It came from a convicted US Republican (named Allen Raymond) who was thrown in the slammer for election fraud — to be precise, for making illicit phone calls to annoy and suppress voters who weren’t supporting his Party.

Sounds just like the Conservative robo-call scam that started in Guelph last year, and appears to have affected 200 ridings across Canada. The Republican ex-con praised that scam as “sophisticated” and “systematic”.

It involved “burner” cellphones, camouflaged credit cards, phonebanks, computers and technology platforms across the country (including Saskatchewan), and apparent access to the Conservatives’ massive national database which contains personal information on millions of Canadians.

It’s not credible to suggest such an enormous operation was the work of a couple of over-zealous volunteers.

But Mr. Harper tries to laugh it off. Just as he did the “In-and-Out” election financing fraud a couple of years ago — until charges were laid. The Conservative Party was convicted and fined. So we’ll see where the robo-call investigation leads.

Pile this mess on top of Bev Oda’s $16 orange juice, the fiasco around the F-35 fighter-jets, the totally unnecessary cuts to Old Age Pensions, and the bizarre slashing of food inspection, environmental science, search-and-rescue services, border inspections, prison safety and proper civilian supervision of Canada’s spies — and you’ve got compelling evidence of bad governance.

Mr. Harper thinks Canadians don’t care. He keeps bragging about his “majority”.

While he can claim a majority of seats in the House of Commons, he has never had majority support among Canadians. He got 40% of the vote from the 60% who actually voted. That means he has a mandate from just 24% of eligible voters — pretty small actually.

A little modesty might be appropriate.

-30-

Both of these are long-term issues. The pension cuts begin about 10 years from now, and get phased-in over a further seven years. That is exactly the same period during which the fighter-jets would be purchased.

Are these planes being bought with money taken from seniors? It’s hard to avoid that conclusion.

Anyone under the age of 54 today, beware! Your Old Age Pension won’t be there for you when you turn 65. You’ll have to wait longer.

This breaks an explicit Stephen Harper election promise. It’s an attack on the lowest-income seniors because they’re the ones who lose the most. And no money is saved overall, because the burden just shifts onto provincial welfare.

Most importantly, this mean-spirited maneuver is entirely unnecessary. Canada’s Old Age Pension is already fully affordable and financially sound for the long term. Punting the age from 65 years up to 67 is NOT required to keep it sustainable.

The PBO makes a telling point about timing:

Mr. Harper says the big problem is all those retiring Baby-Boomers. But his plan to delay eligibility won’t be fully phased-in for 17 years, until 2029. That pretty well misses the Boomer-Bulge altogether. By 2030, they’ll have largely worked their way through the system, and costs will steadily decline.

As for the planes, the Airforce says they need at least 65 new fighter-jets to replace their ageing CF-18s. Mr. Harper claims to have frozen the budget for all “acquisition costs” at $9-billion. For that, the PBO calculates, the government can get just 40 of these ultra-expensive planes, not 65.

So who is telling the truth – Stephen Harper or the PBO?

-30-

Representing agriculture, forestry, minerals, chemicals, fertilizers, industrial and manufactured goods – just about everything shipped by rail – the coalition shared the common problem of suffering through lousy treatment at the hands of the railways.

The railways got away with it because all these shippers were basically “captives”. There was no competition, no shipping alternative. And no legal recourse against arbitrary railway power.

In 2008, after two years of badgering, the Conservatives finally agreed to hold a “Rail Service Review”. But they waited another year before actually appointing the people to do it. And that group took a further year to complete its work. They filed their report in October, 2010 – with compelling proof of railway abuses of power and inferior service.

It’s now 18 months later. The government says they accept the Review’s key recommendation that shippers need the legal right to enforceable “Level of Service” contracts. But after endless rehashing and stalling, no such legislation has yet been introduced.

The time for concrete action is painfully overdue. There can be no excuse for failing to introduce the necessary new law this spring. But it will need to be scrutinized carefully, because the railways will try to water it down, and they have this government under their thumb.

For example, watch out for a scheme that sets up arbitrary categories or “tiers” among shippers that would allow the railways to discriminate against some of their customers. In every case, all Level of Service agreements with all shippers should include six mandatory elements:

1. Services and Obligations;
2. Communications protocols;
3. Performance Standards;
4. Performance Metrics;
5. Consequences for Non-performance; and
6. Dispute resolution mechanisms.

This is just normal, good business behavior. Nothing less is acceptable.

-30-

The beef business is heavily export oriented, so we talked about trade, especially market opportunities in Japan, Korea and Europe, and the need for legislation to fix the stubborn “Country of Origin” labeling problem in the US.

Budget cuts closing International Trade offices, including all those in Saskatchewan, will not be helpful.

We discussed the need for larger federal investments in beef-related research, and noted the industry has increased its own contributions to research by 150-percent. Forages and meat science are two areas needing strong attention.

Labour shortages is another concern. Beef producers need a more effective way to access Temporary Foreign Workers with the skills and aptitude for challenging work in rural Canada.

Again, budget cuts closing Citizenship & Immigration offices, including all those in Saskatchewan, will not be helpful.

Neither is it a good idea to shut-down PFRA Community Pastures. They provide vital grazing capacity that must stay in grazing, be properly managed and remain accessible on a fair and reasonable basis. None of this is accomplished by federal budget cutting.

Another nasty cut affects food inspection, especially the closure of the CFIA office in Moose Jaw — the most important one for the beef industry. This will make getting timely signatures on export documents very problematic.

Finally, we discussed the ongoing need for a national “price and basis” insurance program for cattle producers. I have long supported this concept, but in its “austerity budget” the federal government has left little room for constructive new ideas.

Ryan and Ryan did a great job of presenting the SCA’s positions. The Government of Canada should be listening!

-30-

This would be a $7-billion transaction to control Canada’s biggest grain-handler and one of Saskatchewan’s largest corporate citizens.

While Glencore would keep and run many of Viterra’s current operations, it would also flip some of them to Pioneer Grain (Winnipeg) and to Agrium (Calgary). The involvement of Agrium and Pioneer is reassuring, but questions persist about Glencore.

When news of this transaction broke in March, I noted that Glencore was a hard-nosed international commodities trader, little known in Saskatchewan, but no stranger to controversy globally. Since then both Maclean’s magazine and the BBC have issued further reports.

Questions swirl around the company’s contentious founder who fled from US authorities in 1983. While he appears to be long-gone, Glencore remains engaged in aggressive, high-risk/high-reward operations in several developing countries and news reports allege dubious labour and environmental practices.

Mr. Wall said such conduct would not be acceptable in Saskatchewan. Both provincial and federal governments need to thoroughly examine whether this type of player is indeed a “net benefit” to Canada.

Governments also need to review whether Glencore’s promise of a “North American headquarters” in Regina is substantive and enforceable, or merely symbolic. As well, what’s the impact of this deal on competition in grain handling and the farm supply business.

The agreements between Viterra and Glencore no doubt stipulate heavy penalities if either side fails to conclude this deal. But it could still be ruled deficient or undesirable by regulatory authorities.

And that might leave room for new investors – for those who might want to build and sustain world-class Canadian agri-business leaders and champions.

-30-

He says the “acquisition cost” is just $9-billion. Period. And that amount is “frozen”.

But the truth is – as the Auditor-General graphically demonstrated – this government has been keeping two sets of books on the F-35s. One for their internal calculations, showing real costs at more than $25-billion. And the other for public consumption, showing only lower numbers.

So the Conservatives have been caught deliberately misleading voters and taxpayers. Such duplicity in any publicly-traded company would get the CEO fired and the Board of Directors would likely call in the police.

Trying to trivialize the discrepancy, Conservative say all they failed to count was the cost of fuel, maintenance and salaries for pilots.

But both the PBO and the Auditor-General report these (and other items) are real costs over the “lifecycle” of the new planes, which must be added-in. Furthermore, including all of them is the official policy of both the Defence Department and the Treasury Board.

Quite apart from breaking his own rules and cooking the books, Mr. Harper can’t explain what his so-called “crystal clear” acquisition costs actually cover.

How many airplanes will he get for the $9-billion? Will they come fully-equipped with engines and weapons, or are these add-ons? Will they have retarder parachutes and night-vision equipment?

Will these planes be able to land and take-off in the Arctic? Is pilot training on the new “stealth” technology included, or extra?

What about the replacement parts and technology upgrades that will certainly be required over the lifespan of these planes?

The unanswered questions are endless. Surely all costs need to be fully included and honestly reported.

-30-

Everyone knows that Canada’s ageing CF-18 airplanes need to be replaced. Their useful lifespan expires shortly after 2020.

The Auditor-General applauded the way Liberals handled this issue before 2006. But as soon as the Harper regime took power, it all got badly mangled.

This government has never provided a clear mission statement about what exactly the replacement aircraft will be expected to do in future. All they will say – without detail or justification – is Canada “must” have the most expensive F-35 “stealth” jet-fighter, manufactured by Lockheed-Martin.

But there are at least four other possible suppliers, probably at better prices.

The government should have published detailed specifications for new planes to satisfy Canadian defense and foreign policy requirements. Then, it should have launched a full, open, competitive bidding process to identify the most suitable plane at the best possible price with maximum industrial benefits for the Canadian economy.

But instead, without tendering, the Harper regime just handpicked their favourite American supplier. Worse still, they deliberately kept Parliament in the dark!

For 21 months, the Liberal Opposition asked questions about escalating costs, design and performance problems, production delays, suitability issues (i.e., can it function in the Arctic?), and a growing number of other countries walking away from the F-35.

The government’s response – directed by Mr. Harper personally – was complete denial. They accused all who asked questions of being disloyal to Canada.

Even more disgraceful, at a time when they knew full well that the real cost of the project would approach $29-billion, they insisted it was only half that. They deliberately falsified the figures.

It is Mr. Harper’s job to know the truth and tell the truth. And he failed!

-30-

Conservative Finance Minister Flaherty says all this is good for Canadians. Can you believe him? Examine his record:

Before coming to Ottawa, Mr. Flaherty was a Minister in the right-wing provincial governments of Mike Harris and Ernie Eaves in Ontario. (So were Tony Clement and John Baird.) They left that province with a $6-billion debt and environmental travesties like Walkerton’s water.

Later, campaigning for election federally, Mr. Flaherty pledged NEVER to tax retirement savings in “Income Trusts”. But once in power, he imposed a brutal 31.5% Conservative tax-on-trusts, slashing the savings of 2-million Canadians by $25-billion.

He increased federal spending by three-times the rate of inflation, while eliminating all contingency reserves and prudence factors that previously protected Canada against adverse global risks.

Less than three years after inheriting (from Liberals) a strong, job-generating economy, consistently balanced budgets and annual surpluses of $13-billion, Mr. Flaherty put Canada back into deficit — BEFORE there was any recession to blame.

He failed to see that recession coming in late 2008, though it was obvious to the rest of the world. And once it arrived, he wrongly prescribed severe cutbacks as the remedy, and foolishly predicted four more surplus budgets.

Then a month later, he reversed himself, ushering in a helter-skelter spending spree, the biggest annual deficits and the highest federal debt in Canadian history.

He concocted perverse EI rules to increase job-killing payroll taxes exactly when unemployment is worsening. He designed tax “credits” to favour only those who are better off – deliberately discriminating against low-income families.

On his watch, income inequality has deepened and the middle-class has stagnated.

Not a legacy to inspire confidence!

-30-

The Harper government seems focused almost exclusively on austerity – i.e., cutting services across the board (including pillars of middle class well-being like healthcare and pensions), and off-loading federal burdens (like bigger jails) onto provinces.

Many financial experts, including global rating agencies like Moody’s and Fitch, and many economists who either advise or work for the Government of Canada warn against this. They say: Yes, an austerity program may cut your spending, but it won’t necessarily cut your deficit if that austerity throttles economic growth!

Mr. Harper’s deficit is different from the one previous Liberal governments had to confront in the 1990’s.

Back then, the country had been “in the hole” for more than a quarter of a century. Federal debt equaled 70% of Canada’s total economy. Thanks to Liberal fiscal leadership 15 years ago, that debt-ratio was slashed in half, and the federal budget was balanced for a decade.

Critically, through that period, Canada enjoyed strong, broad-based economic growth.

By contrast, the current Harper deficit was self-inflicted through ideological decision-making, bad management and reckless spending – much of it BEFORE there was any recession to blame. Ten years of federal fiscal progress was squandered, and that’s now compounded by serious debt problems among provincial governments.

Moreover, Canada’s economic growth is no longer robust or broadly shared. An anemic national growth rate is checkered with sharply differing circumstances from region-to-region and sector-to-sector.

So monotone federal messages about austerity are simply wrong-headed.

This Harper budget should cancel wasteful Conservative spending on government polling, consultants and advertising. It should back away from costly ideological boondoggles, like mega-prisons and over-priced fighter-jets.

The budget should not attack Old Age Security. Instead it should target growth and fairness by promoting access to higher education, innovation, modern infrastructure and a more inclusive workforce for young people, Aboriginals and new immigrants.

-30-

Private grain companies, domestic and foreign, all believe they’ll enlarge their businesses and increase profits for their shareholders (profits the CWB used to capture for farmers).

With fewer “aggravations” like producer cars and short-line rail systems to worry about, with no enforceable contracts with shippers, probably no “revenue cap”, and no one with the clout to challenge them, the railways will certainly make more money moving grain.

Without the Wheat Board, value-added processors believe they’ll be able to buy the grain inputs they need at lower prices, and thereby increase their margins.

Our foreign customers expect Canadian grain to be cheaper now, because it will be marketed as just another bulk commodity, not a distinctly-Canadian, premium product.

So what’s wrong with this picture? All these new profits for everyone in the system have to come from somewhere – probably from farmers. That’s where you’ll find the short end of the stick.

The first domino to fall is Viterra, Canada’s biggest grain company and Saskatchewan’s biggest business.

It may get bought-out by a big global GrainCo, like ADM, with real control shifting from Regina to Decatur, Illinois. Or the buyer may be a huge Swiss-based commodity trader known as “Glencore”, who would chop it all up.

Glencore would keep the grain handling operations (so control would move to Switzerland), but the food processing division might go to Richardson’s in Winnipeg, and the farm supplies business might go to Agrium in Calgary.

It’s nice to see a couple of Canadian players involved, but what’s the common denominator? Saskatchewan loses!

And as the grain business consolidates, where’s all that new private sector competition? Wasn’t that the point of getting rid of the CWB?

-30-