By Mark Taliano
Canada’s leadership debates were significant more for what wasn’t said, than for what was said. 
Even the framing of the debates was significant because a party with considerable support was excluded due to a trifling corporate media rule. The absence of Elizabeth May’s voice colored the whole debate. Environmental issues were dealt with in a very cursory fashion, even though their importance to Canada and the world is paramount.
Tax cuts formed a familiar theme, because voters love to hear about tax cuts. What wasn’t mentioned, though, was that corporate driven tax cuts have led to street demonstrations as large as 100,000 people in Wisconsin, and as large as 500,000 people in the U.K. Corporations would prefer that we forget about that. A tax cut for a corporation might represent millions of dollars or more, but for a low income individual, it might represent a couple of hundred dollars. It wasn’t mentioned either who benefits the most. Those dollars saved by regular tax payers will be spent many times over by the results of tax cuts, often in the form of user fees. Education and health care will continue to cost more to the point that many without the means will be excluded from higher education and adequate health care. The result? Canadian society will become more stratified, with the vast majority paying much more for much less.
Tax cuts and corporate subsidies mean many more things as well. It’s called “corporate parasitism”. Huge amounts of Canadian money will continue to leave for tax havens and elsewhere, to no benefit for the average Canadian. It’s outrageous, but it wasn’t discussed at the debates. Not only is money not “trickling down” sufficiently, it is also rushing away in torrents.
Nor was it mentioned that government monies subsidizing nuclear power (400 million) and the fossil fuel industry (one billion dollars) could and should be used to generate lucrative Canadian industries in alternate energies and conservation. B.P invested 20 million in conservation measures for a generated a profit of 630 million. That’s a good rate of return.
Other notable omissions: it wasn’t mentioned that a national drug plan would save Canadians 10.7 billion dollars, or that Global Warming effects are occurring 100 years sooner than expected.
All of these omissions, and more, reflect what Noam Chomsky has labeled a “Democratic Deficit”, where politics is becoming a spectator sport, to the detriment of Canadians and the world. This needs to be mentioned more often.
Mark Taliano is a resident of Niagara, Ontario and a frequent contributor to Niagara At Large.
(Visit Niagara At Large at www.niagaraatlarge.com for more news and commentary on matters of interest and concern to residents in our greater Niagara region and beyond.)
Niagara At Large 
Having Elizabeth May at the table was not in the best interest of the Bloq, NDP and the Liberals. Cap and trade is all part of their playbook, albeit well disguised. National exposure would have forced them to reveal their plans publicly, thus giving Harper a hammer to beat them with as he did against Dion’s Green Shift in 2008. Canadians stuck in a cold, wet April with high gas prices simply wouldn’t absorb the rush to add a complex carbon tax system on top of everything else their facing.
If Harper wins another minority, a Coalition will be formed and it will be on the table PDQ. While the opposition parties remain coy on this, I see a fast implementation a la Julia Gillard in Australia who did not openly campaign on the issue but made it her first order of business after she won the election.
The Conservatives have had a ton of scorn heaped upon them for hiding policy (and deservedly so) yet here are the opposition parties suppressing a big issue conversation with Canadians as a matter of pure political expediency.
LikeLike
The dynamics of the current Canadian political scene have created shameful anti-environmental positions, to the detriment of all Canadians. As you pointed out, the big “national conversation” on the environment (which didn’t happen) has consequently been relegated to the landfill.
LikeLike
I agree with the Green Party position of a carbon tax (preferable to cap and trade). Alberta oil profits are driving the dollar upwards, which is negatively impacting other industries, notably manufacturing. I wrote an article about this earlier.
LikeLike
It certainly was not in Conservative’s best interests to have the Green Party at the debates, since their environmental record is deplorable. The government was defeated due to its being found in contempt of Parliament. Collusion with media executives to keep the Green Party out of the debates aligns itself with the Conservative party’s anti-democratic propensities.
LikeLike