Other cities in Canada are using hotel rooms for homeless shelters, but so far Alberta cities have been reticent to take the step. The province suggested there was an issue with suicide proofing rooms. A shelter charity in Calgary raised the spectre of bed bugs.

Beyond and above where the homeless will sleep is the issue of where they will go during the day.

There are some existing drop-in spaces, but they are strained by social distancing edicts. Edmonton's Expo convention centre has an area separate from the sleeping areas for an 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. drop in. It is pretty grey and uninviting.

The usual haunts of the transient population are, of course, closed. Library branches have been closed since mid March. Coffee shops, if they're open, have no seating.

In Calgary Mustard Seed clients have nowhere to go once they leave the shelter.

"To be honest, they're just basically wandering the streets," Calgary's Mustard Seed CEO Stephen Wiletold the CBC.

"It's really unfortunate that we're getting such a late spring, because typically â€¦. the weather would be nice enough that it wouldn't bother them to do that, but this is a cold week this week."

The entire issue requires some immediate out of the box thinking.

NDP Leader Rachel Notley favours a hotel solution.

"We believe these peopleâ€¦ are entitled to the same dignity and the same rights as other Albertans. And we also believe that the kind of setup that we see these folks living in right now is bound to create a concentration of infections and disease spread."

Ultimately the potential spread of Covid-19 is the crisis that will galvanize some better solutions, but hopefully not sterile and inhuman solutions. Governments being what they are, aren't set up to think compassionately. And charities, set up to think compassionately, don't have the resources to translate caring into innovation.

But someone has to make life safer and easier for the homeless.

Covid-19 was initially spread in North America not by the poor, but by tourists and travellers with the resources to fly internationally.

The haves owe the have-nots a safe place to live during this crisis.

Photo Credit: Calgary Journal

Click here for more

They told us to be afraid of flesh and blood enemies. Nazis, Communists, terrorists, religious fundamentalists, cults. They may have been warped because of ideology or trauma, but they were people who could be fought against and killed nonetheless using our own, better ideology or trauma.

The stuff of our imaginations vampires, werewolves, zombies, aliens all sorts of legendary terrors, each with their own fatal weakness. Figure out what it is and you can turn them from hunters to hunted.

This virus cannot be seen or killed, of course. We cannot use good old know how, bravery, or derring-do to beat it. All we can do is try to survive it, contain it, restrict our behaviour so as to minimize the chances of it killing us. Once you have it, the luck of the draw and the strength of your own immune system determines whether you live. You could be condemning others to death without even knowing it.

It's not a full-on apocalypse, or even the realization of the global warming doomers' nightmare visions. It is a massive, disempowering inconvenience, complete with embarrassing visuals of shoppers hoarding toilet paper. No self-respecting disaster movie, or even the ones that don't respect themselves, would include that detail, but there you have it.

This is all to say that the corona crisis should be shaking our assumptions about the world, and our ability to control it, to the core. We should be less sure of ourselves. We aren't, of course. Conspiracy theories, hilariously broken statistical projections, idiotic memes and above all, smug assertions about how Canadians are "care-mongers" continue to fill the air.

I used to think that the worse things got, the fewer illusions people would have. There would be less myopic nostalgia, less deliberate ignorance of growing crises, less fruitless escapism. Indeed, we are here today because people downplayed the seriousness of the virus before it went global. Now I know that the worse things get, the more awesome we think we are.

This completely unjustified self-confidence is what led Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his merry band of Liberal royalists to propose eliminating parliamentary opposition entirely until late 2021. And in turn, this is what led Canadian political observers to caution that this was mere overreach on the Liberals' part, and not a deliberate attempt to seize power, in keeping with their barely concealed belief in their own divine right to rule this country.

This is who the Liberals are, because they have told us over and over that this is who they are. And yet seasoned political operators and commentators are outraged that it has come to this. After the debasement of the rule of law during the barricade episode what seems a lifetime ago, this was the next logical step.

It hasn't helped that the self-styled Co-Founder of the Conservative Party of Canada Peter MacKay, the aggressively irritating Erin O'Toole, and the barely functional Jagmeet Singh are doing their best to make Trudeau's case for them. The PM seeks to make himself King Of Canada, and the CPC squabbles about whether their own leadership race should be cancelled or not. If they were to go away until 2021, and perhaps even longer, they would hardly be missed. But then there is still that longing for democracy free of partisanship, where MP's work across the aisle for the benefit of CANADIANS, and the belief that somehow voters will have to change the government eventually.

And so, even as the number of cases mount, the PM will continue to warble about "values" while the CBC bemoans the cancellation of local broadcasts and the lay folk enjoy a wicked thrill each day more Americans die of the virus than Canadians. South of the border, Joe Biden is carried to the Democratic nomination by a host of backward-looking primary voters who are so desperate to prove that Donald Trump is a bug, not a feature that they will vote for a literal dead person.

Perhaps there is some heroism in continuing to retain some sort of normalcy in utterly insane times. But there comes a point and we are approaching it where normalcy has become so twisted that nobody can remember what it is anymore.

Photo Credit: CBC News

Written by Josh Lieblein

Click here for more

In the Great Pandemic of 2020, all of us have good days, and we have bad days.

On a bad day, this writer authored a ten-point list of predictions, none of them good.

They included: the rise of demagogues on the far Right and far Left, each preaching their own brand of xenophobia and exclusion. Another prediction not so far-fetched that the economy would continue to collapse, along with cities and key infrastructure.

Corruption. Tax revolts. Surges in theft, mental illness and domestic violence.

The ten-point list did not go over well. People didn't like it.

So, another list was prepared. This one also had ten points but was far more optimistic, and was based on things that this writer has observed. Things that are actually happening, right now, right here.

People will treat each other in more neighbourly way. All over, this is actually happening. The Internet is full of emotional accounts of citizens on their own initiative, and often at their own cost ferrying deliveries of food and medicine to those who are sick, or alone, or isolated. There has been an upswing in kindness, everywhere.

People will find creative ways to socialize while social distancing. The Internet is helping them to do this: virtual birthday parties, Skyped get-togethers of friends, online jam sessions, FaceTime group chats, remote tours of cultural places that are far away. Global Internet usage is up by a third and WiFi calls by as much as 82 per cent, says AT&T.

People will become more creative and productive, because they have the time and the motivation. My own consulting firm, which long ago embraced a decentralized client-service model, uses online tools videos, graphics, testimonials to achieve public and government relations goals. And we've gotten busier since the pandemic started.

People will not let the arts wither in isolation, and they will find ways to connect to new audiences. Right from the start, this has been happening. Boston's Celtic punk legends, the Dropkick Murphys, hosted an online concert on St. Patrick's Day. Why? Their lead singer, Ken Casey: "At this point no one's thinking about finances, we're thinking about lifting spirits and getting through this thingâ€¦" Nearly ten million people watched their free show.

People will reconsider past views about politicians and institutions, and re-assess. Ontario Premier Doug Ford, for instance, has become much more popular because of his candour and approach during the pandemic at one point even driving his truck to a Markham dental equipment firm to receive a donation of thousands of medical masks. An early CBC analysis found that 60 per cent approved of the Ontario government's approach to the pandemic a figure most expect to grow in the next round of polls.

People will adjust and find new jobs and new ways of supporting themselves and their families. Coronavirus could and probably already has driven unemployment to 20 per cent. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business projects a third of small and medium-sized firms will not survive the pandemic. So, say groups like Colleges and Institutes Canada, it is critical that governments help provide training for post-pandemic work and governments, federally and provincially, are pledging to do so.

People will accept that there is a right and proper role for government, and reject the Trumpian anti-government populist orthodoxy. In fact, even in the American libertarian heartland, a USA Today/Ipsos poll found wide support for "drastic interventions," quote unquote, by government. Conversely, as the death toll goes up, support for anti-government types like Trump goes down so, one ABC News/Ipsos similarly poll concluded that a majority of Americans now disapprove, or strongly disapprove, of Trump's laissez-faire approach to the pandemic.

People will pay more attention to mental health, because many are experiencing how truly fragile mental health is in times of crisis. Calls to mental health crisis lines have exploded during the pandemic so provinces like Ontario have ramped up online mental health services, and Ottawa has pledged to spend millions for kids' mental health initiatives.

People will come together to find a cure for this beast, because so much depends on it. In Canada, vaccine clinical trials are underway at six different universities. And globally, more than three dozen companies and academic institutions are working to find a vaccine for the coronavirus. "There has never been such a rapid global collective effort to fight one disease," said Karen GrÃ©pin, a public health professor at the University of Hong Kong. "Never."

People will love each other more deeply, because they are seeing how quickly life can slip away. During this unprecedented crisis, this writer has lost friends and family of friends including one long-time Calgary friend, Mike Bezzeg, who was killed in a tragic road accident, after taking food to a self-isolating acquaintance. Mike's death and every death during this terrible time reminds us of the fragility of life, and how fleeting it is.

For Mike, and for all of the ones we will lose in the Great Pandemic of 2020, we need to lean towards and work towards the good days.

Because they are coming back. They must.

Photo Credit: Toronto Sun

Click here for more

It's a good thing the COVID-19 scare has us all vigorously washing our hands, because when this panic is finally over, you better believe there's going to be an awful lot of finger pointing.

More specifically, people across the globe will be angry at their national leaders for not "doing enough" early on to stop the virus from infecting their countries.

This might not be a fair reaction, since a rampaging killer virus is a once in a lifetime disaster that no one could possibly have foreseen, but when tragedy strikes it's just human nature to assign blame.

We want to believe we live in a universe where bad things can be prevented.

On top of that, if the economy sinks into a deep recession, people are going to be in an ornery mood and ready to lash out at anybody in power.

At any rate, my point is in the months ahead, both US President Donald Trump and Canada's Prime Minister Justin Trudeau will both be on the "You didn't do enough" firing line.

In fact, it's already happening.

Trump's enemies in the media and elsewhere, for instance, are currently accusing him of not taking the virus threat seriously in its early stages and then of dropping the ball when it came to virus testing.

Expect such accusations to grow in intensity.

Indeed, Congressional Democrats are starting to talk about creating a special commission to investigate Trump's handing of the pandemic.

Meanwhile, Trudeau too is on the hot seat.

Many are currently arguing that, thanks to his penchant for political correctness, Trudeau took far too long to ban international flights coming into Canada and that his government's screening measures for people arriving from virus hotspots were both lax and insufficient.

Again, expect such accusations to grow in intensity with time.

So how can Trump and Trudeau defend themselves from such attacks?

Well, Trump's play is obvious: blame China.

In other words, Trump's argument will be that the whole world was lulled into a false sense of security by Communist China's duplicity, i.e. the Chinese government failed to disclose the true deadliness of COVID-19.

This is one reason the US President, much to the annoyance of the media, keeps referring to COVID-19 as the "Wuhan virus" or the "Chinese virus," it helps drive home the message that it's the Chinese government which is truly at fault.

Anyway, it's a good communication strategy because it plays into the tribalistic mentality of humanity; people are hard-wired by evolution to accept the idea that "outsiders" are potentially dangerous, so Trump's blaming China will likely resonate on a subconscious emotional level with many Americans.

What's more, playing an anti-China card complements Trump's "Put America First" populist agenda, so it strengthens his brand, since he can now say, "The USA must break its dependence on foreign countries that wish to do us harm."

Plus, as an added bonus, Trump might actually be right to call out China.

Certainly reports have emerged lately which indicates the Chinese Communists did indeed produce disinformation when it comes to the seriousness of COVID-19.

This now brings us to Trudeau. How can he deflect blame?

Well, right now, it seems highly unlikely he will use the "Blame China card."

After all, unlike Trump, Trudeau is a globalist; he's all about increasing international interaction and he's especially keen on gaining more access to the Chinese market.

Plus, let's not forget, he once expressed admiration for the efficiency of the Chinese dictatorship.

Besides, his Health Minister, Patty Hajdu, has gone on record defending China. Recently when asked by a reporter if China was falsifying its numbers she responded, "There is no indication that the data that came out of China in terms of their infection rate, and their death rate, was falsified in any way." She then accused the reporter of fueling "conspiracy theories".

So it would be extremely difficult for Trudeau to pivot and suddenly start demonizing his friends in Beijing.

Mind you, that's not to say he won't use his own tribalistic argument to defend himself.

What will he do?

Well, I predict, just as Trump is blaming China for the virus, Trudeau will blame Trump.

Photo Credit: CBC News

Click here for more

It is probably under-appreciated that the pace at which the government has been moving to address the COVID-19 pandemic is unprecedented. It normally takes months, even a year, to design new programs because there needs to be a careful way to ensure that it will actually go according to plan and not blow up in their faces. It requires consultation, because a bureaucrat is going to have a very limited perspective, and then it requires testing to ensure that it will work properly. We are now seeing programs being drawn up and rushed out the door on a timescale of days and weeks. This is not necessarily a bad thing. What is bad is the way in which the government is communicating with the public about this, and the inherent limitations to their capacity to get things done quickly.

One of the most common complaints we're hearing, particularly from certain opposition parties, is that things aren't happening fast enough. The NDP in particular keep demanding over and over again that the government just send out $2000 to everyone, and worry about means-testing after the fact using the tax system. The problem, however, is that there is no physical capability to do this, but the government and every minister who gets asked this won't actually articulate this fact.

"It's not as easy as just pushing a button," Bill Morneau told the Commons finance committee's teleconference hearing on Thursday, but that was the most he has ever said about it.

The fact of the matter is that one of the reasons the government can't just send cheques to everyone (or direct deposit where possible) is that there is simply no current database in this country that has everyone's SIN and address connected. Yes, the Canada Revenue Agency has most of this data, but not all. Even if you used last year's tax returns, people move, some people have died, others have been born, and there are plenty who have not filed their taxes in years, or who are absent from the tax rolls entirely for other reasons. You can't just join up with other government databases owing both to privacy limitations, as well as the fact that they are all set up differently. In fact, it's probably a good thing that they don't have this kind of database, and to the extent that we take our privacy pretty seriously in this country, you will recall the outcry that happened when Statistics Canada tried to use anonymized banking data to better capture a picture of the country's transactions (as overblown as that reaction was, even acknowledging that StatsCan should have engaged the Privacy Commissioner sooner in their process).

With this in mind, the government decided that using the CRA's system was probably the easiest way to go about it, but again, you can't just type in "give everyone $2000" and expect it to happen. Computers aren't magic, so civil servants have been working to reprogram the existing system to push through the new Canada Emergency Response Benefit to those who will have applied for it, while also making the upcoming GST/HST credit and Canada Child Benefit payments bigger than they would have been otherwise, but again, that can't be done overnight.

It would be great, however, if the prime minister or any of his Cabinet ministers who appear before the microphones daily could actually articulate any of these facts. But they don't. Instead, the government famous for its inability to communicate their way out of a wet paper bag talks in glowing terms about how they're helping Canadians, what kinds of unprecedented measures they've taken, and how they have Canadians' backs during this difficult time. But happy assurances are not explanations, and it's leaving themselves not only open to attack by opposition parties, such as the NDP who want a magic wand to deliver those $2000 cheques to everyone, or the Conservatives, who insist that three-to-six weeks to get the wage subsidy program up and running is too long for anyone to wait, but also every two-bit pundit with an audience. Spelling out that there are physical limits to how fast things can happen would go a long way toward ameliorating some of the anxiety that is being pumped out there, but they don't.

It would also be great if they could also properly explain some of the jurisdictional questions that keep being demanded of them, such as questions about rent, which is strictly a provincial matter. Instead of saying "Landlord and tenant legislation is the domain of the provinces," and maybe a "we've asked them to come up with a more comprehensive plan, but it's not something we can do anything about," we get more bland assurances like "We're not taking anything off the table," which just fuels the demands that they do something about it even though they literally can't.

I am not sure who advised this government that they had to communicate exclusively in happy, clappy talking points, or that they can't ever give reasons why they simply cannot do certain things, but it's not only irritating, it damages their credibility. There are only one or two ministers in the entire Cabinet who are capable of being blunt and forthright in how they respond to things Carla Qualtrough probably being the best example but we need more of it. I'm sure that some genius in their backrooms who is keeping an eye on the election rather than actually governing has told them that they need to simply stick to positive, reassuring talk during this kind of crisis, but it winds up coming across as infantilizing. We need some frank disclosure that they are working as fast as they can, that there are no magic wands, and that they literally have no levers over areas where the province has domain (and no, they are not going to invoke the Emergencies Act, the tool of last resort, in order to bigfoot landlord/tenant legislation). Most Canadians are grown up enough to understand that things take time and there are limits to what they can do. You may be surprised at how much candour can engender trust.

Photo Credit: In Halton

Click here for more

As part of his inaugural address on January 20, 1981, newly sworn in President of the United States, Ronald Reagan, repeated his infamous catchphrase,"Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem."

With those words, Reagan captured the sentiment of much of the United States public.

Trust in government, indeed, in the post-war consensus which had held dominant since 1945, had been eroding for years. The twin crises of Watergate and the Vietnam War had dealt near fatal blows.

Yet still, faith in government held. For a time, it even received a brief wave of rejuvenation, what with Jimmy Carter's 1976 election to the White House. More than anything, Carter's campaign platform was one of restoring trust and transparency in government.

Unfortunately, that faith in government didn't last long.

In 1979, the Iranian Revolution occurred, resulting in massive disruptions in the oil industry and a curtailment of production and exportation alike. Inflation soon reared its ugly head, with gasoline shortages becoming all too common in the United States.

As if this wasn't challenging enough for the Carter administration, but later that same year, dozens of American diplomatic personnel were kidnapped and held hostage by militant Iranian college students.

While Carter had his fair share of achievements during his time in office, he nonetheless failed to convey the image of a strong and decisive leader equipped to confront these challenges.

He lost the ensuing election to Reagan, who rode in his victory on a wave of anti-government sentiment.

Within no time at all, Reagan embarked on his neoliberal, anti-government agenda by cutting taxes, largely for the benefit of the very wealthiest in America and to the detriment of federal coffers.

Similar events took place across the western world.

Margaret Thatcher brought neoliberal, anti-government sentiment into the United Kingdom even earlier, and even more forcefully, than Reagan. She was able to do so after faith in government was similarly ebbing, again as a result of sky-high inflation as well as increasing labour strife during the 'Winter of Discontent.' Thatcher's 1979 election victory ushered in an entirely new era of austerity, deregulation and privatization.

In typical Canadian fashion, neoliberalism came later, and more nuanced, once Brian Mulroney came into office in 1984. While no ruthless slasher of social programs, Mulroney nonetheless had no qualms about privatizing countless crown corporations, all while pursing corporate friendly free trade agreements with the United States and Mexico, at the loss of both Canadian jobs and sovereignty.

Not surprisingly, income and wealth inequality skyrocketed in the decades since. It is now at levels unseen in almost a century. Not only this, but middle-class wages have stagnated, while union membership has fallen.

And it has remained much the same to this very day.

Faith in government as a constructive force may yet return, though somewhat unintendedly, what with the onset of the deadly COVID-19 pandemic.

With citizens around the world now being strongly advised, even mandated into quarantine to help limit the spread of the virus, economic activity has plummeted. As a result, household income has fallen while unemployment continues to rise precipitously. Canada's parliamentary budget watchdog has now even forecasted that the country's unemployment rate could climb up to 15 per cent by the end of the year.

With such dire economic uncertainly rife throughout Canada, and indeed, much of the world, citizens are now more than ever in desperate need of government aid.

To an extent, Canadian governments, both federal and provincial, have altered course to help address this need. Wage subsidies, extended employment insurance and a moratorium on student loan payments are among several new policies that have been introduced to strengthen Canada's social safety net.

Deficit spending is also no longer the bogeyman long claimed by its hysterical critics, now that the federal government is projected to spend an extra $100 billion or so to counteract the economic consequences of the virus. Indeed, all governments will similarly find themselves deep in red ink.

It's as it should be.

For forty years, Canadian governments, of all political stripes, have largely shed their responsibility in defending its citizens from economic hardship.

Officials now have an opportunity to restore the role of government as one that prioritizes the health and economic security of all its citizens, and not just for those most wealthy.

Instead of being just a complicit enabler for the super-rich, government can return to its previous role, where it at least retained the semblance of a proactive defender of its citizens.

If there is one positive development to emerge from the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, hopefully it is that every day citizens come to demand more from their elected representatives and their governments, not only during this crisis, but after it as well.

Photo Credit: Jeff Burney, Loonie Politics

Click here for more

This content is restricted to subscribers

Click here for more

Apparently Canada is forging ahead with its pseudo-crucial bid for a United Nations Security Council seat. And if you think it's an odd thing to be worrying about with the COVID-19 pandemic going on and the economy locked down and the government "injecting" billions of dollars of pretend money into our shriveling wallets, don't look at me. Look at the Prime Minister.

The National Post reports that our campaign for a non-veto Security Council seat "is full steam ahead." Both our Foreign Affairs and International Development ministers told the Canadian Press that, guess what? The latter prated that "The UN Security Council is the body that determines how the world reacts to issues of global security and instability." Like the slaughter in Syria, say? Or Russia dismembering Ukraine? Oh snap.

Still, in the Post's paraphrase, our government believes "Canada's voice on the world's most powerful decision-making body is needed more than ever because of the big decisions that lie ahead in managing the pandemic and its aftermath." And the first thing that jumps out at the alert reader is that the "big decisions" to be taken in managing "the pandemic" and then "its aftermath", aka the shutting down of most national economies indefinitely on the theory that they weren't contributing much of value anyway, will not be taken by the United Nations at all and certainly not by the Security Council, where three erratic democracies and two rigid tyrannies wield vetos. They will be taken by national governments. So the premise is rubbish.

If it weren't, it still would be. Because the titanic fight Canada is waging for this two-year vanity project is not against disgraceful regimes infamous for their corruption and incompetence who ought to be kept as far as possible from "big decisions" affecting our well-being, if any. Rather, they are Norway and Ireland. And no rational person could suppose that whether one of the 10 second-tier votes on the Security Council goes to Canada or to Norway will affect the fate of humanity in the slightest degree.

Besides, our Foreign Minister claimed "once we will be in the post-COVID world (we) will need countries like Canada to be there." But frankly if you were to list all the countries of the world in terms of how much they were "like Canada", Norway and Ireland would be near the top. Certainly closer than Iran or North Korea or Burundi or Laos or Peru orâ€¦ but you get the idea. Even if a "a seasoned ex-diplomat" with the "Canadian Global Affairs Institute" oozed "The new responsibilities of middle-power status, especially G7 and G20 membership, differentiates us from Norway and Ireland".

Well, yes and no. Because as the Post noted delicately, both Norway and Ireland "are viewed widely as having an advantage because they spend far more than Canada on international development to poor countries and have far more military personnel deployed on UN peacekeeping missions â€” two key issues for UN member countries." Awkward.

The world "needs more Canada", or so we are repeatedly told by vainglorious Canadian politicians and pundits. Unfortunately, as with Mordecai Richler's mordant "world-famous in Canada," it is a need the world itself somehow seems unaware of no matter how many times we modestly grasp them by the lapels and mention it. The Foreign Minister even burbled "I think Canada brings something unique to the table. I think more and more countries want to see their voice amplified through Canada." But find me one foreign official anywhere who said "I want to see our voice amplified through Canada", even in the loosest imaginable translation.

If we were to adopt the eccentric procedure of judging by deeds not words, it seems the world would need more Norway. Or Ireland. And if those sentiments seem fatuous, well, like reading Australians commenting on the need for Australians to take more pride in Australian poetry, it casts a somewhat disquieting light on our own parochial preoccupations.

Parochial? Perish the thought. According to Canadian politicians, Canadian politicians are doing a great job. Including our ministers, who if you're struggling to recall their names just as you're struggling to recall last time we had a Security Council seat and what difference it made to anything or anyone, are currently two people called FranÃ§ois-Philippe Champagne and Karina Gould. And the nameless people who write their talking points told them to say we have secretly become far more respected globally because of our response to the pandemic including $50 million in foreign aid. At a time when G20 leaders are pledging to "inject" some CAD $7 trillion in liquidity, cynics might note.

Save your cynicism. Because you're going to need it. The Post also interviewed "some ex-diplomats" who said what the world needs isn't more Canada, it's more of Canada's money. As one former NDP leader (and later ambassador to the UN where he accomplished nothing you can remember) told the Canadian Press news agency, we aren't paying enough baksheesh. We fell down badly on Mali peacekeeping which actually seems to have damaged our standing in the world. But, he advised, it "can be rectified by giving cash â€” 'several hundred million' â€” to the African Union for its peacekeeping operations and increasing its foreign aid contribution to COVID-19" to a minimum of $140 million.

So basically the idea is to buy the seat for, well, a third of a billion dollars. Which admittedly to a government currently looking at a $130 billion deficit with no plans for raising the money anywhere but outer space is a rounding error. But still, the principle of the thing ought to grate.

Apparently it doesn't. Instead another "expert" on international affairs at the University of Waterloo said basically we should buy the Security Council seat. "If I were an African government expecting COVID-19 to knock on my door any minute now, maybe if you're choosing between Norway and Ireland, I would use that as leverage â€¦ If you want me to vote, where's my help?"

OK. Those famous "experts" who "say" in endless news stories say the idea here is to go find a bunch of governments far less honest, transparent and competent than our rivals in this election, and bribe them with money we don't have to put us on the Security Council where nothing important gets decided so windbags can pat themselves on the back for having exchanged gusts with other bags of wind in return for bags of cash.

Disgraceful in principle. But exactly what we need in a global and national health and economic crisis according to the people making the "big decisions". Feel better now?

Photo Credit: Jeff Burney, Loonie Politics