Did you get your million dollar cheque yet? No? Neither did I. You may remember that I pressed for this some months ago, when it was clear that the economy was going to be pushed down the tube.

I based my thinking that the government should issue a $1-million cheque to every family because we would spend the money widely and bring the economy back to a quick recovery by paying off our debts (first and foremost), and then, shopping, buying a car (!), going on holiday, maybe; going out for dinner, for sure. You would have put your million bucks to lots of good uses. Just think of all the clever little industries that would be springing up by now, all those new-idea green industries.

But no. In theory, Stephen blew our big bucks on sinking old businesses, on projects that employ mainly men - at least, that is what he said he intended to do - it is not clear just how much of it he has actually put out.

Perhaps, I should be running a blog - does Stephen Harper have a flunky that reads blogs for him, do you suppose? Would he have listened even if he had heard about my idea?

Does he listen to any body? Did he listen to Michael Ignatieff this week? Well, they had three get-togethers, plenty of chance to be cosy. There's a worry for us - the Harper/Ignatieff Coalition. That would put the wind up poor old Jack's kilt, wouldn't it? Never mind the rumblings at the Bloc.

But where would it leave us, the poor mugs that did and did not vote for these two? They're both more pro-America than pro-Canada, for a start. And more pro-Israel than they should be.

They are a pair of so-called élitists. The snobbery doesn't bother me, but the exclusion does. Harper will barely acknowledge that women should have a standing in the workplace or that they have any worries in the world. They all have good men to support and protect them. Don't they?

But what does Ignatieff have to say about women's concerns? He has a look about him that says to me he would be inclined to flirt in a humorous way but would he endeavour to solve women's problems? He did not react at all to the many items to which the Senate objected in Harper's budget, amongst which was no pay equity for women.

As for all the hu-ha about the environment, Harper will always look for anything that can distract us from that bothersome issue. He really does not believe there's a problem. He has buried his head in the sand all the way to his waist in denial of the science that is screaming about the dangers this world faces.

In spite of the fact Harper has children, he can only see the here and now - the immediate profit and the imminent costs.

He has no capacity for planning to build over the long term.

I have heard lip service from Ignatieff about the seriousness of our assault on our world, but does he have plans that would differ dramatically from Harper's blinkered policies?

In fact, the only "let's-pretend-we're-gettingtough with-this-guy" item on Ignatieff's list is the EI issue, which is being thoroughly overworked - once again, a distraction from the main menu of offences.

They agree that Canada should be at war - today Afghanistan - tomorrow - who knows? Does it really matter so long as the boys are employed and the arms industry is happy? Pearson and Trudeau kept Canada out of Vietnam for the whole of that U.S. military disaster. This current slavish administration - including the Official Opposition - ships our boys out to clean up after the Americans, who once again went where they had no business going.

The Americans never learn: they invade, creating chaos and strife and then, they expect the rest of the world to fix it. Canadians used to know better than to join in, but Harper is a follower and Ignatieff used to refer to himself as an American.

Having hung out at the social top of the ladder (more or less) all their lives, does either Harper or Ignatieff have any conception of the toils of the poor? Harper seems to have a 1950's attitude toward the disabled, whether fiscally, socially, intellectually or physically; that they must somehow defend themselves. He is easy about cutting social programs, probably because he does not think they are really necessary.

Would Ignatieff be any better? He was never a poor boy, nor has he roughed it on the streets, as it were, to find out how the other half lives. Most of the initiatives and programs for the environment, abused women, disabled children and the arts have seen their funding reduced or eliminated under Harper's budgeting.

He writes books, so he might have some interest in supporting the arts, be less inclined to "bad mouth" artists, but would he remember the disadvantaged side of our society?

Everything about Canada that has been noble and admired: our diplomacy, our technical leadership, our use of nuclear energy for medical and strictly peaceful means - our contribution to the world of art of every type - all this and more is being diminished under Harper's leadership.

Indeed, he risks our very independence with his mealy-mouthed attitude toward whoever is President of the United States, keeping Canada waiting in the wings of the world's stage to see whither that man will lead us.

Would Ignatieff regain Canada's status as an independent peacemaker and wise negotiator? Or would he, too, simply stand back and wait to see what the U.S. leadership does next?