• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The 2008 Canadian Election- Merged Thread

The bad news just keeps on coming for Celine Stéphane Dion.

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail web site is a report on another poll that reflects poorly on Dion’s leadership:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080914.wnewpoll0914/BNStory/politics/home
Tories strengthen their grip

JULIAN BELTRAME
Canadian Press

September 14, 2008 at 1:54 PM EDT

OTTAWA — As the federal election campaign prepares to enter its second week Monday, the challenge for Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion couldn't be more clear — find a way to become more likable to Canadian voters.

A new Canadian Press Harris-Decima poll suggests the leadership gap may be the single biggest obstacle standing in the way of the Liberals as they compete for the right to govern the country the next four years.

The survey of 1,393 adults across Canada, conducted Sept. 10 through 13, found Mr. Dion's negatives increasing slightly during the first week of campaigning, with little corresponding uptick in positives.

The survey also suggests more Canadians ended the week with more positive feelings about Prime Minister Stephen Harper than negative ones — a sign that a barrage of sweater-clad television ads designed to soften the Conservative leader's sharp edges have largely worked.

Mr. Harper has enjoyed an advantage over his linguistically challenged opponent — at least in English — for several years.

But that gap appears to have widened during a week of intensive campaigning that has provided Canadians their longest, most detailed look at Mr. Dion since he won the Liberal leadership nearly two years ago.

“The challenge for the Liberals appears to rest squarely on Mr. Dion,” said Harris-Decima president Bruce Anderson.

“The Liberals must find a way to improve his appeal or make clear that they offer an appealing team of capable and experienced people.”

At week's end, 52 per cent of respondents said they had a positive feeling about Mr. Harper, compared to 34 per cent for Mr. Dion. Fifty-five per cent reported negative feelings about Mr. Dion, compared to 40 per cent for Mr. Harper.

The leader with the biggest bounce during the week was the Green party's Elizabeth May, whose campaign to be included in the leaders' debates drew a groundswell of grassroots support.

Forty per cent of respondents reported positive feelings about May, up from 30 per cent, although her negatives also bumped up slightly from 20 to 25 per cent.

On the election question, the Conservatives led with 40 per cent support nationally, opening up a 14-point edge over the Liberals with 26 per cent.

The New Democrats stood at 15 per cent, the upstart Green party at nine and the Quebec-based Bloc Québécois at eight per cent. The poll is considered accurate to within plus or minus 2.6 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

Provincially, respondents in Quebec gave the Bloc 34 per cent support — a slight lead over the Tories with 31 per cent — while the Liberals registered a distant 18 per cent.

Because of the smaller sample size, the margin of error for each provincial result is significantly larger than for the overall percentages.

Sunday was a down day for most of the leaders, with the key exception of NDP Leader Jack Layton, who held a rally in Gatineau, Que., near Ottawa.

Both the Liberals and the Tories released new Quebec ads on Sunday, with the Liberals striking hard at Mr. Harper's leadership and the Tories attacking the relevance of the Bloc.

All campaigns were using Sunday to regroup after a hectic week that saw the well-oiled Tory campaign sputter from a series of silly and substantive gaffes — from pooping puffins to questioning the motives of the father of a fallen Canadian soldier — but with Mr. Harper emerging decisive and controlling the news agenda.

The Conservative Leader made the most impact with his surprise pledge to unequivocally pull Canadian troops out of Afghanistan when the current mission ends in 2011.

And in a replay of the his GST-tax cut pledge from the previous campaign, he made the most direct appeal to the pocketbooks of Canadians, pledging to cut two cents a litre from the excise tax on diesel and aviation fuel.

Mr. Dion chose to highlight his Green Shift program and make several targeted promises on immigration, restoring the courts challenges program and doubling the $1,200-a-year child-care allowance for low income families.

Mr. Layton pledged $8.2-billion over four years to create, protect and foster the growth of “green-collar” jobs and manufacturing, a moratorium on tarsands development, a cap on credit-card interest rates and a ban on automated banking machine fees.


I still believe that the Liberals are making a serious tactical blunder by keeping Dion front and centre. Canadians appear to neither trust nor respect him – giving them more of him is unlikely to change their minds. Canadians do appear to respect Ignatieff, Rae and, sadly for the Liberals, Layton and, above all Harper.

 
Be prepared for an ugly Monday on Wall Street tomorrow.

Lehman Bros. will go bankrupt; Bank of America will buy Merrill Lynch at fire sale prices because the Federal Reserve ordered Merrill Lynch to sell itself. AIG, the insurance giant, will ask the Fed to rescue it.

Panic will spread to Canada.

Stephen Harper’s campaign will ask: ”Do you really want to trust reedy Prof Dion, the guy you cannot even understand, with your life savings when Wall Street is in turmoil?”

 
Advocates of the carbon tax/Green Shift are being disingenuous when they say the plans are "revenue neutral".  They will be revenue neutral to government, not to individual taxpayers.  Some will pay less, more will pay more.

Here in BC, the carbon tax is so unpopular, that Gordon Campbell and the BC Liberals have gone from a 10 point lead over the NDP for years, to trailing by a few points in recent polls.  People are p!$$ed if they are considering letting the Socialist Horde back into power!  I predict that the Liberals will lose big time in BC to the Tories and the NDP.

Another interesting article on the <a href="http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=787998">crackpots</a> running for the Greens...

A higher profile can only bring increased scrutiny. But the Green party has so far seemed to have difficulties keeping out, or perhaps even spotting, eccentric and occasionally dangerous elements in its house who are as eager to discuss 9/11 conspiracy theories, Israel's "40-year occupation of  Arab lands" and NATO's "imperialist" war in Afghanistan, as they are the environmental issues that comprise the Green Party's public face.

That practice, Prof. Ellis says, is something the Reform party avoided. "Manning wasn't about picking up cast-aside or thrown-over politicians." He thinks the Green party still has work to do in presenting an image something more than a benign, if unserious band of hemp-wearing counter-culturalists. "When I see a Green candidate in the news, too often they look like they're about to be or were recently tear-gassed," he says. "Organizationally, if that's your best choice, I'm saying you've got a lot of work to do. If that's not your best choice and he just sort of got there ... then, organizationally, you're not equipped to put your best foot forward."

Most recently, the party was forced last week to drop its candidate in Newton-North Delta, B. C., after Internet blogs picked up on a comment John Shavluk made on a marijuana legalization Web site referring to the World Trade Center towers destroyed by terrorists on Sept. 11, 2001, as "shoddily built world Jewish bank headquarters." The party, Ms. May declared, had no room for anti-Semites. But the comments had been public for years before her decision, posted under Mr. Shavluk's own name and accompanied by his photograph.

The party, Mr. Shavluk insists, certainly knew about his past criminal record -- two years in prison for drug trafficking -- and his juror.caWeb site urges Canadians called for jury duty to disregard laws they don't agree with. His posts alleging that the official 9/11 story was a cover- up ("so many holes in the story its [sic] laughable," he wrote) had been on the Internet since 2006, as were his rants against police officers, calling them "racists" and "goons" -- all just a Google search away for anyone bothering to take the time to vet Mr. Shavluk's candidacy. Either no one did, or the Green party's internal red flags are not raised easily. "We're going through a lot of the rookie mistakes," explains John Bennett, the Green Party's communications director. As for the anti-Semitic stuff, he says, "The honest truth is we missed that posting."

She dithered for several days when confronted last year with statements by Vancouver Green candidate Kevin Potvin, calling the 9/11 attacks something "beautiful" -- first giving him, as she said, "the benefit of the doubt," before ultimately bowing to pressure to drop him.

The party continues to stand behind Ottawa-South candidate Qais Ghanem, who in addition to railing on the Green party blog against the pro-Israel "oligarchy" controlling the media, and defending Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, also questions the official version of 9/11. That's OK, Mr. Bennett explains, because Mr. Ghanem is a prominent doctor and says he is devoted to Mideast peace.

Canada's first Green MP, Blair Wilson, meantime, left the Liberal caucus under a cloud of questionable campaign financing and an undisclosed history of soured business dealings and lawsuits. After having been found by Elections Canada to have violated the Federal Elections Act on three occasions, and after the Liberals refused to take him back, the Green party nevertheless was more than happy to have him.

Not to mention questions of how deep Liberal/Green collusion in this election really is...

In my opinion, the Greens under Lizzy May are not ready for primetime.
 
Apparently vote  swapping has reached facebook and is gaining momentum......

ps....elections canada has no law against it...
 
Never mind ...

Google is my friend tonight.

Just finished my Mil Law OPME, and my 1st assignment for the Canada and Modern Society OPME ... and needed something to do (other than more damn lesson plans and power-points!  >:()

Reproduced under the fairdealings provisions of the copyright act ...


Facebook Vote Swapping

Last Updated: Friday, September 12, 2008 | 7:53 PM ET Comments73Recommend50CBC News
Canada's election watchdog is probing whether a vote-swapping group set up on Facebook is illegal or just strategic voting.

The online group, titled "Anti-Harper Vote Swap Canada," is trying to match Canadians who are willing to swap votes to keep the Conservatives from winning a majority in the Oct. 14 federal election.

More than 1,200 people had become members of the group by early Friday evening, two days after its creation.

Chief electoral officer Marc Mayrand said Friday that Elections Canada is looking into the scheme.

In an interview with Canadian Press, Mayrand said it may be nothing more than "organized strategic voting," but it could also fall afoul of a law prohibiting people from selling votes or accepting bribes for them.

"Right now, we have very little information," Mayrand said about the group.

The group lists 41 ridings likely to be tight races and encourages members to swap votes in order to stop Tories from winning those seats.

Winnipeg South is cited as an example. In that riding, the Liberals have a better chance of beating the Conservatives than the NDP do, so an NDP supporter could agree to vote Liberal in exchange for a Liberal voting NDP in rural Alberta, where the Liberals don't stand a chance.

...

Unfreakingbelieveable
 
GAP said:
Apparently vote  swapping has reached facebook and is gaining momentum......

ps....elections canada has no law against it...

Seems that they're up to 2870 now ...

Group: Anti-Harper Vote Swap Canada
Size: 2,870 members
Type: Common Interest - Politics
New:2,214 More Members, 52 Board Topics, 319 Wall Posts
Updated: Description, News, Officers
Matches:Name and Description

And they've taken it to the "outside" of Facebook with this link - hoping to gain some swappers from the non-Crackbook masses:

http://www.votepair.ca/

All I can say is "wow."
 
Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s National Post, is the second part of the “Falling Behind” series:

http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=791029
Falling behind: Part II

Paul Vieira, Financial Post

Published: Monday, September 15, 2008

The blue-chip Competition Policy Review Panel was clear in its report released this past June: Standing still is not an option for Canada.

Political leaders, they warned, need to shepherd changes to the public-policy framework that would force Canadians to be more willing participants in competitive global markets. "We have no doubt about the need to adapt and move forward," the panel members said.

On Friday, the Conservative party acknowledged that policy changes are needed or Canada risks falling behind its global peers in the race for investment and talent. In this second of a two-part Financial Post report, we look at three policy areas that analysts and business leaders say need immediate attention to ensure future prosperity in Canada.

For Perrin Beatty, president of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, it hit home last year just how complacent the country had become on the trade front when he attended a 10-year anniversary party to celebrate the signing of the Canada-Chile free-trade deal.

Since the signing of the Canada-Chile pact, the South American country has made roughly 40 bilateral trade deals with other nations "and have been aggressive about it," Mr. Beatty says.

Over the same time frame, Canada had reached bilateral trade deals with only Israel and Costa Rica. This year, Canada added bilateral accords with Colombia, Peru and a four-member European trading bloc that includes Iceland and Liechtenstein.

Meanwhile, Chile and Mexico have reached their own free-trade deals with the powerful European Union. Canada is hoping to kick-start free-trade talks with the EU when French President Nicolas Sarkozy visits next month.

"There is no country in the OECD that is more dependent on international trade than we are, yet we have not given it the priority we need to give it," Mr. Beatty says.

The Competition Policy Review Panel said Canada must urgently ramp up its participation in new trading relationships and "aggressively pursue" new opportunities or risk being left behind. The current federal trade strategy -- which looks to increase Canadian participation in global markets and better connect domestic firms with foreign opportunities -- is "poorly understood" and lacks profile among Canadian businesses.

Performance-wise, the statistics look encouraging with a $55-billion merchandise trade surplus forecast this year. However, most of that is due to robust commodity prices. In volume terms, the shortfall in Canada's net exports that emerged in late 2004 has since widened substantially, warns an August report from Scotia Capital economists.

Glen Hodgson, chief economist for the Conference Board of Canada, says the federal strategy lacks boldness. He also says Canada is late to the bilateral trading game because it became too complacent and comfortable with the deal it has with the United States. Responsibility for that rests not only with the federal government, but the business community as well.

"The bottom line is we put our eggs in one basket over a decade ago with NAFTA. We didn't do what we could to develop other baskets," Mr. Hodgson says. "The world today is about integration and fitting into supply chains. That's where the real specialization and wealth-creation opportunities come from. And we are late to the party."

Also of concern to Mr. Hodgson and the Conference Board is that Canada's trade performance with Asia is far weaker than the official numbers indicate. In a study this year that used measures such as sales of foreign affiliates and undercounted services, the board concluded that sales of Canadian services to Asia actually fell between 2000 and 2005 -- a time when the opportunities in the region were growing.

Worse, problems haunt Canada-U. S. trade, most notably the thickening of the border. U. S. concerns over domestic security have resulted in tighter border checks and slower movement of goods which has cost Canadian firms hundreds of millions of dollars.

And of course, there is the threat of a new U. S. president looking to renegotiate the trade deal.

OK, the operative words are: complacent and comfortable and those words are applicable right across the country and from top to bottom. But the big problem area is in the centre (Ontario and Québec) at the top. We are not uncompetitive because our workers are lazy or overpaid! We are uncompetitive because our corporate, financial and government elites are timid and overpaid.

Government ‘leaders’ are afraid of an electorate that is, itself, timid, protectionist/isolationist (and especially anti-American) and self-satisfied. Business ‘leaders’ are afraid of institutional investors who focus on the next quarter and, effectively, punish companies that take some risks to try to grow and secure their long term futures. The individual investor is still constrained, mostly by tax policy, by governments that want to “pick winners” in Canada - taking risks with someone else’s money.

The US is our biggest and best trading partner but it is neither benign nor guaranteed.

The Canadian government can help companies by going out into the world – to Asia – and negotiating free trade agreements. That will make opening new markets easier, it will also broaden the range of sources of supply for much needed industrial modernization. Governments can also help by lowering corporate taxes and taking taxes and duties off imported industrial equipment.


 
Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from a summer edition of the National Post, is one of the essential ‘good ideas’ that scares the livin’ you-know-what out of every single politician and bureaucrat in Ottawa:

http://www.financialpost.com/related/links/story.html?id=688480&p=1
Who needs our Ministry of International Trade?

Vincent Geloso, Financial Post

Published: Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Last week, [that was in July] Canada went to the Doha world trade talks in Geneva committed to a contradiction: It sought to have global agricultural subsidies eliminated or reduced, but not its own. Michael Fortier, Minister of International Trade, appeared to be confident that Canada could protect its own supply-managed sectors, including dairy and poultry industries, while convincing others to remove their barriers. It's a very paradoxical and even embarrassing stance, one that probably contributed to the collapse of the WTO talks. It might also make us wonder why we have a minister of international trade.

The ministry is actually very badly titled. It should be named the "Ministry of Managed Trade." The Ministry of International Trade has consistently sought to have all supply-managed agriculture designated as "sensitive products," thereby allowing Canada's key farm products to be subject to a smaller cut in tariffs than other products. In a way, Fortier is trying to bargain for free trade where we already have free trade and for maintained protectionism elsewhere. Is that really advocating free trade?

Like most countries, Canada seeks reciprocity. We will only lower barriers if others do. But this idea of reciprocity reinforces the fallacy that import barriers are assets that can be bargained away, when in fact they are liabilities. Canada negotiates as if supply management boards and tariffs were actually something that made Canadians better off. But that is not the case. Instead, they should be eliminated. Supply management agencies such as the Canadian Dairy Commission (CDC) and provincial farm organizations reduce the supply of milk and other products to bump up prices at the expense of consumers. Protected behind tariff barriers of 200% to 300% varying by product, dairy and poultry producers can thus "tax" consumers. Refusing to question these policies and considering them as assets that Canada must only dispense with if others do the same is not free trade, it is managed trade based on the fallacy that trade protection is beneficial.

Following the collapse of the Doha trade talks in Geneva, it is reasonable to question the relevance of the Ministry of International Trade. The most recent statistics on agriculture in Canada, released last Friday by StatsCan, show that farms are getting bigger, thus gaining access to economies of scale as smaller farms disappear. This means that at least some Canadian farmers should now be more able to compete in international markets. They could easily survive without the help of the government.

Instead of supporting the farm marketing regime behind the fallacies of reciprocity and trade deals, Canada should begin looking at unilateral actions to dismantle its own farm protectionism. We have everything to gain: In the last 14 years, the price of milk in Canada increased 57.6% -- two times faster than inflation -- while production costs dropped by 6.1%. As the price rises, the quantity demanded drops, which explains why liters of milk consumed per person dropped 17.5% between 1987 and 2007. According to the Montreal Economic Institute (MEI), milk consumption will drop an additional 12% between now and 2020. Dairy and poultry supply management in Quebec costs $300 per family. This is what the Ministry of International Trade has been trying to protect. Is depriving lower income families of milk to help agricultural fat cats "defending Canadian interests"?

Australia, New Zealand and the U. K. got rid of supply management and now rely more on free markets. The case of Australia -- which invented supply management in the 1920s -- is the most striking: In 2000, Australia enacted a fundamental reform of supply management in the dairy industry. It eliminated support prices and implemented transitional aid programs for the producers who had lost, amongst other things, the value of their quotas. According to the MEI, real prices of "brand-name" milk and "no-name" milk respectively dropped 18% and 29%, providing AUS$118-million in savings for consumers annually. Australian dairy producers adapted by having bigger herds and enlarged their farms to be able to compete. Others modernized themselves or developed other areas of agricultural production. They did not need any help to survive in a freer market.

Canada should learn from the Australian reform and do the same. By acting unilaterally to remove barriers and abolish subsidies, Ottawa would deliver benefits to all Canadian consumers.

Ottawa has been advocating free trade of manufactured goods and liberalization of international financial services for years. On agriculture, Canada could join Australia and send a message to the World Trade Organization. But if that happens, what will Michael Fortier do? Canada would have a ministry of international free trade with nothing to manage. Then we could abolish the post. - Vincent Geloso writes for the National Post as an intern. He studies economics and politics at Universite de Montreal.

This is a perennial. It gets raised about every year and every years it is ignored – even though about 99% of Canadians would benefit from getting rid of the farm marketing boards.

Why?

Because politicians and bureaucrats know that Québec dairy farmers would attack Ottawa – literally. They would seize parliament hill, they would storm the parliament buildings, they would burn chairs and desks and papers, they would assault parliamentarians and workers. And who could blame them? The proposal, my proposal is to make them compete with big, efficient milk, cheese and egg producers. I propose that family farms that have been family farms for 300 years should be driven into bankruptcy. Comfortable, prosperous farmers should be rendered, almost overnight, unable to provide for their families – all just so that the other 99% of Canadians should live better lives. "It'll never happen" - not any time soon, any way.

But it needs to happen. 

 
This sounds nice, but there is no way for people to "prove" who they voted for. I know that in Italy the election officials there had to crack down -*HARD*- on people bringing cell phones with cameras / cameras.  Not because people were trying to record what other people were voting for, but what they were voting for.

Apparently people were first being bribed,  but to get the money you had to show proof that you voted a certain way.  This sounds shady, but hey "if a person chooses to sell their vote, their choice eh"  Not really.  Believe it or not it is a threat to democracy. 

If people were free to get proof of who they voted for ie take a video clip of them marking the ballot, then you could 'pressure' people to record and prove who they voted for.  People who didn't do so, obviously voted for someone else... it isn't very hard to see how badly things can get as soon as people ballots are no longer secret...

But there are other problems. I worked as a scrutineer,  it was shocking.  I saw several times a husband and wife would get their ballot and go behind the screen together.  Doesn't sound bad but three of those women simply handed their ballot to their husband who also marked it for them.  (this wasn't the most shocking thing I saw that day)
 
Zell_Dietrich said:
...
But there are other problems. I worked as a scrutineer,  it was shocking.  I saw several times a husband and wife would get their ballot and go behind the screen together.  Doesn't sound bad but three of those women simply handed their ballot to their husband who also marked it for them ...

You cannot imagine the self control I am exercising ... forcing myself not to tell Vern this is the way things ought to be.  >:D
 
There did not seem to be any hesitation when they dismantled the Crow Rate and other subsidies in the 80's for the western farmers....ah, the crying, twas terrible.....but, in hindsight, only the inefficient and underfunded went under....
 
Québec farmers appear on parliament hill every couple of years – to remind parliamentarians and civil servants that they, the farmers, are big, powerful and, above all, militant. It is a campaign of intimidation aimed at keeping their marketing boards – extortion is another word for it, just like the “protection rackets” to which some (one is too many) small shop owners fall victim.
 
This, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s National Post, highlights yet another problem with Dion’s Green Shaft Shift:

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/election-2008/story.html?id=790969
Carbon tariffs pose risk of trade war, OECD told
Green Shift Plan

Paul Vieira, National Post

Published: Monday, September 15, 2008


OTTAWA - The leading economic organization of the industrialized world is being advised to condemn attempts by countries to impose carbon tariffs on certain imported goods -- an initiative that the Liberal party advocates in its key election-campaign policy, the Green Shift plan.

The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development has been told that tariffs aimed at punishing countries -- mostly from such emerging markets as China -- that emit high levels of greenhouse gases carry "significant" risks, including sparking a global trade war. It is advised to "speak out strongly" against such levies.

Carbon tariffs "will neither improve the global environment nor strengthen the competitiveness of OECD industries, companies and firms," the OECD was told in a briefing dated Sept. 10.

The advice was from a coalition of 36 business associations that includes the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.

"Unilateral measures are likely to be considered a violation of international trade and climate-change commitments, could trigger trade protectionism, could damage the integrity of international environmental treaties and make it more difficult to achieve a much-needed global post-Kyoto agreement on GHG emissions reductions," the association said.

The advice to the OECD was contained in a briefing stamped "draft," a copy of which has been obtained by the National Post.

Carbon tariffs are seen as a way that governments can help their domestic businesses compete in a global marketplace where rivals may not face the same kind of stringent environmental regulations. Economists at CIBC World Markets have said carbon tariffs could boost inflation, as new charges are slapped on imports, and reverse companies' march toward moving manufacturing operations to countries with less-robust climate-change policies.

It is expected that once the United States puts a price on carbon -- either through a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system -- it may be keen to use carbon tariffs as a weapon against the emerging economic powerhouses, most notably China. The European Union already prices carbon through its cap-and-trade system. Imposing carbon tariffs is part of the Liberal party's Green Shift plan, which Stephane Dion, has made the centerpiece of the Liberal election platform.

"We will build carbon pricing into our strategy for international trade, endeavouring where possible to ensure that goods from countries that are not pricing carbon will face a tariff reflective of carbon content," the Green Shift says.

The Liberal environmental platform adds there should be no risk to Canada's trading relationship with the United States because it is expected that the next U. S. president, whether Republican or Democratic, will pursue a policy that prices carbon.

However, the business advisory group warns the OECD that trade policy should not be used to "coerce" countries to adopt more stringent environmental policy. It adds an unintended consequence for countries that pursue carbon tariffs is that their business communities will become complacent and less productive -- leading to drops in their respective standards of living.

"The initial advantage of protection for domestic companies will over time likely turn into a competitive disadvantage as companies that are partially shielded from competition tend to be less innovative, less active in seeking new business opportunities and less eager to reduce excessive costs than companies that are exposed to effective international competition," the OECD is warned.

The OECD briefing adds that carbon tariffs could undermine efforts to get consensus on a global environmental treaty.

"It is difficult to understand how OECD countries could sign an international environmental agreement, recognizing common but differentiated responsibilities, and then impose border tax adjustments on trade with those countries," the briefing says.

I, personally, think a carbon tax might be a good idea IF:

• It is a fairly ‘pure’ consumption tax – paid by the end user at the pump, in the market, when the home heating oil tank is filled, etc; and

• It is not levied at borders – on either incoming or outgoing carbon.

 
Now, for all you Liberals, Greenies and NDippers here on Army.ca, here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s National Post (Yes, I know, it’s a fascist rag that disses Smilin’ Jack Layton, but ...) is some real red meat about the hidden agenda™:

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/election-2008/story.html?id=791059
Commentary: 'Conservative' in name only

Theo Caldwell,  National Post

Published: Monday, September 15, 2008

For Canadians who embrace environmentalism, confiscatory tax rates and comprehensive government programs, the Oct. 14 federal election offers an embarrassment of riches. Folks who believe that meaningful tax cuts are overdue, however, and that Prime Minister Stephen Harper has neglected his specific promises as well as conservatism in general, have fewer options. To wit, the former group has at least four parties to vote for; the latter, none.

Admittedly, Harper's Conservative government has been in minority status since being elected in 2006, necessitating multi-party consensus on a range of legislative issues. Indeed, perhaps this is Canada's longest-standing minority government precisely because its movement toward conservative ideals has been glacial. But the fact remains that campaign pledges, such as leaving income trusts untouched and sticking to fixed election dates, as well as matters of long-standing principle, such as significant income tax cuts and reforming the CBC, have gone unfulfilled.

Lest we forget how this campaign started, it was the Harper government that opted to force an election, even after legislating the date of the next vote for October, 2009. Fixed election dates have been a tenet of the Conservative party and its antecedents for at least a decade, but they abandoned that principle because they saw a temporary advantage.

This government has moved to eliminate income trusts, which allow corporations to pay out earnings to unit-holders before paying taxes, despite repeatedly and explicitly promising to leave them intact.

Tax rates have yet to come down from the stratospheric range Canadians have endured for generations. A government cannot call itself conservative while citizens are still surrendering half their income in taxes.

And what about the CBC? Should Canadian taxpayers still be shelling out more than a billion dollars a year for a supposedly public broadcaster with a line-up that includes Jeopardy! and Wheel of Fortune? A true conservative would tell the CBC to buy its own vowel, but what is Harper's plan?

In discussing these issues with several members of Harper's Cabinet and caucus, I have found their reactions range from apologies for the slow progress to outright denials that commitments were broken or that conservative ideals have not been served. It is this latter response that is particularly disconcerting.

On taxes, for instance, their talking points seem to be that the GST has been cut, as promised, reducing the federal government's haul by billions of dollars; and Tax Freedom Day -- that glorious day in June when the cumulative total of Canadians' earnings is sufficient to pay their annual tax liability -- comes a few days earlier.

But the point of tax cuts is not to reduce government revenue. The idea is that giving folks the freedom to spend and invest their own money, rather than handing it over to the government, spurs economies and thereby leads to higher tax revenues. Myriad examples, from North America to Europe to Asia, bear this out, but do Canada's Conservatives believe in the concept? How can we know? Certainly not from their record.

On income trusts, they say that circumstances changed since they committed to leave them alone. But the point of making a promise is that you keep it even when it is difficult.

The issue isn't even whether income trusts are good for the economy, or whether corporate taxes foregone through the use of income trusts would have been made up by increased personal income taxes and foreign investment. The point is, one thing was said and another was done. It is not the end of the world, but it's a fact. More important, what does this say about the Harper government and how it would legislate with a majority?

On fixed election dates, they claim (1) that pledge was applicable only to majority governments; and (2) since the Liberals would probably have forced an election this fall anyway, this broken promise doesn't count. The first excuse comes off as a by-the-book technicality that might strike hockey-minded Canadians as a "chintzy call." Regarding the second, it doesn't say much for a political party when it treats the Liberals as its ethical yardstick.

As to the CBC, the Conservatives see it as a sensitive issue at election time, so they become refreshingly mute.

The question becomes, then, if those who hold conservative views cannot find much reason to support Stephen Harper's party, where else can they take their votes?

Harper is helped by having opponents who would dissolve the fabled wall between church and state by making the religion of environmental druidism the law of the land. Beyond the Liberal and Green parties, Harper is facing straightforward separatists and unreconstructed socialists. Harper is probably the best leader on offer but, as comedian Dennis Miller might opine, that is like being the smartest kid in summer school.

For years, Harper's handlers have been unsure as to just how to package him. They have fluctuated between having him glare out at voters from campaign posters to the most recent incarnation, which has him sitting by the fireplace in comfortable clothes, discussing what it's like to be a dad. It's a shift from scaring children to talking about them. But shooting a steel blue gaze straight into the camera is not leadership, nor does donning a sweater-vest evince character. For all the image-making, he remains an enigma.

Fundamentally, Canadians still don't know what to make of the man who has been their Prime Minister for almost three years, or what to expect if he is re-elected. If Harper does have a hidden agenda, as his detractors claim, it is hidden even from those who would be his supporters.

On specific issues including income trusts and fixed election dates, Harper's government has not been straight with the voters, and on bedrock conservative principles like meaningful tax cuts, it has been absent. These are not unforgiveable transgressions but, if the Conservatives are returned to power, they should start living up to their name.

theo@theocaldwell.com

Theo Caldwell, president of Caldwell Asset Management, Inc., is an investment advisor in the United States and Canada.

Copyright © 2007 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.

While I have sympathy for his dismay, I do not agree with all of Caldwell’s whinging.

For example:

1. Cutting the GST is good policy – which trumps good economics – because it constrains government spending. If you want to spend more you must tax more. Canadians do not like new taxes. Politicians do not like annoying Canadians. It will be easier to spend less than to tax more.

2. I support the income trust decisions because public policy is about serving the common good, not just that of a few investors looking for cheap, easy tax avoidance. 

 
And one more from the Tory blue rag, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s National Post:

http://www.nationalpost.com/related/topics/story.html?id=791004
No easy win for Liberals on economy
Party needs to refine message to score points against Harper

Craig Offman,  National Post

Published: Monday, September 15, 2008

Flailing stock markets and spiking gas prices are usually good news for an opposition party, but not for the Liberals.

Despite the Grits' success in balancing budgets while they were in power, the economy now poses some problems. Despite the Conservatives' questionable record of late, voters still put more trust in Stephen Harper to manage their money. And compounding the Liberals' woes, their broad polluter-punishing program, the Green Shift, reinforces the criticism that they are promoting a risky strategy in uncertain times.

Even a flurry of gloomy signals last week is unlikely to bolster their fortunes. Sagging commodity markets, a housing bubble and shrinking manufacturing sector could have provided some explosive election-time fodder, but the Liberal party has only four weeks to convince voters that those Bay Street tremors will eventually rock Main Street.

"There is no evidence that people vote on the price of oil futures or the TSX index," said Tom Flanagan, a former advisor to Mr. Harper and a political science professor at the University of Calgary. "People vote on the basis of inflation or unemployment, things that affect their pocketbooks, and there aren't enough bond-traders to swing an election."

The state of the economy has boxed the Liberals into a corner. If conditions suddenly improve, the Conservatives can take credit. If those key indicators start looking gloomy, polls suggest that voters might still embrace Mr. Harper because he represents the safest choice.

"At the moment, when you ask people which leader is best able to handle the economy in tough times, Stephen Harper and the Conservatives have a big lead," said Darrell Bricker of the pollster Ipsos Reid, adding that Canadians are reasonably happy with the economy.

The Green Shift proposal is likely not helping the Liberals, either. A far-reaching tax reform that would be introduced at a delicate time in the economic cycle, it plays into a fear of fiscal uncertainty.

"The carbon tax will do more than undermine the economy," Mr. Harper said late last week. "By undermining the economy and by re-centralizing money and power in Ottawa, it can only undermine the progress we have been making on national unity."

But there are some quick fixes the Liberals can make.

David Herle, a key strategist in the election of former Liberal prime minister Paul Martin, said the current Liberal leader should avoid the issue of uncertainty and instead attack Mr. Harper's record.

"[Stephane] Dion has to make this about weakness and economic downturn -- and lay it at the feet of Mr. Harper," said Mr. Herle, a Toronto-based political consultant. "Not so that it's a globally uncertain time that you need Harper's steady hand to manage, but in fact you say Harper has presided over a period of time in which unemployment has been going up, the manufacturing sector has been collapsing in Central Canada -- and from coast to coast Canadians have been hit with energy prices that look like they are going to go up indefinitely."

But the success of attacks depends on who is delivering them, observers say, and Mr. Dion cannot himself look vulnerable or weak.

"There is a sense of forboding in the air, and in that situation, people are looking for strength and determination," said Paul Nesbitt-Larking, a political scientist at Western's Huron University College. "Whichever leader manages to convey that best will benefit."

Sounding a little doubtful about Mr. Dion's prospects, Mr. Nesbitt-Larking compared him to Robert Stanfield, the perennial opposition leader who he said was long on ideas, but came up short when he had to sell them.

The most notable example came during the 1974 elections, when the Conservative Stanfield proposed a wage and price freeze to combat inflation, only to be mocked by prime minister Pierre Trudeau, who pointed a finger at him and said, "Zap! You're frozen."

Mr. Nesbitt-Larking said that was the moment that crystallized for Canadians that Mr. Stanfield was wimp, and that only Mr. Trudeau had the charisma and leadership to be able to do something about the economy.

After he was re-elected, Mr. Trudeau implemented the very policies that he once mocked.

"It was a good plan," Mr. Nesbitt-Larking added, "Yet [Stanfield] couldn't convey through his public image that he was someone who could do that."

Copyright © 2007 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.


I well remember the Stanfield/Trudeau race and I agree that, at the end of week one of five of this campaign, it is looking like Dion ≈ Stanfield and Harper ≈ Trudeau.

The problem, for the Liberals, is that Canadians ought to remember, fondly, the economic good days of Chrétien/Martin but, apparently, Dion inspires fear, not confidence and Martin is long gone and forgotten.
 
I am going to throw a strawman out in the open to provoke some discussion. It is a theory that I do not subscribe to, but it perhaps is a possibility.

What would the result be if Dion suddenly resigned as leader "for the good of the Liberal party Canada' and was replaced by Iggy, who came second in the leadership race, as interim leader? I suspect any resignation on his part would not be voluntary, but that is cynical speculation on my part.

There is still nearly a month to run in the campaign. With Dion gone and maybe the Green Shift put on hold or postponed, is there time to turn the race around, or at least salvage a strong second place in another minority Parliament? Consider that a lot of money has been spent on commericals featuring Dion, and the party is in a dubious financial position. Is this the time and place for a Hail Mary pass, or does the party take the long view and take the next several years to rebuild itself?
 
Old Sweat said:
I am going to throw a strawman out in the open to provoke some discussion. It is a theory that I do not subscribe to, but it perhaps is a possibility.

What would the result be if Dion suddenly resigned as leader "for the good of the Liberal party Canada' and was replaced by Iggy, who came second in the leadership race, as interim leader? I suspect any resignation on his part would not be voluntary, but that is cynical speculation on my part.

There is still nearly a month to run in the campaign. With Dion gone and maybe the Green Shift put on hold or postponed, is there time to turn the race around, or at least salvage a strong second place in another minority Parliament? Consider that a lot of money has been spent on commericals featuring Dion, and the party is in a dubious financial position. Is this the time and place for a Hail Mary pass, or does the party take the long view and take the next several years to rebuild itself?


The problems with that theory, it seems to me, include:

• Bob Rae’s ambitions – he will not want Ignatieff to get the leadership by coup;

• The left wing of the Liberal Party – the group that rejected Ignatieff and gave the leadership to Dion in a compromise. It still doesn’t like or trust Ignatieff; and

• Tradition – the Liberals are were a highly disciplined party. To overthrow Dion, apparently in a panic, makes them look foolish and ill-prepared – not a good message to send when the economy is shaping up to be the only issue.

 
Those are all good points.

However if Ignatieff clearly stated he was the interim leader, and named a date for a leadership convention, that might satisfy the Rae and Dion camps. It would, however, make it even more difficult to campaign while the competing factions plotted and schemed away for advantage in the post-election bloodbath.

The sign of panic during an economic downturn is probably the show stopper. Was it in the 2000 campaign that a coup by Martin to usurp power from Chretien failed, or was that only a rumour? The economy was doing a lot better back then.

I still don't think it is going to happen, but one can only hope.
 
Quebec farmers are not the only ones:

http://prairietory.blogspot.com/2008/09/corporate-welfare-belly-up-bar.html

Corporate Welfare - Belly up the bar!!!

Wow. I read Mark Milke's book A Nation of Serfs and it was fantastic. The chapters on corporate welfare and free speech were especially interesting to me, along with the historical information about our roots in limited-government, and the garrison culture. The latter I hadn't ever heard or learned of before, so that was cool. Anyway, here's some more data on corporate welfare handouts in this Fraser Institute report.

These are some staggering numbers. These are numbers from the period 1995-2004.

    In 2004 alone, Canada’s federal, provincial, and local governments spent $19 billion on corporate welfare, almost double the 1995 figure of $10.3 billion. The cost to each taxpayer who paid income tax in 2004 was $1,259, which was 35% higher than the 1995 figure of $934.

    Between 1995 and 2004, the last year for which statistics are available, Canada’s federal, provincial, and local governments spent almost $144 billion on tax-financed subsidies to business.

    Between 1995 and 2004, the total cost amounted to $11,030 per tax filer (all figures adjusted for inflation to 2007 dollars).



I guess this is one more item we can hope is on the CPC's hidden agenda that comes attached to attaining majority government status. Its time to drain the swamp. Government does not need to compete with the private sector, nor does the private sector need the government's help. Here's the entire document.
Posted by Luke at 1:57 AM

Imagine the tax cut the CPC could deliver if they acted like real Conservatives and ended corporate welfare. Injecting $19+ billion dollars into the productive economy with a tax cut like this would certainly take the edge off any real or potential economic downturn as well.

 
Back
Top