ARNEY: Flaherty's Budget - How did it work for you. . . ?

[Oscar]

Flaherty's Budget - How did it work for you. . . ?

To: Jim Flaherty
From: Jeremy Arney
Cc: Ignatieff Michael ; Layton Jack ; Duceppe Gilles ; Savoie, Denise ; Martin, Keith ; (and many newspapers...Ed.)

Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 2:59 PM

Subject: So how did it work for you as opposed to the Canadian people?

Mr Flaherty, Minister of Finance,

In your budget of 2006 this happened:

In his first budget as Harper's finance minister, Jim Flaherty invited "new players" -- that is, U.S financial corporations -- into Canada's mortgage insurance market and doubled the amount of government money available to back up private insurers from $100 billion to $200 billion.

Flaherty's 2006 budget states that "These changes will result in greater choice and innovation in the market for mortgage insurance, benefiting consumers and promoting home ownership." - Jim Flaherty 2006

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman has observed that "financial innovation" are two words that should henceforth strike terror into the hearts of investors.

With the entrance of new private mortgage insurers into Canada after the Flaherty budget, Canada saw a dramatic weakening in the standards for mortgage insurance.

An analysis in the Toronto Star pointed out: "A 40-year mortgage [on a $350,000 home] will save you $73 a week on payments but cost an extra $254,000 in interest than if you had opted for 25 years. It's a trade-off that works way better for the bank than your personal finances."

So this didn't work too well for the Canadian People - how did it work for you, Mr Flaherty?

These quotes taken from The Tyee on 8th October 2008 in an excellent article : "How Harper Gov't pushed Financial Deregulation Here, Abroad," by Ellen Gould
http://thetyee.ca/Views/2008/10/08/HarperEcon/

Now, just a few years after that budget, we are in more trouble than you will yet acknowledge and, more than that, you are only helping those corporations that are causing the trouble.

The Canadian people are not benefiting in any meaningful way; yes, a few extra bucks for EI, but NO real help in getting the recently-fired (because of corporate downsizing as a result of the carefully manufactured economic situation) back to work.

Perhaps you are too busy now overseeing more Acts of Parliament to be meddled with (a la US method of "pork", such as giving control of all nonnavigable waterways to Harper to do with what he wants with no responsibilty to either the House of Commons or the people of Canada) in a future addendum to your "budget"

From the same article comes this very disturbing information about Harper's efforts to destroy the economies of other countries:

"The enormity of what's at stake in the WTO financial sector negotiations is revealed in a February 2006 bargaining request sent from Canada's Department of Finance to developing countries. Canada asked that foreign financial institutions be guaranteed rights to "establish new and acquire existing companies" in all financial sectors. This would mean among other things that countries would have to allow 100 per cent foreign ownership of their banks and insurance companies.

Canada has also asked that companies be given WTO enforceable rights to trade in derivatives, which has been described as a high-octane form of financial speculation similar to gambling. Warren Buffett famously called derivatives "financial weapons of mass destruction," destruction that is being witnessed on a daily basis on the world's stock exchanges."

I find it disgusting that you and Harper feel you must act as the messengers of evil for the WTO and IMF, using the name of Canada without our consent.

Did you ask for House of Commons approval in this?

For your information, I do not consent to Canada trying to destroy anyone or their country any more than I consent to the deceitful way I believe you are treating the Canadian People.

Jeremy Arney
Victoria BC