Consumers shrug off recession, say economy will improve

Canadians have rarely been so optimistic about their economic future, according to a new poll done exclusively for Canwest News Service and Global National.

Pollster Ipsos Reid said 52 per cent of Canadians believe the economy will improve in the next year, a level of confidence the firm has not seen in 18 years of tracking consumer confidence. In November, just 20 per cent of those surveyed by Ipsos Reid believed the economy was improving.

…Asked if they would spend more or less on big-ticket items such as cars, appliances or vacations, just one in five said they would pick up spending on those items. While 42 per cent said their spending patterns will remain unchanged, 36 per cent said they'll spend less.

Because consumer spending accounts for more than half of all economic activity, that data suggests a full-fledged recovery may be months away.

When asked if they think their own personal financial situation will improve, one in three said they think it will improve over the next 12 months, while one in 10 believes their own situation will worsen. Ipsos Reid said that, on balance, that's an improvement from early March when Canadians were more nervous about their own financial situation.

Still, many Canadians — about one in four — remain anxious about their employment situation, although that anxiety has eased since peaking in November.

[Read the rest of the story ]

And the final word on "Tar Baby" from Poilievre himself

In a second, the exchange in the House of Commons today between Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre and his LIberal and NDP detractors over the Poilievre's use of the term 'tar baby” but first, links elsewhere to this issue:

And finally, Liberal MP Ralph Goodale and NDP MP Paul Dewar rise on a point of order to convince a defiant Poilievre to retract his words:

Hon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order arising from question period.

On at least two occasions in question period, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister used the expression “tar baby”. In addition to being a pejorative term, which might well prove to be unparliamentary, the parliamentary secretary might consider that there are many authorities both in this country and many others that consider the term racist.

While he may want to make his views known in strong and extreme terms, he also might want to take this occasion to withdraw that expression to make it absolutely clear that he was not implying any racist connections.

Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, that hon. colleague is a man with whom I have had disagreements but for whom I have respect. On this occasion though, I cannot believe that he would attempt to inject that meaning into that expression. He clearly understands that my reference had absolutely nothing to do with the one that he implied. I have worked hard to represent people of all backgrounds and I have always done so in a spirit of tolerance.

My reference to the term “tar baby” was a common reference that refers to issues that stick to one. The leader of the Liberal Party has taken this position. It has stuck to him, and now he is having difficulty explaining himself on that issue.

For him or for his House leader to inject racial politics in order to distract from that is the worst kind of base politics. I would encourage them to apologize for it.

The Speaker: I am going to proceed with the hon. member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I too want to rise on the same point of order coming out of question period.

I just want to tell the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister to at least understand how this term can be interpreted and why it should not be used. As recently as this past week, Mitt Romney, a governor in the United States, used the term. He was admonished and apologized.

This is an example of perhaps the use of a term that the parliamentary secretary might not have intended to be used in a certain way. However, that can be interpreted, and has been interpreted, by many African Americans. It is a term that should not be used.

To benefit us all, I ask the parliamentary secretary to apologize and not use the term in the future.

Mr. Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's point. I am perfectly prepared to assure him that is absolutely not what I was referring. In fact, I have never even heard that term used in the context that he is suggesting.

If anybody is offended because of the way that someone else might have used the term, I can assure the member that was not my intention and never would be.

Hon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the interest of laying this issue to rest, I wonder if the parliamentary secretary would not more unequivocally follow the example set not only by former governor Mitt Romney in the United States, but also by Senator John McCain, both of whom on various occasions used those expressions. When it came to their attention that they were inappropriate, they withdrew and they apologized.

Will the parliamentary secretary do the same?

The Speaker: The matter has been dealt with and I do not believe it is necessary at this point for further interventions from the chair.

More tar babies: PMO points at The Star and Lloyd Axworthy

PMO staff have their “Tar Baby” file open and, in defence of Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre, have pointed me at the following uses of the phrase “Tar Baby” by, as they say, “a national newspaper, one from a national reporter, and one from a former Liberal Cabinet Minister.”

The “national” newspaper is, ahem, actually a very good metropolitan newspaper that happens to be available in many other cities in Canada. That would be the Toronto Star which, on Friday, March 7, 2008, ran an editorial entitled “Cynical PQ bid to rebrand party” containing this phrase:

The PQ intends to campaign on its latest plan to get Quebecers behaving as if they already are independent. The party promises a “sovereignty manifesto,” a provisional Quebec constitution, and a “Quebec citizenship,” whatever that might be. It will demand more powers from Ottawa and seek more clout in international organizations. In federal Liberal Leader Stephane Dion's eyes, Marois's effort to shake off the referendum tar baby is good news, even if Dian was clumsy in spelling out why.

[The entire editorial can be found here[PDF]]

The “national reporter” would be my friend Susan Delacourt, a senior writer for the Star, who, the PMO notes, wrote a story in 2004 about how then prime minister Paul Martin might exploit the issue of gay marriage for political gain and included this line:

Same-sex marriage has generally been treated like a political tar baby over the past few years, with most parties reluctant to whip up highly sensitive arguments touching on religion and deeply rooted social values. The Liberal caucus contains a significant number of MPs from rural and traditional small- town Canada, who have long argued that they could lose their seats if their government leans too far to the left on any social issue. [The PMO provided this citation. The Star owns the Hamilton Spectator: Susan Delacourt, “Martin could exploit gay-marriage gift,” The Hamilton Spectator, Friday, December 10, 2004]

And the PMO even goes all the way back to 2003 to find Liberal cabinet minister Lloyd Axworthy using the phrase in an interview with the Detroit Free Press.

“Nobody is saying you toss over your U.S. relations. Of course you don't. But it doesn't mean to say you have to become slavishly connected like some kind of tar baby with them.” [PMO Citation: Lloyd Axworthy, “Canada's new leader to improve U.S. ties,” Detroit Free Press, Thursday, December 11, 2003

The PMO “Tar Baby” researchers have also identified a “Tar Baby” sighting in one of Toronto Star columnist Chantal Hebert's pieces from last spring, in which Hebert wrote:

If the Liberals had been serious about triggering an election on the issue, they could have brought it in through the front door of a budget amendment and made it a condition for not defeating the government last week.

Tellingly, there was not a trace of the RESP initiative and the trickle of positive coverage it attracted to be found on the official website of the Liberal party yesterday. At this stage, the McTeague bill looks more like a Liberal tar baby than a party brainchild.

It will be interesting to see whether the Liberals do resuscitate this measure in their election platform and what, beyond partisan calculations, the arithmetic behind it will be. [Read the whole column]

And for extra reading, here's a piece, passed along to me by a friend who once was a Liberal staffer, from Time.com which looks at the issue after Mitt Romney, then Massachusetts governor used the phrase:

…the next print version of the Oxford American Dictionary will note that tar baby can have derogatory connotations. Which may help public figures avoid becoming ensnared by Br'er Fox more than a century after he set his little trap.

UPDATE: Final word to Poilievre himself.

Was white MP Pierre Poilievre wrong to use the phrase 'tar baby'?

Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative MP from Nepean, Ont. is facing questions this afternoon from opposition politicians who are curious about his use of the term “tar baby” twice in Question Period, this afternoon. Liberal Ralph Goodale and NDP MP Paul Dewar both objected to this racially-charged term with points of order in the House after QP. Wikipedia tells us that, at the very least, one ought to be a little careful using this phrase. During the last provincial election in Ontario, a Hamilton-area Liberal candidate who was a black woman was called a “a tar baby” by a columnist in a local paper. Columnist Kevin Verner ended up apologizing to candidate Nerene Virgin.

“The use of this term is unacceptable,” Virgin said at a press conference at the time. “It's like a linguistic shackle and it just anchors us in the past.”

For the record, here's what Poilievre said in the House:

Hon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the first year the government sole-sourced 40% of its $17 billion in military procurements. It is estimated that sole-sourcing increasing costs by 30%.

However that is just the tip of the iceberg. We have a finance minister who has a talent for pricing illegal contracts to his friends but shows no aptitude for estimating deficits. We have a Prime Minister who craves appearances on U.S. television while driving Canada's fiscal house into the ditch.

Why?

Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we have a leader, a real Canadian leader.

On that side of the House, they have the man who fathered the carbon tax, put it up for adoption to his predecessor and now wants a paternity test to prove the tar baby was never his in the first place. He attacks the deficit that he voted for but wants billions more for a 45-day work year.

On this side of the House, we stand for lower taxes, strong economic action plan, getting the job done for Canadians. That is where we stand. That is our leader.

Then later …

Mr. LaVar Payne (Medicine Hat, CPC): Mr. Speaker, last May, CTV's Craig Oliver asked the Liberal leader:

Now that you're the first leader as a candidate for leader to talk about a carbon tax and you took a little bit of heat for that, do you still believe in a carbon tax? Of course you do.

The Liberal leader replied:

I do, Craig. I learned there's no punishment more severe in politics than being the first guy with a good idea.

Is that what the Liberal leader meant when he asked, last month, “Will we have to raise taxes?”?

Would the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister please inform the House?

Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal leader should give himself more credit. He fathered the carbon tax idea. Then he generously put it up for adoption to his predecessor. And now, of course, he wants a paternity test to prove that this tar baby is not his.

He says the coalition on which he signed in support of would break up the country. He attacks the deficit that he voted for and wants billions more of spending, even on a 45-day EI work year. When he is in Britain, he is British. When he is in America, he is American. When he is in B.C., he is against the auto bailout. When he is in Ontario, he wants it to be bigger. The Liberal leader does not seem to know who he is.

UPDATE: PMO answer to this blog post: Nope.

AECL to be divided, Candu division for sale

The federal government took the first steps Thursday to getting out of the nuclear power business while, at the same time, committing itself to holding onto its nuclear research facility at Chalk River, Ont., the home of the rusting reactor — now in shutdown mode — that is the source of nearly half of the world's medical isotopes.

Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., a Crown corporation that had its origins in the Cold War 60 years ago, will be split into two business units.

The research unit, which includes the Chalk River Laboratory, will remain under the control of the government, albeit with new management that will come from the private sector.

But AECL's commercial business, which designs and sells the powerful Candu nuclear reactors that are used to generate electricity, is up for grabs to the highest bidder and the government has placed no restrictions on the kinds of proposals it will entertain.

That means there are no guarantees that Canadian jobs or technology would be protected if, as the government hopes, a new foreign partner steps up to buy a chunk of AECL. The government believes that the only hope for the survival of the Candu business is to find a major foreign partner with some hefty financial muscle and promising sales prospects in global markets.

[Read the rest of the story]

Is the stimulus money getting out the door?

As some readers here know, I maintain a database which tracks every spending announcement made by every federal government department. (Most, but not all, entries in that database, incidentally, get tweeted at #ottawaspends. Learn more.)

As the issue of getting stimulus out the door is an issue here in Ottawa right now, here's what the numbers from my database tell me:

Since the budget was tabled on Jan. 27, there have been 679 press releases issued by the federal government, announcing projects which have a combined value $33.87 billion.

Nearly $10 billion of that, though, was for extending employment insurance benefits and implementing the government’s skills and training strategy. That money will be paid out over the next two years.

Infrastructure Canada, the department responsible for implementing the $12-billion infrastructure spending plan announced in the budget, has made 46 announcements since the budget for projects totalling $2.7 billion.

When we count press releases, we don't care if it's new money, old money, or recycled money. We just care that a press release was issued announcing that the government is spending money on something.

The biggest ticket item: On March 13, 2009, Human Resources Minister Diane Finley laid out the details of the government's $8.3 billion Canada Skills and Transition Strategy. That money had been announced in the budget but Finely was calling our attention to that spending.

The smallest funding announcement since Jan. 27: Public Works Minister Christian Paradis announces, on behalf of Finley, a grant of $1,530 to help the Cercle de Fermieres de Courcelles in Courcelles, QC with a building project for seniors there.

Finley's EI announcement: No new money, but they're helping many more

There were some who thought that, when the notice went out that Human Resources Minister Diane Finley was to be in Oshawa this morning for an announcement on employment insurance, the government was about to cave to opposition demands to enrich the program. Not so. Finley was in Oshawa to re-announce, describe, or otherwise call attention to what Finance Minister Jim Flaherty had announced on Jan. 27 in the federal budget, namely a $500-million fund to help older workers who had been on the job for a long time get set up for new career.

From page 98 of the Budget Plan:

Long-Tenured Workers

As the global economic slowdown has unfolded, a number of communities across the country have been particularly hard hit. Individuals who have spent years working in one industry or for one employer now face the prospect of unemployment and the need to retrain for a new job, possibly in an entirely different industry.
To ensure that Canadian workers have financial support while training for new employment opportunities, the Government will provide $500 million over two years to extend EI income benefits for individuals participating in longer-term training.

This funding will give up to 10,000 long-tenured workers additional time and financial support to allow them to gain the new skills needed to adapt to the changing economy. It will also allow earlier access to EI benefits for workers who have received severance packages, if they use some or all of that severance to purchase skills upgrading or training for themselves.

Finley's press release today offers the same financial figure but there is some decidedly different language on the number of people who will be helped by this fund. In the budget, this fund was to help 10,000. I suspect you will hear Conservative politicians today telling people this fund is now helping 40,000. Here's excerpts from Finley's press release.

… said Minister [Diane] Finley: “Through Career Transition Assistance, the Government of Canada will provide an estimated $500 million to help laid-off long-tenured workers with many years of experience upgrade their skills.”

Career Transition Assistance consists of two initiatives to provide additional support to long-tenured workers. One initiative will extend the duration of EI benefits for eligible workers who participate in longer-term training, up to two years. Approximately 40,000 individuals are expected to benefit from this measure. The other initiative will help between 5,000 and 10,000 people by allowing earlier access to EI regular income benefits for eligible workers investing in their own training using all or part of their severance package.

Chalk River: Time for return of the MAPLEs?

Canwest News Service has learned that some current and former nuclear engineers are quietly pushing a plan to reactivate a backup project for the NRU, a project shelved last year by AECL with the backing of Raitt's predecessor Gary Lunn.

In the 1980s, AECL began building two new reactors — MAPLE-1 and MAPLE-2 — next door to the NRU at Chalk River and were to have put them into service in 2000, allowing the NRU to be permanently retired. But last year, with construction of the MAPLEs seven years behind schedule, hundreds of millions of dollars over budget, and with no apparent prospects of sorting out a technical problem that prevented the federal nuclear regulator from certifying them as safe, AECL cancelled the project with Lunn's backing.

Raitt, who had not yet been elected an MP at the time, said she stands by Lunn's decision.

“We are not considering resurrecting this project which, despite hundreds of millions of dollars spent, continued to be crippled with irresolvable technical impediments, was eight years behind schedule, experienced serious licensing challenges, and had never produced a single medical isotope,” she said.

But two sources, both of them nuclear engineers who have worked on the NRU and the MAPLEs, say the MAPLEs are perfectly capable of safely producing isotopes and that Raitt ought to “persuade” the CNSC to take another look the project.

“I think there's a way out of this but the way out is that CNSC would have to relent on the safety requirements and that's a tall order,” said a former Chalk River engineer who is now a risk management expert for the federal government and asked not to be identified. “But maybe we'll have to get that in order to avert a major crisis.” [The whole story]