The answer was unfortunately no.

There were a few small, minimal items here and there.  So minimal that Mr. Harper spent more in one day of his G20 meeting than he is spending on seniors in this budget.

So why nothing larger?

It’s because the Harper government’s hands are tied by giving $6 billion in tax cuts to large corporations.  Not small businesses, mind you, but large corporations like banks and oil companies. Their tax rates are already 25% less than the rates in the US.  Why is Mr. Harper so anxious to give them more tax cuts? 

These tax cuts are crippling the government’s ability to invest in people. But that’s not all.

The Harper government intends to spend $13 billion on US style mega-prisons and $30 billion on an untendered fighter jet contract.  Just think… $13 billion will pay four years of tuition for 650,000 students. Will our nation be better off with more prisons or with more university graduates?

Health care is going to need more money as baby boomers age.  Post-secondary education is crucial to our economic success.  This government will have nothing left to put into these areas.

Liberals have different priorities.  As Michael Ignatieff has said “We think Canadians want a different kind of Canada. An ambitious Canada. An entrepreneurial, innovative Canada. Where equal opportunity is back at the centre of Canadian life. “

We want to cancel these corporate tax cuts and invest in people. “Jobs, health care and pensions you can count on, affordable post-secondary education and training, support for family caregivers, and child care and early learning for our kids.”

I have not had a single person in London West tell me that we need more prisons and more fighter jets. 

They do tell me that they are worried about their jobs, their financial situation, and making ends meet.  Parents want their children to be well-educated and successful.  Seniors want the dignity of remaining in their homes. Hard working immigrants want the opportunity find employment and build a new life here.

The Harper government is out of touch with Londoners. Liberals cannot support this budget. And we will not support a government that deceives Canadians, breaks the law, and attacks our democracy.

It is time for a change.  It is time for a new government.

In London since 1993, Diamond is the third largest producer of small aircraft in the world. It has enjoyed much success as an industry leader, and provides jobs for hundreds of Londoners.

Diamond has always made propeller-driven planes – until now. Now they have designed and built a new single engine jet plane called the D-Jet. All the research and development for this jet was done right here in London, Ontario. The jet seats 5 and is made of advanced composite materials. It will cost half the price of its nearest competitor.

The success of the D-Jet means hundreds more highly skilled or tech jobs here in London, and more spin-off business for Diamond’s local suppliers. And it is likely that more versions of the D-Jet will be built, with even more jobs to follow.

The plane has been designed, built, and flown. They have an excellent number of orders already in place. Now Diamond needs to ramp up production. That’s where they have hit a roadblock – financing.

The shareholders are putting up a huge amount of their own money, as have private sources. The Province of Ontario is in too. All the pieces are in place – except one: the Government of Canada, or should I more properly say, the Harper Government.

A year ago, Diamond Aircraft requested a $35 million loan from the federal government. They have not yet received an answer.

Not only that, they have been unable to even get a meeting with the minister in charge, Industry Minister Tony Clement.

The proposed funding is a loan that will be backed up by collateral. The government will be fully secured for repayment.

Why the delay? There is no downside – only an upside. This seems like a good news story for London and for Canada, yet the Harper government is dragging its feet.

This is the third time that London has been hurt by decisions of the Harper government. The first was the decision to put the Southern Ontario Development Agency in Kitchener-Waterloo, and not in London. The second was the cancellation (without explanation) of the AIDS vaccine plant that would have been partly financed with tens of millions of dollars by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. And now Diamond Aircraft could be the third strike.

Please get in touch to let me know what you think – doug@dougferguson.ca. What do you think we should do to get this loan done?

The delay so far has been inexcusable. Further delay could have serious consequences for London’s economy.

Unlike Stephen Harper, who does not take questions unless they are scripted in advance, Michael Ignatieff welcomes free-ranging, unscripted conversations with Canadians. I was honoured to have him spend time with us.

Michael and I each spoke for 2-3 minutes, then started taking questions. We took a dozen questions in all, and asked some survey questions.

The questions ranged from energy to home care for seniors to Canadian democracy to our vision for Canada. Many other voters left voice messages with more questions for me. Here is a Liberal Party blog about one voter who asked a question, Gil Fearnall: http://www.liberal.ca/blog/.

I want to sincerely thank all those in London West who took part in the town hall. It shows that you take your civic duties seriously, and I hope you found it useful.

The survey results were very revealing. Here are some results:

Question 1:
What do you think should be the most important priority for the federal government today?

Jobs and the Economy 40%
New Prisons 2%
Health Care 41%
New Fighter Jets 4%
Environment 13%

Question 2:
Stephen Harper has now been Prime Minister for five years. During that time has your own personal quality of life improved, worsened, or stayed the same?

Improved 13%
Worsened 58%
Stayed the Same 29%

Question 2 tells me that people in London West are hurting, either financially or otherwise. A federal government has to address this, and I do not sense that the Harper government is doing so.

The results in Question 1 lead me to believe that the Liberal Party is speaking to the priorities of Canadians generally and London West in particular. We will put people ahead of jails and jets.

The town hall also showed me that those seeking public office need to find new and innovative ways to talk to people and listen to their concerns. This new system works well, and I hope to use it when I am elected.

These charges arise out of the 2006 election where the Conservative Party sent money to various Conservative riding associations, who then paid it back to the Conservative Party as “contributions” to advertising run by the national party, and then claimed it as a riding association expense. This became known as the infamous “in and out” scandal.

Elections Canada takes the position that these expenses should have been allocated to the Conservative Party, and would have put that party over the maximum spending limit in the 2006 election. The Conservative Party did not show these expenses on the report filed with Elections Canada – hence the charges.

Note that the laying of the charges was approved by the Director of Public Prosecutions, the non-partisan agency dealing with federal prosecutions.

It makes me wonder how different the results in 2006 would have been if it weren’t for these unethical actions by the Conservatives. This is a sad day, for it only serves to bring politics and our democracy into disrepute.

Here is the media release from Elections Canada, along with the charges.

The Charges / Quatre Accusations
Canada Elections Act Charges Laid
OTTAWA, Friday, February 25, 2011

Pursuant to a decision by the Director of Public Prosecutions, four charges have been laid by the Commissioner of Canada Elections under the Canada Elections Act, a federal statute.

The first court appearance is set for March 18, 2011, in Ontario Provincial Court in Ottawa.

4 Charges:

The Conservative Fund Canada,
Douglas M. Finley,
Irving Gerstein,
Michael Donison and
Susan J. Kehoe,

Between November 1st, 2005 and January 23rd, 2006, in the City of Ottawa, in the Province of Ontario and elsewhere in Canada, did wilfully incur election expenses in relation to the 39th federal general election that exceeded the maximum of $18, 278, 278.64 for the Conservative Party of Canada, contrary to Section 423 (1) of the Canada Elections Act and did thereby commit an offence punishable on summary conviction contrary to Sections 497 (3) (g) and 500 (5) (a) of the said Act.

The Conservative Party of Canada,

Between November 1st, 2005 and January 23rd, 2006, in the City of Ottawa, in the Province of Ontario and elsewhere in Canada, being a registered party whose chief agent, the Conservative Fund Canada, did wilfully incur election expenses in relation to the 39th federal general election that exceeded the maximum of $18, 278, 278.64 for the Conservative Party of Canada, contrary to Sections 423 (1) and 497 (3) (g) of the Canada Elections Act is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction contrary to Section 507 of the said Act.

The Conservative Fund Canada and
Irving Gerstein,

Between January 23rd, 2006 and December 18th, 2006, in the City of Ottawa, in the Province of Ontario, did provide the Chief Electoral Officer with a return on the general election expenses of the Conservative Party of Canada, in relation to the 39th federal general election, that they knew or ought reasonably to have known contained a materially false or misleading statement, namely that all election expenses in respect of the 39th federal general election had been properly recorded, contrary to Section 431 (a) of the Canada Elections Act and did thereby commit an offence punishable on summary conviction contrary to Sections 497 (3) (m) (ii) and 500 (5) (a) of the said Act.

The Conservative Party of Canada,

Between January 23rd, 2006 and December 18th, 2006, in the City of Ottawa, in the Province of Ontario, being a registered party whose chief agent, the Conservative Fund Canada, did provide the Chief Electoral Officer with a return on its general election expenses, in relation to the 39th federal general election, that the Conservative Fund Canada knew or ought reasonably to have known contained a materially false or misleading statement, namely that all election expenses in respect of the 39th federal general election had been properly recorded, contrary to Sections 431 (a) and 497 (3) (m) (ii) of the Canada Elections Act is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction contrary to Section 507 of the said Act.

http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=abo&dir=com/stat&document=index&lang=e

The main purpose of our visit was to visit Al Quds University to discuss co-operation between our two law faculties. While we were there, we took advantage of this unique opportunity to meet with a number of other individuals and organizations to receive briefings on the state of affairs on both sides of the divide between these two peoples.

On the Israeli side I met with a spokesperson from the office of Prime Minister Netanyahu, the local head of the Canada-Israel Committee, a political science professor, and the designer of the Barrier between Israel and the West Bank. I also had a very fruitful meeting with the director of the student legal clinic at Hebrew University and found that we had many common issues in our respective clinics.

On the West Bank, in addition to meetings at Al Quds, Prof. Lynk and I met with the Canadian representative to the Palestinian Authority (in effect the ambassador) in Ramallah.

We also met with three UN agencies who gave us their views.

By meeting with both sides, I was able to look at the Barrier (also called the Wall or the Fence) that has been built by Israel along much of the border with the West Bank through the eyes of both Palestinians and Israelis. The Barrier is a powerful symbol of the divisions between Israelis and Palestinians.

I came home with a sense of pessimism, even foreboding. Despite the best efforts of President Obama, I do not see a path to a settlement between Israel and Palestine.

We arrived in Jerusalem in the middle of a dust storm. It was a fitting analogy for the situation as I see it in the Middle East. I am very concerned that another storm will begin to build in the near term, one that will bring pain to both peoples.

This is the first of a four part series of blogs on my visit to the Middle East where I will try to set out my understanding of the positions of both sides as they have been explained to me. I will compare them to what I saw on the ground, and examine their strengths and weaknesses from my point of view.

Next: Part II – The Barrier and the West Bank

This is an example of the disconnect between what the Conservatives say and what they do.

Let me be blunt. This government has not done a good job at managing the books. They will spend our money whenever it helps them politically. Let’s look at their record:
• Largest deficit in history – $56 billion
• $16 billion for untendered stealth fighters
• $10-13 billion for super-prisons when crime rates are dropping
• $6 billion in tax breaks for wealthy corporations when our rates are already amongst the lowest in the G7
• $1.3 billion on a 72-hour G8/G20 meeting
• $50 million on “gifts” for Industry Minister Tony Clement’s riding (which was supported by Ed Holder in a story in the Toronto Star)
• $10.4 billion on external contracts
• $130 million for Conservative partisan ads
• $10 million a year – a 30% increase – for the PMO office budget
• $67.6 million for cabinet ministers expenses – a 16% increase
• $30 million for useless, unreliable information in a new voluntary short-form survey after scrapping the one everyone else wanted, the mandatory long-form census

We need to get our deficit under control, but the Conservatives are still spending Canadians’ money for political advantage.

I predict that in his next budget Mr. Flaherty will be asking Canadians to tighten their belts. The Conservatives should have been doing it already to set an example for Canadians.

“It’s pathetic that the prime minister is pausing from his two-year campaign of belittling and ignoring everything Michael Ignatieff says to decide, in late innings, that the world checks with the former BBC host before making any decision about Canada. The world notices instead that our foreign minister is a perfect buffoon; that no cabinet minister from this government bothered to attend the Munich Security Conference — this was, after all, a Security Council seat up for grabs — until three years in, when suddenly Peter MacKay came around to gladhand for a NATO job; that arms-length agencies are being packed with hacks.” (Paul Wells, Maclean’s, Oct. 12, 2010)

« Pour moi, c’est incroyable, qu’on perde ce vote-là. C’est humiliant! Ça prouve que les positions politiques que l’on prend ont des conséquences énormes dans la vie d’un pays comme le nôtre. Tout le monde était convaincu que le Canada allait être élu à son tour. On l’est depuis des générations. Faut se poser des questions. »
Rough translation: “For me, it’s incredible, that we lost that vote. It’s humiliating! It proves that the policy positions taken [by Harper] have enormous consequences for a country like ours. The whole world was convinced that Canada would be elected in its turn. We have been there for generations. We have to ask ourselves some questions.”
(Jean Chrétien, ancien Premier ministre, Le Journal de Montréal, 13 octobre 2010)

“After Canada withdrew for the Security Council seat competition it spent time and money on, Foreign Minister blamed the flame out on opposition leader Michael Ignatieff’s statements. But in Inner City Press’ reporting, no one had mentioned Ignatieff. Rather, they spoke about Canada’s defunding of UNRWA and, in Africa, its temporarily blocking of debt relief for the Democratic Republic of Congo in order to gain leverage for one of its mining companies in the DRC.” (Matthew Russell Lee, Inner City Press, Oct. 12, 2010)

“Several ambassadors who emerged from the vote made no mention of Ignatieff’s remarks… African ambassadors, in particular, pointed to a series of Canadian stances on issues ranging from African debt relief to the Conservative government cutting funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency.” (Lee-Anne Goodman, Canadian Press, Oct. 12, 2010)

“The loss was not a surprise. Fundamentally, we were selling new policies that others weren’t buying. We abandoned our commitments on climate change…We shifted our aid focus from the poorer countries of Africa to the less poor countries of Latin America.” (Former UN Ambassador Paul Heinbecker, Ottawa Citizen, Oct. 13, 2010)

“Countries ask each other why, how did this happen, what is it that Canada is or isn’t doing, and it’s clear that our record is blemished. We’re not playing our role internationally that once was played.” (Former Canadian UN Ambassador Stephen Lewis, Global National, Oct. 12 2010)

“Only a decade ago, Canada had the reputation as a UN enthusiast, leading the campaign to ban land mines, helping to establish the International Criminal Court, crafting the Responsibility to Protect doctrine on international intervention in states that could or would not protect their citizens. But the country’s profile at the UN is a shadow of its former self.” (John Ibbitson and Joanna Slater, Globe & Mail, Oct. 13, 2010)

“After the brutal experiences of the last week, Canada needs to stop turning its red face to the world. It clearly needs a new look before its solid profile on the world stage disappears like, well, a mirage.” (Don Martin, National Post, Oct. 13, 2010)

When I was a kid in Grade 7, he burst onto the political scene as Minister of Justice, and then a leadership candidate. I still remember watching him on our black and white TV at the 1968 leadership convention, a rose in his lapel, calmly observing the tumult around him.

A few months later, during the 1968 election, he campaigned in Chatham. My dad was president of the Lambton-Kent Liberal Association, so of course we had to be there. I don’t remember his speech, but I remember the densely packed crowd and the excitement around me. That was when kissing him became the passion of many females, young and old, my mother included.

Pierre came to my area a few times in the next several years. I remember a visit to Strathroy and to the high school in Petrolia. Although his political star had fallen somewhat, the palpable excitement was still there.

I attended the University of Ottawa for my undergrad degree partly because of Pierre Trudeau. I wanted to be close to the action, and inspired by Trudeau’s championing of bilingualism, I wanted to learn French. I founded the Liberal Club at Ottawa U, and that gave me an opportunity to briefly meet the man himself at party conventions.

He was approachable, and smaller than you would think, perhaps 5’8” or 5’9”. There would be large crowds around him but you couldn’t see him in the middle of it all. He had those piercing blue eyes, and that brilliant smile. I sensed he was gentle, kind, and mischievous.

In 1980, Trudeau made his famous comeback from defeat. I was in law school at the time, and during that campaign, Pierre came to Alumni Hall. It was the most intense event I ever attended. I was supposed to be “security” – hah! I thought it would be easy. To my surprise, the place was packed, and students were pressing to get in to the point where I was worried for my safety. Pierre was at his magical best, and had the crowd eating out of his hand.

In that election, my dad was elected to Parliament for the riding of Lambton-Middlesex. He had a lot of exposure to Trudeau – in caucus, in the House, social event, and meetings. He even travelled with the Prime Minister to Asia in 1983.

He told me a few tidbits about Pierre the prime minister. For example, he would have MPs to lunch at 24 Sussex just to chat. He would listen carefully about rural issues and followed advice. He didn’t push ahead with bringing the constitution home until he was assured of caucus support. He was respectful of everyone’s views.

One more encounter is still fresh in my memory. Pierre came to my dad’s riding, to the high school in Strathroy, in 1983. When he arrived, he kissed my mother, and we still have a photo of that moment on display in our home.

He gave a thoughtful speech that night. It was almost wistful. I think he knew his time as prime minister was coming to a close. I still remember one line that went something like this: “As I drove here tonight through the countryside, I saw lights at the farms in the distance. And I wondered, who are these people who supported Ralph Ferguson… how do they live, how do they love?”

I saw him in person one more time, in 1990 when Jean Chretien was elected Liberal leader. He signed a copy of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms for me. It is one of my most prized possessions.

When he passed away in 2000, my late first wife Anne happened to be in Ottawa. She stood in line for hours to view his coffin on Parliament Hill. Little did I know that she would herself be gone a few months later.

Pierre Trudeau summoned us to do great things. He inspired us to be better citizens of Canada and the world. He made us look beyond ourselves and our everyday lives. And yet, he chose reason over passion.

We will not see his like again.

The Harper government tells us they want to be tough on crime. So why do they want to abolish the long-gun registry when police use it 11,000 times a day?

My Conservative opponent, Ed Holder, was quoted in the August 31, 2010 edition of the London Free Press as saying that he will vote to abolish the registry.

I find it very disappointing and disheartening that Mr. Holder will be voting based on Conservative ideology and not based on the facts and evidence.

What are the facts and the evidence? The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police has come out in favour of keeping the long-gun registry. They have listed 10 myths being propagated by Conservative MPs and other anti-registry groups.

Myth 1: The firearms registry is a financial boondoggle and costs billions to run.
Fact: In 2009, it cost $4.1 million to operate the long gun registry.

Myth 2: There’s too much red tape in registering a long gun.
Fact: Registrations or transfers are done over the phone or on-line in a matter of minutes.

Myth 3: It’s expensive to register/transfer a long gun.
Fact: It’s free.

Myth 4: The gun registry targets the wrong people.
Fact: As of 2009, 111,533 firearms were in police custody for community safety reasons or after criminal use. Of these, 87,893 were long guns.

Myth 5: Criminals use handguns. Long guns are used by law-abiding hunters and farmers.
Fact: Not always. Of the 16 police officer shooting deaths since 1998, 14 used a long gun. In 2007, about 15% of known fire¬arm homicides in Canada were committed with a long gun.

Myth 6: Police don’t support the long-gun registry.
Fact: All of the major Canadian organizations representing police support the registration of all firearms in Canada.

Myth 7: Police don’t use the gun registry or the CFP’s other services.
Fact: Police across Canada access the firearms registry on-line on average 11,076 times a day, 2,842 of those queries for addresses involving community safety incidents

Myth 8: The firearms registry on-line has no impact on police officer safety.
Fact: It does impact officer safety as evidenced by the fact that police used it 4,042,859 times last year.

Myth 9: The long-gun registry does not save lives.
Fact: The registry does more than register guns. It’s another tool that assists police in making informed decisions that contribute to community safety.

Myth 10: The “gun registry” database has been breached over 300 times by hackers – our information isn’t safe.
Fact: Wrong. The registry’s national database has never been breached by hackers. Information is safe and secure.

I grew up on a farm in rural Lambton County, and I am aware that farmers sometimes need to use guns to deal with predators on their property. I understand the issue as it affects farmers and hunters.

Last April the Liberal Party took a principled stand in supporting the gun registry while proposing reforms that would address many of the concerns of rural citizens. Details can be found here:
http://www.liberal.ca/newsroom/news-release/michael-ignatieff-addresses-police-and-rural-concerns-with-gun-registry-reforms/.

The Conservative position supported by Mr. Holder shows how they have allowed their ideology to trump the facts.

We register our cars. We register our dogs and cats in urban areas. Some purebred farm animals are registered. Based on the facts, I don’t think it’s too much to ask to register long guns.

The first story was the arrival of several hundred Tamils on a ship that arrived in BC after many months at sea. The second story was the arrest of four men, who happened to be Muslim, for planning a terrorist attack.

The stories are linked by one theme: patience and tolerance.

Sri Lanka has been through a horrific civil war that has lasted for over 25 years, prompted by efforts by the government there to promote the interests of the Sinhalese majority (who make up 70% of the population) and discriminate against the Tamil minority.

One law made Sinhala, the language of Sri Lanka’s majority Sinhalese community as the sole official language of Sri Lanka. It was the equivalent of Canada making English the only official language.

Because large numbers of Tamils who worked in the civil service could not speak Sinhalese, they were forced to resign. The government also attempted to make Buddhism the national religion, to the exclusion of Hindu and Islam. Finally, there was affirmative action in favour of Sinhalese majority. As a result of this deliberate discrimination many Tamils came to favour a separate Tamil nation.

The civil war was long and bloody, and ended only last year with a victory by the Sri Lankan government. Hundreds of thousands of Tamils were displaced in the final stages. Thousands of civilians were killed.

To the disappointment of the international community, the Sri Lankan government did not extend the hand of friendship to the Tamil minority. They continue to be marginalized. Archbishop Desmond Tutu recently denounced the government for the persecution, intimidation, assassination and disappearance of government critics, political opponents, journalists and human rights defenders.

So imagine yourself as a Tamil, defeated in civil war, and living in a society which deliberately discriminates against you, and you are in danger for your life. Would you stay?

As Bob Rae has pointed out, in 1939 Canada refused to allow a ship of Jewish refugees to land in our country. They ended up back in Europe, and many did not survive the Holocaust. That is to our shame as a nation.

In the 1970s Canada took in 50,000 so-called boat people from Vietnam. They have become exemplary citizens; one of them, Vu Pham, became an OPP police officer and was killed this year in the line of duty.
The Tamils are no different from the Jewish and Vietnamese refugees.

The recent arrests of four persons on suspected terrorism charges surprised many people in London, as one of them was a medical doctor living in Byron.

Let us not forget that under our constitution they are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, not in the court of public opinion. If they are found guilty, then they will be sentenced according to Canadian law.

These four of the hundreds of thousands of person of the Muslim faith living in Canada, are a miniscule minority. We must take care not to stereotype others of the Muslim faith. Our Muslim friends and neighbours here in London have added much to the rich culture we enjoy. Many are community leaders. No one should be judged for the actions of others.

We do not know if all the Tamils on that ship qualify as refugees. We do not know if they four persons arrested on terrorism charges are guilty or not.

What we do know is that we must be patient and allow the law to take its course. Whether they be refugees or persons accused of crimes, we cannot prejudge. All are entitled to their day in court. I say let the law take its course.

That is the democratic way. That is the fair way. That is the Canadian way.