Campaign 2011: They Shoot Horses Don't They?

Politics for Joe 24

By: Hubert O'Hearn

For: Lake Superior News

April 28, 2011

I don't know what's going to happen on Monday any more than you or any of the national pollsters. The spread of the three most recently released polls is:

EKOS

CPC: 33.9

NDP: 27.9

LPC: 24.0

Harris-Decima/CP

CPC: 35

NDP: 30

LPC: 22

Nanos/Globe/CTV (three-day rolling average)

CPC: 36.6

NDP: 30.4

LPC: 21.9

EKOS has under-sold the Tories since Day One. It's methodology of random automated calls that do not control for who answers the phone may be causing for a disproportionate number of youth respondents - after all, who answers the phone in your house?

Still, it has been an incredible election and for all I have tut-tutted covering the horse race, it has been a helluva horse race. Pretty much any possible result is still in play, from Tory majority to NDP majority. The Liberal horse has pulled up lame and will be shot at dawn. At that, one has to wonder how deep the commitment of the anti-Harper vote which has perched itself on the NDP branch really is. And at that will the Green vote (somewhere between 4-7% declared) scatter itself over to the NDP?

The three things that I think we safely do know are:

1) The Conservatives will come out of that night with the most seats

2) The Bloc Quebecois will be going the way of the Creditistes. And if

you don't know what that was, that's exactly my point.

2) There will be a sea change of leaders in the next year or two. Gilles

Duceppe will regret not having taken over the PQ when he had the chance. A majority-less Harper will be moved along. And Michael

Ignatieff's horse will be shot at dawn.

Change partners and dance!

Unless the declared vote for the NDP absolutely implodes back into the teens (and I truly can't see it happening) we do have a real shift in Canadian politics. At the very least, from now through all foreseeable future elections the NDP must be seen as true and equal contenders for government formation. The real question will be, will the Liberal Party (Canada) go the way of the Liberal Party (UK)? That has been the dark boogeyman that has lived in the shadows of Liberal bedrooms for years. Once passed by the NDP, could the Liberals ever elbow their way back to the front?

I suspect that we will have the 1985 Ontario result all over again. Harper will get first crack at forming the government, and it still could be a majority. But if the numbers break, ballpark-ishly at:

Conservatives: 130

Reckless Coalition: 180

Under those circumstances I think Harper and the Tories are done for. The Reckless Coalitioners (and someone has to start a band or improv group called Reckless Coalition) will turn the Tory argument around. We can't go back to the polls again because the country needs stability etc. etc.

I do owe the reader an apology. I wanted to write more, but I picked up a couple of writing contracts and money trumps passion when one has bills to pay. But if you're reading this before the polls close, if you haven't voted yet - do. And if you don't, then know your role and shut your mouth because you've lost the right to bitch for the next four years. And what fun is that?

Be seeing you.

Actress (Part Three)

Inside Television 551

Publication Date: 4-29-11

By: Hubert O'Hearn

Actress Part Three. This is the third and final column in the series on Lisa DiGiacinto. Where we left the story last week, Lisa had left Calgary for the major media production centre of Vancouver. She was leaving on a high, having featured in the stage production of Red Light Winter and been nominated for Best Actress at the Alberta Film and Television Awards for her role in the short film Deadwalkers, available on iTunes.

I've wanted to explain to you the life of the working actress through the story of Lisa's life thus far. What have we established? If I've done my job, you know that she is lovely and talented and ambitious and dedicated and teachable and had established a solid resume in stage, film and radio. So what more do you need? The world's her oyster and pass her the pearl necklace.

Oysters and pearls. A pearl - in case you didn't know or in case you have forgotten - is born of pain. The little oyster is irritated by a grain of sea sand. It hurts. It hurts and the hurt won't go away so the oyster grows this shiny substance that hardens and smooths around the sand hoping it won't hurt any more. We who just see the result thinks the pearl is all prettiness on the half shell. The oyster knows better, but who ever thought to talk to an oyster?

This story called Actress has been in the works for a year now. When I got back in touch Lisa through Facebook I knew that her story was the story every aspiring actor, and every smug audience member who thought that Life is Hard but Acting is Easy needed to know. I asked her last summer what the highs and lows were. She sent me an audio file last August. It was devastating.

We don't have room in a newspaper column to quote from it, so let me summarize the pain. After a year and a half in Vancouver, things were going less than well. Lisa had passed age 30 and that is a dangerous time for an actress. To paraphrase from a play I directed once called Four Dogs and a Bone, and actress gets three lives: Ingenue, Star, and Someone's Maiden Aunt who's dying of cancer. In the ridiculous age standards of Big Entertainment - and they are our standards dear friends, for Hollywood gives us what we ask them - Lisa was in her prime time, but where was primetime?

Worse, one has to exist. The old joke that inside every actor is a waiter is true. Also inside every actor is a receptionist, office temp, booth attendant, all manner of jobs where the employer hires you on the understanding that if you have to book off for an audition - no problem! Then you need the time and that is a problem.

And it can get very, very lonely. Working actors are surrounded by bonhomie - good times! Cheers! But the relationships are temporary and often born of a quiet desperation. No one can ever fault an actor for finally saying 'The hell with it.'

But Lisa never said those words. She has overcome. Cast in the feature film Quiver over the internet on Skype, she returns home to Thunder Bay in a few weeks to begin shooting. And, her present day job hits a sweet spot for an actress. She works for a casting agency in Vancouver. They will surely understand an actor's needs.

How does Lisa DiGiacinto summarize her own story? 'I feel that the universe (all my jobs and the industry) is all finally supporting me and that I am extremely excited to see what the near future has to offer me! I just feel that some major successes are just around the corner.. but I needed to go through the tough times to get to where I am now, it was all part of the journey.'

Irony and pain and talent and excitement. That - that is an Actress.

Be seeing you.

(Thank you for reading and, I hope, sharing. Just to inject a petty commercial note, this site is supported by readers clicking on the ads. HINT. Cheers - H)

Actress (Part Two)

Inside Television 550

Publication Date: 4-23-11

By: Hubert O'Hearn

Actress Part Two: We continue the story of Lisa Marie DiGiacinto on her ten years' journey leading from Thunder Bay, to Calgary then Vancouver and finally returning back to Thunder Bay to style and profile as the female lead in the feature film Quiver, shooting here in next month.

One of the hard truths of acting that Lisa's story clearly highlights is that no matter how good you might be in Thunder Bay or other hinterland cities, if you want to make it, you have to leave it. Anyone who tries to argue that it is possible to make a living here solely as a creative artist in theatre, film or television either a) has never tried or b) has tried and just hasn't gone broke yet. Small, divided and unsupportive markets will do that to you. Acting is a great hobby in the hinterland; as a profession - no.

The logical place to start for a Canadian actor is Toronto. Lisa looks back today at her fears of Toronto and laughs at them: "There were a few things I was scared of though- the biggest ones being high cost of living and... Apparently I couldn’t drive, apparently no one in Toronto had cars?? WTF, coming from Tbay, I didn’t understand public transit haha." So, as one of her best friends Harmony had moved to Calgary, which was a growth market for entertainment, she moved there in January 2004.

There survival got in the way of her dreams. Having a degree in Commerce, Lisa worked in a bank for two years and it all might have ended there as it ends for many an actor. But, "I was...depressed. (or so I thought)... so I did some self analysis, and came to the conclusion that I wasn’t happy with my path and something had to change, drastically. So, I did some job personality type tests and what was the #1 career choice for me EVERY TIME???? ACTRESS. I knew in my heart that I would never be happy and fulfilled if I didn’t pursue my dreams... the # 2 was broadcasting... so I did both. I started going to acting classes and got a job in promo for a radio station... from there, I started auditioning, and landed my first small one liner role in an indie short called Stolen Horses." But a credit's a credit and a successful actor knows how to build a mansion starting from one brick.

From that one-liner she continued to get work in Calgary, including a part in a picture directed by her teen years heartthrob Jason Priestley. (He was Brandon in the original true classic Beverly Hills 90210.) But just as you can't go anywhere in Thunder Bay, you can only go so far in Calgary. So in December 2008, Lisa gave herself a Christmas present and moved to the production hotbed of Vancouver.

Next week: we bring it all home. Literally. Be seeing you.

Campaign Trail 2011: How to Vote for YOU

Politics for Joe 24

By: Hubert O'Hearn

For: Lake Superior News

We will absolutely be completing the series on the party platforms. The feedback I've had has been both positive and angrily negative from all sides so therefore we're doing something right. But for now, I want to share with you some thoughts on how to vote.

No, I don't mean that in a candidate or party-specific way. That I think is the trap that Big Media springs on the average voter. The concentration on large, macro patterns such as national or provincial polling; along with large, macro topics such as the relative popularity of the party leaders takes the great national argument away from what its rightful subject. You.

The model voter

Some rather toxic combination of schools, churches and correct parenting drive into us the notion that it is always wrong to be selfish. Have you ever seen the last piece of pie get tossed into the bin because no one in the family wanted to appear so selfish as to take and eat that last wedge of fruit-filled pastry? I swear we as a nation waste tonnes of food per year because we don't want to be appear like greedy little piggies.

Politics and elections are the absolute perfect times to stand up and loudly say, 'What's in it pour moi?' Quebec mastered the art decades ago in the Duplessis era. Everyone from Hull to the Gaspé knew that Le Chiffre was calling a provincial election because the streets and highways smelled of hot, fresh asphalt as the roads were literally paved for another victory. To this day, the Rest of Canada (ROC) tends to get huffy and annoyed with Quebec's quote/enquote 'whining' to get rewards like aerospace contracts, new bridges, hockey rinks, etc. etc. etc. Personally I think it's brilliant on Quebec's part and the ROC should learn from the Bloc.

Here's the theory in a nutshell. If each and every one of us precisely voted our own narrow and selfish interests we should end up with a balanced Parliament that follows the priorities laid out by the electorate. Emphasis on should. I will point out and comment on the flaw in the theory later.

I ask you to take a look at yourself, and/or your own family if you have been so lucky as to have one in your home. What is the one thing that government could possibly do for you that would make your life a little better, a little happier? I urge you not to just reply, 'More money!' as money is a means to an end, not an end to itself regardless of what monetarist Tories will tell you.

(Well you didn't expect me to start getting objective, now did you?)

But if it's more money, it's more money. This is your Letter to Santa, not mine. My priority is Home Care. I have an 85 year old mother living upstairs for whom I get absolutely no help in terms of subsidy or placement in a safer setting. If we ever have a fire - and we did have a house fire four years ago - she will die. Simple as that. Equally, I have a 45 year old beautiful common law wife who is not living in our house because she suffered a brain aneurysm. There are no Neuro-psychologists in Northwestern Ontario (think Oliver Saks) and this is inhibiting her recovery so that she still requires 24 hour supervision. I cannot give that because I have to work, so she must live with her parents in Atikokan, two hours' drive away.

I tell you this personal story because it directly impacts my vote. Which party, which platform, addresses my needs? Both the NDP and Liberals have strong Health Care and Home Care platform planks. So my choice narrows to those two.

Then, what is second on my Santa List? I work at a hotel, therefore it is in my selfish interest to see lots of tourists come to Thunder Bay. Lots of tourists means filled hotel rooms, means profits means a wage increase and more pension money when our next contract comes up. Which platform will do the most for tourism? The Liberals are committed to high-speed rail. Yes, it will first be in the Windsor-Montreal corridor, but at least that's a start and it will likely mean more work for friends who work at teh Bombardier plant here. So, I guess Ken Boshcoff gets my vote.

Are you grasping how this works now? Another example: Let's say you are the parent of a Canadian soldier fighting in Afghanistan. If you want him or her brought home immediately - that's your top priority - you should vote for the NDP candidate in your riding. If you want him or her armed to the teeth, you should vote Tory. The Conservatives are the party most committed to spending at the Department of National Defence.

Essentially then, I am suggesting a three-part process:

1) Assess your priorities

2) Discover who addresses your priorities

3) Vote accordingly

This is why I am plowing through the platforms on your behalf because you have too much life going on to do it for yourself. If all 30,000 or so people who will actually vote in an average riding did just that, the pattern will reflect the riding's majority interests and that riding will elect a man or woman with a mandate to press for those interests.

The flaw - and there is one - is what of minority interests? In some ways all interests are minority interests. Somewhere between 3-7% of the population live with a disability. (The range is because of differing definitions.) There are lots of people who require Home Care, but never a majority. It is for this reason that the economic number that most affects voting is not unemployment, but inflation. Unemployment affects the unemployed. paying more for gas, chicken and toilet paper affects everyone.

This is the big shiny argument for proportional representation (PR). Narrow, minority interests would be represented by narrow, minority interest parties who would in turn build Parliamentary coalitions and work for one another when and where their policy interests matched.

What I've never liked about PR is that I know how the Big Parties will abuse it. They too will receive a certain number of PR seats, so there will actually be Liberal and NDP members in Alberta and so forth. These PR seats are where the Big Parties will place their Star Candidates, so they don't have to get all mucky and actually campaign and get your Uncle Lou his passport on time. And they will wind up leading the party, being the Cabinet members and future leaders; which in turn makes the riding-elected Member of Parliament even less important than s/he is now.

Thanks for reading. More platform columns this week. Please share, tweet and comment. Be seeing you.

Actress (Part One)

Inside Television 549

Publication Date: 4-15-11

By: Hubert O'Hearn

Lisa Marie DiGiacinto

Actress. I've never understood why the all-encompassing term Actor ever came into use for both men and women. It has to make life awkward for anglophone women named Jean auditioning in Quebec and francophone men finding similar work in Alberta. I find nothing discriminatory about the word actress; therefore I continue to use it.

This and the following two weeks' columns are about one actress. You see, we tend to concentrate on those that have made it, or lost it, or are in the position as producers of media products of making it for others. Life looks easy for them when viewed from a distance: pools and pool parties, more champagne darling, and isn't the beach lovely this time of year?

Yet acting is the hardest work, the hardest career you can pick because talent doesn't necessarily rise like cream or champagne bubbles. Actors and actresses work and scrimp and haul tired bodies into empty theatres lit by one bulb so that they can look fresh and sparkly and just what some shadowy face sat at a table is looking for. Except they aren't looking for someone 5'7 with chestnut hair - no, we really want 5'8 and auburn thank you for coming leave your pictures at the desk.

I'd like to introduce you to a friend of mine that I haven't seen in more than ten years who is right there, right at that moment when the hundredth key has been placed in the lock and turned and - lo and behold - it clicked. She is about to become one of the exalted ones. May we have a round of applause for Lisa DiGiacinto.

Lisa has just secured her first major role, the female lead in Quiver; a feature film that begins shooting in Thunder Bay next month. Lisa is from Thunder Bay originally and it is a splendid irony that she moved first to Calgary and then Vancouver to receive her break in Thunder Bay. But that's acting for you. If you don't have a sense of irony going in, don't worry, it will seek you out.

I want to take you on the path Lisa followed to where she is today. I first met her in 1999. For a very brief time, there was a theatre production group at Lakehead University, where Lisa was a student. I know that theatre group well because I headed it. Dr. Fred Gilbert, the President of LU was kind enough to give me a desk in the basement of the Agora and we put on one show, Anton Chekhov's The Seagull. There was no funding, so it all drifted apart like the mists of a Russian dawn, but for a few minutes it was brilliant.

Lisa played Nina, the female lead. She was twenty then, very pretty and equally unpolished but you could see that she really - really - wanted to act. I remember during rehearsal she broke into tears behind the curtain on the stage right side of the Bora Laskin Auditorium, next to a giant clanking lighting board that looked like a set piece from Wolfgang Petersen's film Das Boot. I don't remember now what I said, but it must have worked.

On opening night she gave a performance that is - yes - my favourite of 105 opening nights I have attended as actor or director or writer. Lisa electrified. In the closing mad scene she was consumed and consumed and fed the audience with all the shock and perfect horror of her character. She became an Actress in that moment.

I wondered over the intervening decade what had become of her, knowing in my heart that if she pursued it, she might breathe the rare air of stardom. Thanks to Facebook, we re-connected.

Next week: Packing, Pubs and Parts - the story continues.

Campaign 2011: The Leader's Debate LIVE!

The 2011 Leader's Debate


Live blog starts at 6:45 PM EDT
Thoughts? Comments? Suggestions?
Email them to: hlohearn@gmail.com


6:30 PM - Welcome. Tonight is pretty much the whole campaign. In a nutshell, can Harper survive the latest blast to the Trust issue? Does Michael Ignatieff have the Right Stuff? Will Jack Layton become relevant? And why is Gilles Duceppe there anyway?

6:35 PM The tough nut to crack Ignatieff and Layton need to attack Harper, yet not appear either a) shrill or b) a tag team. Politics is enough like wrestling that the fans tend to cheer for the underdog. The point needs to be made that Canada made it through the recession because of 80 years of banking regulation that avoided the debt crisis. If that can be stated clearly, then the agenda can shift to the future to that - you know - vision thingy.

6:40 - It is a very odd looking studio, like something out of a 1963 game show.

6:42 Watching our friend Marcia MacMillan on CTV News Channel The leaders are in the room. I remember interviewing Steve Paikin who moderated the 2006 debate. Steve said the eerie thing was that for the 10 minutes before the debate started, none of them said a word to each other. Massively tense.

6:45  Yes, we did start a bit early. I can't get over the look of the studio. Big organgey/brown rectangles and the podiums (podia? Podiatrists?) set very close. I'd pay dearly to see Layton start thumping his cane on the floor..on the podium...on Harper...

6:50 So it is Paikin again. Wonder if he's cracking a joke. I know he was highly tempted last time out...

6:52 The format is awkward: 4 in a room. You never really get a true one-on-one ... you know, debate like what you had in Mrs. Wigglesworth's Grade 5 class. Pity.

6:55 - right then, have to serve out dinner. Back for the start. Be sure to send any comments, particularly if you agree that Harper should be strapped naked to an ice floe and set loose in shark-filled waters. heh

6:58  So which one will be the first to unbutton his dark blue serge suit to show he's 'getting down to business'? My money's on Jack.

7:00 Showtime!

7:03 Oh good, there are one-on-ones. Harper plays Duceppe first. Duceppe of course is the one guy with nothing to lose.

7:04  Harper: economy good. taxes bad. Duceppe congratulates Harper for answering a question from a citizen for first time in teh campaign. Funny. And Duceppe goes right to the Auditor-General's report.

7:05 Duceppe makes the point that it was the Opposition that forced the Public Works spending in 2008-2009

7:06 Honestly, I love Duceppe. Great, animated face. He makes Harper's voice waver when catching him on a small point that there was no stimulus plan in Jim Flaherty's economic statement 2 1/2 years ago.

7:10 If it was boxing, you'd have to give the round to Duceppe 10-9

7:11 Ignatieff fires on corporate tax cuts, waste of public money etc. Too scattershot. And you can tell Harper HATES Ignatieff. If they can get Harper angry, that might do it, like the V aliens unzipping their human skins.

7:12 Layton comes on calm, clear and focused. "You've become what you used to oppose" Great line. "Something's happened to you" "What happened to you?"

Harper: "There are no corporate tax cuts right now" Huh?

Early grades: Duceppe B, Iggy C, Harper B (hard to play under attack) Layton A

7:15 Harper makes no eye contact with either the other leaders or the camera.  Bad move.

7:17 Iggy is awkward, no doubt about it. But Harper is in the position of defending fighter jet purchases. Layton handles the questioning much better.

7:18 Harper scores well by pointing out Canada has a 'balanced approach' in coming out of the recession. We don't, but it is an excellent calming point. He is sounding frustrated though.

7:20 I keep coming back to the eye thing. It's like Harper is talking to an invisible midget

QUESTION ONE OVER:
Harper: B
Layton B+
Ignatieff C+
Duceppe C (strong early then faded)

Question Two On foreign affairs aka Canada goes to the fridge


7:25 Layton makes the push on bring the troops home now from Afghanistan. Iggy attacks Jack - BIG STUPID MOVE! And why? Because Layton says to him, "Those are the same arguments Mr. Harper makes" Strange thing, but I always thought foreign policy would prove to be Ignatieff's weakness. then again, I've actually read his opinions. He is a hawk.

7:26 Layton is landing body blows all over Ignatieff over Liberal support of Tory policies. But Ignatieff opened himself up to it.

7:28  If the NDP don't get a 3-4% bounce out of tonight, then I don't know what they can do. This has been Jack Layton's finest hour.

7:32 Btw, housekeeping her. Hit F5 to refresh if you didn't know.

7:35 Iggy interjects - "then release it"! On the Auditor-General's Report. Makes for a nice camera swerve and gives a sense of energy to Ignatieff who is floundering. he has a terrible whine to his voice. that smothers his points.

7:37 There too, when Harper puts on that whispery 'calm' voice he does sound like he's talking down to people. Perhaps the invisible midget?

7:38 Layton hits out at the Senate blocking an Environmental bill twice.

End Question Two:


Layton: A-
Harper: B
Ignatieff: C
Duceppe: C

Question Three: Governance One-on-one between Harper and Ignatieff


Ignatieff's Super Bowl, right here, right now.


7:45 Ignatieff - and it pains me to say it - is an actor struggling to remember his lines. Harper's getting his majority.

7:46 Or...Iggy's best moment on kicking people out of Tory rallies. harper's eyes have finally found the camera. And WTF!!?!! Harper opposing 'personal attacks'!?

7:46 Ignatieff finally woke up. "You stiffed Parliament Mr. Harper."

7:50 Duceppe looking a bit bored, wondering when cocktail hour's over. Decides to bring up the famous 2004 meeting that woulod have made Harper Prime Minister.

7:52 Harper flustered from the Layton-Duceppe tag team. "Look what you wrote" Duceppe repeats.

7:53 Iggy's body language is loosened up. He's MUCH better now.

7:56 Duceppe definitely bloodied Harper. There is another little quirk to Harper - when he lies he puts on "the sincere calm voice" And his interpretation of the 2004 meeting clearly is a lie.

8:00


Running Grade


Layton: A
Harper: B-
Ignatieff: C+
Duceppe: B-


8:01 - A Layton cheap shot on Ignatieff's poor record of actually being in his seat. That is a cheap shot, you know.


Question Four: Immigration and Multiculturalism


 I wonder if Ignatieff will bring up the attacks the Tories have made on his personal story?

One-on-one between Duceppe and Layton aka The Bronze Medal Game. I'm getting coffee...brb

8:07 - This does give Harper a breather and I wonder how many viewers have clicked over to American Idol?

8:10 - Iggy leads with his Dad emigrating from Russia. Points out Harper has cut settlement funding for new immigrants.

8:12 - Iggy very good in making the immigration issue personal.

8:14 Harper standing up to Duceppe over Bill 101 scores some easy points in the ROC

8:16  This is a cheap thing to say...but from certain angles Layton's makeup EXACTLY MATCHES the backdrop

8:17 Ignatieff does make a good point in talking about Equality over ethnic groupings pitted against one another. That will play well (to the 3% of the population who deeply care about this particular issue)

Running Grade


No change


Question Five: Justice


This will be Harper's red meat, grrr, build prisons issue


8:20 -  Ignatieff leads with the gun registry! Nice. Gutsy. And saying 'don't learn from the Americans' always goes down nice and smooth.

8:22  - Iggy v. Duceppe again gives Harper a rest period. Not an issue where there is a real debate between the Liberals and Bloc though. Sense viewers switching off again. I guess that last question will be Health Care.

8:24 Duceppe mentions Freedom of Choice and the Tories removing it by a backdoor, private member's bill.

8:25 Ignatieff is right about the 'Politics of Fear'...it just isn't phrased in a way that has any great meaning.

8:26 Energy has left the room, as all four prepare for the final round.

8:30 Surprised no one brought up the Tory propsals on Internet surveillance, although in fairness I refilled my coffee so I may have missed something.

8:31 Jack gets audience response of OOOO-AHHHH "I don't know why we need more prisons when tyhe crooks are happy in the Senate" That was the first time I realized there was an audience.

8:35 Ignatieff goes for gun control. I think this is a vote-getter and a good move. The red meat good ol' boys won't be for the Liberals anyway. Harper says most gun owners are in favour of gun control - not in my experience.

Running Grade:


Harper: B
Ignatieff: B-
Layton: B
Duceppe: C+


End of Question Five


Question Six: Health care


Harper v. Layton


This is Canada's top priority according to the polls. Layton understandably waves the Tommy Douglas flag and boosts for more family doctors and home care

8:40 Harper again makes an odd promise for things to be done in 2014. Are they planning a 2 year vacation?

8:42 Jack Layton is re-energized, as he should be. This is the NDP home court.

8:43 Christ, I can't stand the Harper "soothing voice". Wonder...am I alone?

8:45 Harper dodges the privatization issue. Now the final, Final Four debate.

8:46 Ignatieff has the traditional Liberal position of, "if the provinces are going to take the cheque, Ottawa has a voice" He also makes an awkwardly phrased equation that money on G20, jets and prisons takes away from Health Care. There is something reminiscent of Trudeau in Iggy to the extent that PET was terrible when working from a script, but completely alive when he became spontaneous

8:50 Well, we're almost at the end. Harper had a very rough first half an hour but ultimately those who don't like him will have had their opinions vindicated and rinse and repeat for those who do like him. Layton landed the best shots and likely saved the NDP campaign. Duceppe can bank his 50 seats. And Ignatieff...well it would have been really, really interesting if a great debater like Bob Rae had been Liberal leader. I just don't find him to be a compelling figure. Can I 'envision' him as Prime Minister, yes. But can I see him raising the wave of mass energy needed to kick a government out of power? No.

Four more years.

Final post will be on the closing statements.

8:45  Gimlet-eyed. That's the metaphor I've looked for with Harper.

8:55 Layton's closing - Standard recitation of policies.

Duceppe's closing -  See above. We want a country.

Ignatieff's Closing - Respect for democracy. Standard recitation of policies.


Harper's closing: Economy good, taxes bad.

barring jail time or Cabinet Ministers caught with sheep, Harper majority. Merde.

Campaign Trail 2011: The Job Platforms

Politics for Joe 24

For: Lake Superior News

By: Hubert O'Hearn

For those who missed my previous column, I'm doing the heavy lifting that the national media has shirked. They care about chicken suits and poor seating at Harper rallies...I'm looking at the policy proposals at of the Big Three parties. My goal is to re-engage the electorate with the election before the only people bothering to turn out to the polls are the candidates, their friends and family, and some guy named Pete who had to use the washroom.

Last time we looked at the Parties' plans for your Family. Today: Jobs.

The Job Situation at Present:

Canada's unemployment rate is a lumpy and mediocre 7.7%. Economists have knife fights over what constitutes 'full employment' - there will always be a certain percentage of employable adults who step back for various family reasons, are between engagements, or have just told the Boss to take the paycheque, fold it five ways and put it where the moon don't shine. Basically, any number under 6% is Good. An unemployment rate over 8% is bad. So Canada currently is in transition, but it remains to be seen (the favourite phrase of the bet-hedging journalist) which way the needle will move next.

But, there is a deeper problem and it is one you have heard at the coffee shop, at the bar, or at your dining room table. We are leaking industrial wage jobs, those that pay +$18 per hour, and replacing them with jobs that require name tags, paper hats or both. 9.4% of Canadians are defined as living in low-income situations i.e. earning less than $20,000 per year. And if you've never tried living on $1500 per month ... don't.

So what are the Parties proposing to preserve what we've got, and expand the number of jobs that will provide economic security?

The Parties Speak!

Sunday afternoon, the NDP finally released their platform, replacing the 158 words re-printed in the previous column. That required some late revisions to this column. I'm starting to think Jack Layton has it in for me.

Nonetheless, the NDP platform has 10 direct references to Jobs. As you will see, that is the least of the Three Big Parties, but our interest is in the quality rather than the quantity. So, what are their proposals?

A specific recommendation is reducing the small business tax rate from 11% to 9% as an offset to the corporate tax rise that the New Democrats also propose (albeit they do promise to keep Canada's corporate tax rate below that of the U.S.). That, plus a year-long exemption from EI and CPP premiums paid for new hires, along with a $1,000 non-refundable tax credit for new hires who last a full year at their job add up to a maximum $4,500 incentive. On a $25,000 entry level job, that works out to an 18% Federal subsidy in one form or another.

The NDP project that the above proposal would add 200,00 jobs to the economy. Instinct tells me that the number sounds high, and there is no guarantee that these would be other than name tag & paper hat jobs (is the NDP subsidizing Wal-Mart and MacDonald's?), but it would go a long way towards off-setting the 113,000 jobs lost between October 2008 and October 2010.

For Northern Ontario, the NDP would double the funding for FedNor. Foreign Investment would be examined at a $100 million or higher threshold and such investment would have to meet a 'net benefit for Canada' test.

That really is about it in terms of direct job creation, although the NDP commitment to retro-fitting homes to be more energy efficient will (they say brightly) 'create local jobs'!

To be brutally honest with you, the program feels rushed and slapped together. But judged purely on its merits...

O'Hearn's Grade: C

As to the Liberals, their Red Book platform when searched has 41 references to Jobs. They frame the debate with statistics. In 2006, when Paul Martin's last Liberal government was defeated, unemployment was at 6.4%. Five years later, despite a 43% increase in Federal Government spending, Canada is at the aforementioned 7.7%. Meanwhile, Canadian's personal debt has risen from 123% of annual income in 2006 to 150% today. In other words, Canadians are borrowing and borrowing heavily to make ends meet, hoping for something better to come along.

So how do the Liberals define 'something better'? In a nutshell, there is a hard emphasis on training and hiring of youth. Why? Because of all we baby boomers who will be appearing soon at a nursing home near you, today's whippersnappers are going to have to earn big bucks in order to pay for our bedpans. That may be crude, but accurate.

The Liberals propose a revitalization of the Investment Canada Act in order to preserve our innovative companies (Nortel, we hardly knew ye) and encourage foreign investment where it will provide solid, secure jobs. If you hear the Trudeau years calling, I think you're right. And I think that policy is right.

Regarding Youth hiring, the Liberals propose an EI holiday for small businesses hiring new employees. At a current 1.73% of the paid wage, that is a reasonable incentive for business. Not a great incentive, but better than a kick in the head with a steel boot.

Finally, the Liberals express a desire to increase productivity. There is a caveat that needs to be injected here. Increases in productivity do not equal increases in jobs. For that reason, Pierre Trudeau never paid much more than lip service to direct investment in productivity. That said, I do heartily agree with the targets of the Ignatieff Liberal investments: municipal rail and high-speed rail. I have always thought it slightly insane that we live in a country whose major cities essentially line up in a row coast-to-coast and yet we do not have high speed rail service. Imagine if a shopper in Thunder Bay could hop a train to Winnipeg in the morning and be home in time for dinner? Better yet, imagine the opposite.

I have some concerns about this Jobs agenda, but overall...

O'Hearn's Grade: B

The Conservative platform has 92 references to Jobs. The quick summary is that the Tories are adopting the classic Laffer Curve/monetarist/Reaganomics approach to jobs. Keep taxes low and business will invest the savings in jobs. Now to me, laissez-faire government is lazy-unfair government, but as I've been clear from the start, I bring my own opinions and prejudices with me. And I'm always right. So there.

What is remarkable is how even within the platform, the Harper Conservatives take every opportunity to scare-monger and name-call. The ogre of "high-tax" Liberals is waved about more than any real agenda. And I am honestly trying to be fair to the government here.

In terms of the concrete, the Tories offer almost the same EI benefit as the Liberals, except that the former offer it as a tax credit. Personally, I prefer the simpler approach of 'don't pay EI' rather than 'collect it back at the year end provided you made money and you haven't already maxed out whatever credits can be applied against income and...'

Accountants must love the Tories.

As I said, this is a monetarist policy. Harper's team is bound and determined to have the lowest corporate tax rates in the G7. (Say, what happened to the G8? Did someone retire?) But do lower corporate tax rates actually result in re-investment and jobs?

Since 2001, when Paul Martin as Finance Minister began cutting tax rates, business investment has actually fallen in Canada. (link here) Now, we have also had a minor national recession and a near-worldwide financial collapse in that 10 year period, so that may have had a mitigating influence.

There is one other telling contrast between the Conservatives and Liberals. While the Grits are doin' it for the Kids, the Tories are goin' for the Grey. Harper's team proposes incentives for hiring older workers, to keep them in the workforce longer.

Hmmm...and Hmmm again.

While I count as an Older Worker and as such am part of the target group, damn I really don't want to be hauling my ever-wearying butt out the door when I'm 68. Plus, there is that baby boom problem which the Liberals are addressing while the Tories are not.

Tough call on a Grade. If you're a fan of the late Milton Friedman, you'll love it. Me, I'm a John Kenneth Galbraith man through and through.

O'Hearn's Grade: C+

Next time: Health.

Go Rory McIlroy!

Be seeing you.