Decision Canada 2006

Well, it's almost the end of this blog.

2006-01-24T10:37:00.000-08:00

As you know, I created this blog strictly to cover the 2006 election. With the election now and over, this blog as fufiled it's purpose.

My "new" blog is over at blog.canadianpolicywiki.ca
- it will be a site news / political news / rants blog all in one.

I will also be posting over at http://centrerion.blogspot.com/ a fair bit during the inter-election years and be sure to look out for Decision Canada 200x when we have our next election.

In the meantime, why not help give our government some direction by adding your two cents to the Canadian Policy Wiki? The site has slowly gained some strength and it will only be getting better.

Again, it's been a great ride, thanks for reading (all 15,000 of you!)

How ironic: I just tested the site in internet explorer and it looks a little funny. I'm a FireFox user (if you want it, there's a link on the right of the page) and I didn't really pay attention to how it looked in IE. If you have a chance, download Firefox, it's a really good browser and it makes this (and a lot of other) blogs look proper!

Quebec's Pro-CPC Surprises: Commentary/Analysis

2006-01-23T23:18:00.000-08:00

10 probable seats for the CPC, with 8 confirmed. That's the least of the surprises. There's much more, and the portrait painted by the election's results in Quebec is positively shocking. My numbers are from the CBC. Though I don't trust them for insight, commentary, or even news reporting, because of their shabby style and frequent slants, the numbers can't be played with (that I know of).

From a very French-Canadian riding (as the mention of the 1800 Quebecois rebels, les Patriotes) indicates, comes this exceptionnally strong showing for the CPC:

DISTRICT: Verchères-Les Patriotes

Candidate

Party

Vote Count

Vote Share

Elected

Luc Malo

30085

57.37%

Jean-Félix Racicot

CON

11438

21.81%

Alanna Woods

LIB

4590

8.75%

Simon Vallée

NDP

4278

8.16%

Carl Danis

GRN

2045

3.9%

January 24, 1:24:13 AM EST

197 of 198 polls reporting

Many rural, very French-Canadian ridings indicated similar results.

The city of Quebec itself had another impressive showing by the CPC, polling ahead of the Liberals!

DISTRICT: Québec

Candidate

Party

Vote Count

Vote Share

Elected

Christiane Gagnon

20805

41.57%

Frédérik Boisvert

CON

14842

29.66%

Caroline Drolet

LIB

5743

11.48%

Michaël Lessard

NDP

4634

9.26%

Yonnel Bonaventure

GRN

2372

4.74%

Dan Aubut

IND

812

1.62%

Alexandre Raymond-Labrie

PCP

512

1.02%

Francis Bedard

LTN

325

0.65%

January 24, 1:57:23 AM EST

237 of 237 polls reporting

Less surprising to me was Meili Faille of the Bloc beating Mr. Marc "My-feet-taste-great" Garneau, the Liberal astronaut. Responding to Garneau's comments, Gilles Duceppe aptly and wittily characterized the man as being "dans la lune", which translates approximately to "off in a dreamworld". As I posted earlier in my debate commentary, Duceppe either has someone writing him great one-liners, or else he's a very witty person when it comes to off the cuff comments.

The Bloq topped off at 51 seats, 3 less than last time, and 41%; nowhere near foolish analyses placing him as a potential leader of the official opposition, and certainly not even close to his own ridiculous comment of aiming for 50% support.

Overall though, the greatest surprise is that overall, the Conservatives came in with 24% and change of the Quebec vote (906 K); the Liberals polled ~20% (761K). However, because the Liberal support is more consolidated and the rural Bloquiste vote didn't swing sufficiently to Harper et al., the CPC came out with a rather small number of seats (10), as mentioned above. The CPC are Quebeckers' #2, when early in the campaign, a La Presse humourist caricatured Harper's 5% as the level of his support in Quebec, (it's the level to which he wants to cut the GSTax, from 7%).

Why?
La Presse came out and supported the CPC officially, and had some unofficially pro-Harper material prior to that. I must credit them for pointing out that Harper was leading on policy around Christmastime, which led to my own analysis calling Harper as leading, period. Harper earlier promised to deal with the fiscal imbalance, which was HUGE to my fellow Quebeckers and I who see Ottawa surpluses as being accumulated on our ( and other Canadians') backs. This ultimately meant more than his stance on social issues to many people. Another key factor was that Canadian Quebeckers have realized most political power in Canada rests in government, not the opposition: the Bloc is a relatively inferior vote because it can't be in power.

Well, no shockers here

2006-01-23T20:19:00.000-08:00

A Conservative minority it is going to be. Liberal leader Paul Martin is going to step down. We have no chance of a coalition government with the present numbers so that puts an end to that.

All I can say is what we expected to happen happened. I am still following a few ridings that are in doubt including my own West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast-Sea to Sky country which has Liberal Blair Wilson leading by 900 votes with about 27 polls to go. I'm on the verge of declaring him elected but still not quite there.

I will post some more as we go along, it's been almost 6 straight hours of blogging now, things are not going to change that much more now. I'm due for a break :)

Update: Global TV just declared Blair Wilson elected.

Join the Skype Chat

2006-01-23T19:32:00.000-08:00

I'm on Skype tonight if you want to chat, I'll do a multiple way call if necessary.

Skype Me!

It's early but.......

2006-01-23T19:17:00.000-08:00

This might be the election where the Green Party takes a seat.

1 Green
1 Independent

I will try to pull the ridings those two candidates are in ASAP.

The Popular Vote

2006-01-23T19:13:00.000-08:00

Is being led by the Liberals 35.8 to 35.6 (a 0.2% margin.) I'm thinking this is a trend that this will be a one time Conservative government.

2 Independents leading right now, that is a bit interesting to see.

268 seats have results, I think the only thing to see is how strong of a government is it going to be.

Decision Canada predicts a Conservative minority government

2006-01-23T19:10:00.000-08:00

Yes, we are now predicting a Conservative Minority government. More to come.

Results so far

2006-01-23T19:05:00.000-08:00

Well, the official numbers come out in 12 min, but I'm not going to rush.

The Liberals have a fairly nice lead in the Atlantic so far, this is rather interesting, I expected the Conservatives to gain a fair lead there.

This is going to be a nailbiter, well, at least so far.

Less than 40 ridings

2006-01-23T19:02:00.000-08:00

With a slight Liberal lead. The Atlantic has traditionally voted Liberal, but the Conservatives have a huge gain in comparision to last time.

Quebec is up in a few min, that should be very very interesting.

Early Trends

2006-01-23T19:00:00.000-08:00

It's fairly tight. The Conservative gains in the Atlantic haven't been very big but it's really early right now.

Government declared

2006-01-23T18:52:00.001-08:00

Well, the Decision Canada team is now predicting a Conservative government. We are not sure on if it will be a majority or minority but it will be a Conservative government.

Harper will be the next PM.

The Globe and Mail has live results @ http://www.theglobeandmail.com/elections/fed2005/fragments/results/federalResults.html

I will keep posting commentary as we go along.

First legal results

2006-01-23T18:52:00.000-08:00

Well, here we go. I just got "legal" feeds so I'm postning normally here

Conservative 82
Liberal 69
Bloc 27
NDP 23
OTH 1

Well, lets go for a breakdown in a second.

Thats the hot result.

Quebec closes in 3 min

2006-01-23T17:56:00.000-08:00

Well, 30 min until the results start to flow. More to come.

Google for results, I'm not officially posting them here - just commentary.

My prediction at the moment is to close to call:

The first info

2006-01-23T16:36:00.000-08:00

It's still very tight, we don't have enough polls reporting to call anything yet, we shall see what happens.

The results are really in flux right now.

Live Results

2006-01-23T16:23:00.000-08:00

http://www.rcinet.ca/rci/en/

How nice of the CBC to give us a feed.

Less than 8 hours until the polls open

2006-01-22T18:59:00.000-08:00

Well, it's been a crazy two months or so. Over 125 blog postings, over 10,000 people have read this blog from every corner of Canada and abroad.

Now, the ads have almost stopped running (thank goodness) - the signs will (start to) come down Tuesday (thank goodness.) We will have to wait until midnight or so Pacific until we know what is really going to happen, it might be so close we have recounts.

Let's hope we don't have any scandals, any "chad problems" that have caused so much turmoil in other elections.

Regardless of what party or candidate you will be voting for, please go out tomorrow and VOTE. A democracy is not a democracy without you, the citizen voting. Please help respect all who died to keep our world free and exercise your democratic right.

The "gag law"

2006-01-21T20:50:00.000-08:00

In short, I agree that it is in violation of the Charter and should be abolished as soon as possible by parliament.

Non withstanding, it is presently law. As such, I won't be posting election "results" here. I will be posting a last second poll and the trends contained within.

At 10 EST, 7 PST I will be posting the full show including all of the results we have so far and I will start naming results.

I think this ban is disgusting and I the Supreme court should be ashamed of it's total misinterpretation of the Charter.

theProject's Predictions

2006-01-21T11:04:00.000-08:00

Here are twenty riding predictions for January 23rd.

Gains:
Vancouver Centre, BC -- Svend Robinson (NDP from LIB)
Edmonton Centre, AB -- Laurie Hawn (CPC from LIB)
Surrey North, BC -- Penny Priddy (NDP from IND)
Newmarket-Aurora, ON -- Lois Brown (CPC from LIB)
Pontiac, QC -- Lawrence Cannon (CPC from BQ)
New Westminster-Coquitlam, BC -- Dawn Black (NDP from CPC)
St. Paul's, ON -- Peter Kent (CPC from LIB)
Outremont, QC -- Jacques Léonard (BQ from LIB)
Northwest Territories -- Dennis Bevington (NDP from LIB)
Trinity-Spadina, ON -- Olivia Chow (NDP from LIB)
Vancouver Kingsway, BC -- Ian Waddell (NDP from LIB)
Beauce, QC -- Maxime Bernier (CPC from LIB)
Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC -- Josée Verner (CPC from BQ)
Brossard-La Prairie, QC -- Marcel Lussier (BQ from LIB)

Keeps:
Churchill, MB -- Bev Desjarlais (IND)
Richmond, BC -- Raymond Chan (LIB)
Etobicoke-Lakeshore, ON -- Michael Ignatieff (LIB)
Simcoe-Grey, ON -- Helena Guergis (CPC)
LaSalle-Émard, QC -- Paul Martin (LIB)
Kings-Hants, NS -- Scott Brison (LIB)

Edmonton Center voters list mixup - I know that some people "live" at their offices but to use it as their voting address?

2006-01-21T09:04:00.000-08:00

Currently bars, truck stops, offices, stores, mini-storages are being listed as addresses in which people reside for purposes of voting. The issue is being raised by the mainstream media in Edmonton Center but I think this might be a nation-wide issue.

According to the Edmonton Sun Liberal candidate Anne McLellan who has always won by a very slim margin. Conservative supporters are claiming that McLellan's friends who have office space in the riding are using it to vote multiple times for her regardless of the fact that they do not live in the riding.

Of course, many others with no connection to McLellan have received voter registration cards to their places of business. Currently most people receive a card based on one thing, the little box you check on your tax return. If you have your tax return sent to your office, the CRA tells Elections Canada that you reside at your office and they register you to vote there. Doesn't make a lot of sense does it.

In addition, I have seen people who (should under C-261) do not meet our present age of majority required to vote receive voter registration cards. As one does not always have to show ID on voting day this loophole allows additional voters to cast a a ballot. I have nothing against this pratice because it is only permitting additional Canadians to vote - a right guaranteed to "every citizen of Canada" by the Charter. It just goes to show, if you file a tax return and check the "I agree to share my registration information with Elections Canada" - you will get a vote regardless of age.

This system is broken, we need to fix it fast. Requiring ID that shows your address to vote would be the least we could do.

So, students "voted" on official Elections Canada ballots - what is the big deal?

2006-01-21T07:37:00.000-08:00

According to a lot of blogs - sparked by this Canada Free Press story we are hearing about how high school students made "random" marks on official Elections Canada ballots. The article is being a little paranoid, why not let those votes count? The students in grade 11 and 12 can already get an official ballot by filing a tax return and their votes are as educated as ours (well, the majority of Canadians). Why not let them count?

When I was just under the legal voting age, I found it as fustrating as all that although I pay the same taxes as any voting Canadian and although my passport said I was a Canadian citizen, I could not vote. I see no difference. Let the kids vote!

Decision Canada's election night coverage

2006-01-20T18:44:00.000-08:00

We will be hitting the blog scene at 4 pm Pacific, 7 pm Eastern on the 23rd and will be posting until everything is in. We will give our take as the results come in and what we can see out of the future government.

Stay tuned.

What is wrong with more English in Quebec?

2006-01-19T22:03:00.000-08:00

Most of the country speaks English and a little French. Quebec will still speak mostly French regardless of Bill 101.

Harper wants to soften 101 to allow more use of Canada's other official language in Quebec. Duceppe of course doesn't want any more English because he sees it as an infringement on Quebec's culture.

I think Duceppe is out to lunch. If Quebec wants to stay competitive in the mostly English North America, it needs to loosen up a bit. I'm not calling for French to lose official language status, I think we need to preserve the culture but restricting English is just plain stupid.

That is my 2 cents on the issue, I'll post more later when I have a chance.

The final lap

2006-01-19T21:41:00.000-08:00

The cars are rushing to the finish line. Team Harper is in the lead but their car is losing air pressure in the tires slowly. Team Liberal has turbochargers on the engine and is slowly catching up to the lead. Team NDP is back there but is steady for a good 3rd place finish.

Now, the fans are being treated to the pit crews from both teams going at an insane battle. The ad crews are starting to run a few battles. Thankfully, this is family entertainment and the ads have calmed down a bit.

The Liberals are running Paul Martin on a message about his values, the Conservatives well, they haven't calmed down and the NDP is still not positive but the ads are not disgusting.

All of the parties have made their respective flopups, the Liberals have the "Buzz comment" that was a pretty damn stupid thing to hear, the Conservatives have the "we want Toronto first" line which will turn off some western voters and the NDP has the Jack Layton health care hypocrite issue.

The Liberals are picking up some steam, the Conservatives have the leak, it's going to be a photo finish. So, log in, read the blogs and prepare for a thriller of an ending!

Poll: Private Health Care

2006-01-18T18:32:00.000-08:00

71% of Canadians in a poll told us that they have no problem. The poll was conducted by the private health care providers but the question seemed fairly neuteral.

Do you favour a mix of public and private care as a way to put an end to waitlists?

I have no problem with private health care. Jack Layton has a hard line on being 100% against it, maybe he should have polled a few more everyday working families first.

Of course, I have had a private MRI because it would have taken 6 months to get it in the public system, because it was covered by private insurance, I got to jump the que and get my MRI in a week. Maybe that is what the public system needs, a good kick in the pants.

Harper's Toronto Centric Government

2006-01-18T17:52:00.000-08:00

Today Conservative leader made a mistake almost bigger than the Liberal's "Soldiers, with guns" ad. Harper said "We want Toronto to be part of the truly national government we are asking Canadians to give us," - Wait a second.

Harper is the leader of a party that traditionally derived it's support from the western provinces. To many western based Canadians, Harper's statement is a kick in the face.

How would a Conservative government that has put a strong emphasis on Toronto help end western alienation? Harper just turned a lot of western voters off the Conservative Party. Are we simply going to replace one eastern centric government with another?

Don't take your powerbase for granted, BC is a huge battleground this election. Telling BC that Toronto is #1 on your priority is telling us that you will suck up to Toronto and not give a rip about the rest of the country.

A government that focuses on Toronto isn't a government for me! At least the Liberals did not make a statement essentially calling Toronto the "center of the universe."

Sweet move Harper, great job! You haven't been in BC in ages. Mr Martin is spending a LOT more time in BC than you are. Why do you insult your core voters?

So Mr Harper, I ask you. What will you do to ensure that the west recieves it's fair share. Toronto is NOT the center of the universe, Canada is a big country, don't sell the rest of the country for one city!

Does Jack Layton speak for you?

2006-01-18T17:42:00.000-08:00

I was wondering when this was going to happen. The Conservatives are scared that a well run Liberal sprint to the finish line might snatch their victory so to shore up support, they are going after the party that has no chance of forming government, the NDP.

The latest ad has a bunch of pictures with people with a cutout of Layton's mouth pasted over them with some of the promises that he has made. It end with "Does Jack Layton speak for you? - vote Conservative!" Well, they do have a point, Jack Layton has attempted to sound like he has been speaking for everyday Canadians when in fact, a solid majority when polled said he did not. There have been several articles in the blogosphere about that, even a letter from a newsgroup posted here on Decision Canada which give that message.

Does Jack Layton speak for you? That is the simple yes/no question of the day.

I've bumped this to the top of the blog - with the latest NDP ads, I want to see what your reaction is!

Voter turnout in advance polls is up

2006-01-18T14:18:00.000-08:00

Does this mean

a) Canadians are off for holidays and needed to vote before the election
b) Canadians are busy on Mondays
c) Canadians are getting out and voting!

I know advance polls mean nothing, but our voter turnout rate has sucked as of late. Elections Canada is reporting a huge increase in advanced polling turnouts - is this the trend we're seeing to improve voter rates.

Or, is this simply a "let's vote 'em out" motion - or is it "let's make the pollsters look stupid and vote Liberal"

Either way, numbers are up, so be sure to get out and VOTE on the 23rd!

Is the best thing for the Liberals to get wiped out and start fresh?

2006-01-17T20:44:00.000-08:00

Current trends are pointing to Harper getting a fairly strong (~178 seat) majority government. In that scenario, the Liberals would be almost wiped off the map.

The question is simple. Is the best thing for the Liberal Party? In British Columbia, the provincial NDP party was almost wiped out going from a majority government to 2 seats. What happened during the lapse is the NDP found a way to shed a new light on itself. The "old" NDP was basically organized labour - the "new" NDP attempts to include more business and not be nearly as hard-line socialist as they were. In short, they have become more of a mainstream party and less of a "far leaning" party. With their new more centrist policies, the BC government is able to co-operate on some key issues and it works fairly well.

If the Liberals get wiped out it's highly likely that Paul Martin will not be running at the helm of the party next time around. Would new leadership - leadership that has no connection in any way shape or form to the "scandal" reform (no pun intended) the Liberal party?

It's happened before - this might be the best thing for Canadians possible - a new stronger and hopefully more ethical Liberal party.

I'm not saying that Liberal candidates are bad, in fact, I am strongly considering voting Liberal for the candidate as the Conservative candidate would not return the Decision Canada's team's requests for comments.

So, in short, vote for the candidate. All of the parties will mash up regardless, so go for who will best represent you, the Canadian!

Ad Reviews - I've stopped

2006-01-17T17:46:00.000-08:00

Because every single ad gets 0/10!

Every ad I have seen has been one attack after another attack after another. The Liberals "soldiers with guns" seems to be the biggest in the blogosphere but they all suck.

The NDP is running the boot theme and attacks on both the Liberals and the Conservatives, the Conservatives are running pictures of Martin and the Liberals are running fear ads on Harper.

Of course, the third party ads are just as bad. The first one I heard today was a fear ad trying to make people think that a Conservative government is going to kill private health care. That ad put on by the "Seniors Council of BC" included the classic vote NDP message.

Last BC election, I was sick of third party ads - let's hope they don't get even uglier right now.

A majority is not a majority - Harper

2006-01-17T17:35:00.000-08:00

It is an odd statement but it does make sense.

According to Harper

The Courts have been appointed by the Liberals
The Senate was appointed by the Liberals
The civil service was appointed by the Liberals.

Well, this does make some sense it is still all behind a push by Harper to "out the Liberals" - people are still a little uneasy to Conservative but want to see the end of the Liberals.

We shall see how this plays out, but the Liberals ad blunder combined with a well run Conservative show, I think we might see a much different government. I don't think it's going to be anything like the NDP wipeout in BC - though it is possible. It's also possible we will see another Liberal minority. We are in the third period of a nailbiter, it's a one goal game and the refs (third party advertising) are calling everything.

How big is the vote split going to be

2006-01-16T23:40:00.000-08:00

With NDP leader Jack Layton calling on Liberal voters to support the NDP this time around to do exactly what - give the Conservatives a majority. Layton's line was "Lend us your vote while the party you have supported in the past cleans itself up,"

It simply doesn't make sense for a Liberal voter to vote NDP. In most ridings the Liberals will still be a close second, giving your vote to the NDP will ensure that the Conservative candidate wins.

Sure, Layton may be going for the $1.75 per vote he gets - however, it seems far more likely that he could form a coalition government with the Liberals.

That is the issue I'm thinking about, a coalition government with the NDP. It's possible, it would be interesting to see. I think I'd like to see it. How about you (sorry, no yes/no today)

Memo to Martin: Accept questions from reporters

2006-01-16T18:30:00.000-08:00

Today Paul Martin had an press conference in Vancouver. One of the issues he talked about was western alienation. It was highly ironic that he chose to talk about it because later, in question time, all of the questions with the exception of one were by Ottawa based reporters. In BC, a western city the Liberal party would not accept questions from BC reporters while Paul Martin talked about western alienation!

I am not making this up!

all candidates meeting w van library

2006-01-15T21:48:00.000-08:00

At the all candidates meeting, the Green party, the Conservatives, the Communist, the Liberal, and NDP parties gave opening statements, closing statements and answered questions. The Communist Party candidate was brave but did not sway any votes. The NDP Zimmerman did an articulate job, Blair Wilson did a so so job, Weston did a so so job and the Green did a reasonable job. Both Wilson and Weston spoke too far away from the microphone. You could hear what they said but the emphasis and the punch was not there. Weston spoke like a lawyer and did not make any mistakes, and occasionally engaged the audience. Wilson engaged the audience more but lost his delivery when he often turned his head to speak to the audience on the second floor. Wilson stuck his foot in his mouth twice. He said something unwise twice. Using the notwithstanding clause to state the conservatives will repeal abortion and other laws was a big mistake. Even Liberal voters had to snicker when he said that. Using scare tatics against the conservatives in an educated public meeting was Wilson's mistake. He should have kept on emphasizing what good he would do regardless of the policy of the Martin liberals. He was doing well until he used the scare tatics. He sounded like a credible candidate. Until he blew it. The NDP was business like and would not take any guff from any questions. She sounded like a credible candidate. The Green candidate had some good and some not so practical ideas. When I entered the meeting my opinion of Wilson was high and Weston moderate. After hearing Wilson sound like a Martin toady repeating party lines, he lost a lot of the credibility that I had for him and the hard work he put in the last election. Granted he had a lot to overcome from the scandals in Ottawa, and was doing well enough for me to vote for him. Then he spouted off like a Martin mouthpiece.
Polytick

Why are the Liberals using the same style attack ads as the "Soldiers with Guns" ad?

2006-01-15T01:40:00.000-08:00

It seems rather foolish to me to use an ad in the style of one that was panned severely by the Canadian public.

The ad that started it all, of course is "Soldiers with guns in Canadian cities, we are not making this up." It has been described as "the worst ad ever" according to Greg P and a lot of bloggers, people on the street and mainstream media people alike.

So....

Why are the Liberals using something that they know is going to spark a negative reaction. I don't like the new ads, they've gotten an 0/5 on the ad review scale. I really don't really want to know how evil the other guy is, I can figure that out for myself without you screaming it at me in 30 million ads every show!

So, will the Liberals smarten up on their ad strategy and try something positive. It's going to take one crazy campaign for the Liberals to mount a comeback, they're starting off on the wrong foot!

On another ad note, the NDP ads finally attack both the Liberals and the Conservatives, but being an attack ad, it gets an automatic 0/5 on my ratings scale.

This has been one of the dirtiest campaigns I have ever seen with respect to ads, one would think we're in an election south of the 49th! It really is the style we started to see in presidential elections!

Will the Liberals be wiped out?

2006-01-14T17:51:00.000-08:00

According to the Bloc yes. But....

That is the Bloc, the same Bloc that wants to seperate from Canada. It is the same Bloc that is in bed with the Conservatives.

I don't think the Liberals will be wiped out at all. In fact, I think we even have a possibility of another Liberal minority goverment if....

1) The Liberal/NDP/Green split goes Liberal
2) Martin gives a great show, Harper goes lame

We still have 2 weeks, one bad ad and polls can go the other way and fast. This one is going to be a nailbiter, the Conservatives don't have it in the bag.

On a side note, why is the NDP attacking the Liberals - they really should be attacking the Conservatives if they want more seats.

I admit, I'm on a brief break post debate, I'll have more in a bit.

Jack Layton - the health care hypocrite

2006-01-12T21:20:00.000-08:00

One of the most often recurring themes we hear out of NDP leader Jack Layton is the fact that he does not support private health care in Canada. Layton is on record as saying that he or his wife would never use a private clinic to jump the line for surgery.

Except of course that he already did...

In documents found today, it was found that Mr Layton had hernia surgery at the Shouldice Hospital, a private facility in the Toronto suburb of Thornhill, while he was serving as a Toronto city councillor.

Layton defended himself with

"It's just part of the system, The doctor says, 'Go there.' You pay with your (Ontario health) card. It never occurred to me (it was) anything other than medicare, which it is.

Of course, Layton does have the defense that the facility was non-profit, it was set up for veterans coming in from WWII and he did pay with his Health Card. I do not, however, buy into the excuse that he did not know, he openly admitted it was public knowledge that the facility was private.

Some private health care facilities are not an evil thing, I'm not saying that choosing a private clinic was a bad thing. Mr Layton just needs to watch it when he uses the word "never" as histories are not hard to check.

Liberal's press release - very interesting timing

2006-01-12T08:52:00.000-08:00

On the Liberal site today, we have a press release that states

Media reports today reveal that in July 2004 Conservative candidate Derek Zeisman (British Columbia Southern Interior) was charged by Canada Customs with attempting to smuggle a Mercedes-Benz and 112 containers of alcohol from the United States into Canada.

Now that we have this information, which is still not exactly a huge release, will we see more Liberal ads telling us about how unlawful Conservatives are. Sure, it would be slightly better than the last ad. Lets hope the Liberals dont' sink that low.

Update: The Conservative Party has gone into damage control and has stated that Zeisman will not be sitting with a Conservative goverment if elected. Will they start pulling his signs too?

CBC.ca news story

A real threat to Canada...... the Liberal admakers!

2006-01-11T22:11:00.000-08:00

After the "Worst Ad Ever" - the blogosphere is full of parody ads mocking this pretty disgusting ad.

First of all, here's what gets to me about the Liberal ad.

Soldiers have guns. Wow, so do police officers, some security guards and members of the public. In the US, they even have soldiers on duty with guns!!! in the airports. If I understand it correctly, Harper's plan is to have an emergency response force in every Canadian city and I think it's a great idea.

I live in Vancouver, Canada's 3rd largest city. We don't have any troops on the lower mainland, the closest Canadian Forces are over on Vancouver Island, a good 45 min flying time away, of course, that's an air squadron that sometimes is not equipped for what we need.

Say we have a mudslide or a major avalance. We could use our city's military personell to help dig out and help with the rescue operation. If we have a crisis, we need people to help NOW, not to wait for them to fly in from Edmonton (a good hours plus flying time away.) With the Olympic games coming in 2010, we're going to need all of the security help we can get anyways, why not have a group here to help for anything else that comes up.

So, here's a funny spoof from the Colbert Report (this is NOT on TV, it's not that "report"

BC's "key ridings" - our predictions

2006-01-11T21:29:00.000-08:00

With BC playing a huge role this time around, our predictions man JL whipped up a powerpoint of all of the lower mainland.

Vancouver-Centre (Incumbent: Hedy Fry)

This is one of the only ridings where I don’t select anyone. Hedy Fry is not the type of person I would like to see (again) in Parliament, she just isn’t that useful. While Svend Robinson cannot gain the trust of the constituents after the infamous “ring incident”.

Prediction: Liberal

Vancouver-East (Incumbent: Libby Davies)
What more can I say, NDP blow-out. The poor Liberal here, David Haggard doesn’t have a shot. I quite like Davies, but I believe she’s in the wrong party.

Prediction: NDP

Vancouver-Kingsway (Incumbent: David Emerson)
This will be certainly be a riding to watch, where we could see the fall of a prominent Liberal cabinet minister (Emerson). I believe the Conservatives will give this riding to the New Democrats. There has been quite a demographic switch which benefits the NDP.

Prediction: NDP

Vancouver-Quadra (Incumbent: Stephen Owen)

While I believe the Conservative, Stephen Rogers will give the Liberals a scare, the Grits will retain this riding again. In 2004, Rogers lost by over 10,000 votes which I believe will be reduced to around 4,000-5,000 this time around.

Prediction: Liberal

Vancouver-South (Incumbent: Ujjal Dosanjh)

I don’t see how anybody in their right minds would ever vote for the premier that sunk BC to the lowest level. But that’s just my opinion. He’ll win.

Prediction: Liberal

Burnaby-Douglas (Incumbent: Bill Siskay)

This is THE Lower Mainland riding to watch. What some would call a three-way race. I truly believe it’s only between the Liberals and Siskay, who I see being re-elected after good work in Ottawa.

Prediction: NDP
Burnaby-New Westminster (Incumbent: Peter Julian)

Another fairly close race to watch. The NDP incumbent faces a big challenge. But he’ll be re-elected if the voters have any sense. Peter’s a great guy and a hard worker.
Prediction: NDP
North Vancouver (Incumbent: Don Bell)

This riding to me is what I call a “False Alarm”. In this case, voters are saying this will be a super close race. On election night, that will be proven wrong, and Don Bell will walk away with a large chunk of the Tory vote because of Silver’s flip-flopping views on many important issues.
Prediction: Liberal
West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast (Incumbent: John Reynolds, retiring)

Again, this could play out to be a “False Alarm”. Wilson hasn’t stopped campaigning since he was narrowly defeated back in 2004 and his chances are much better now that the NDP doesn’t look like it will take much of the Sunshine Coast.

Prediction: Liberal

South Surrey -White Rock -Cloverdale (Incumbent: Russ Hiebert)

While this riding has been said as being closer than we think. Conservative voters in White Rock come out strong on election day. Judy Higginbotham, who ran against him last election, was a much stronger candidate than Jim McMurty.
Prediction: Conservative•

•

Why did the Liberals want to hide the red book

2006-01-11T19:45:00.000-08:00

As reported by lots of blogs, a leaked copy of the Liberal Party's "red book" also known as their platform circulated the internet today.

What I wonder is, why did the Liberals want to keep this a secret, there is nothing there that we didn't already know.

Well, maybe we didn't see the fact that the Liberals did not list the nonwithstanding clause, after Martin's "I don't believe the prime minister can cherry pick rights" quote. I wonder if they chose to keep the document a secret until after the debate so they can edit it based on what the polls are telling them. You guess is as good as mine!

Liberal education plan even worse then it first appeared

2006-01-11T08:30:00.000-08:00

I was a critic of the Liberal’s “50/50” plan when it first came out. That was before I actually ran the numbers.

The leaked copy of the Liberal red book (available at http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/files/platforme.pdf), says that “– Students will have the choice either to opt in to the new (50/50) plan, or to draw benefits from the existing Tuition Tax Credit and Education Expense Deduction.” Ok, fair enough, either you get the cash, or get the tax credits. That wasn’t announced as loudly when they announced this plan, and for good reason – the tax credits are better.

Follow along with me:

As of 2003/2004, the average Undergrad tuition was 4,025/year. That works out to a savings of 4,025 under the 50/50 plan.

The total cost for University (if completely self-paid, via savings, scholarship, or loans) is, on average, 16,100 of tax-refundable tuition expenses. Consider the average University student spends 4 years studying full-time 8 months out of the year, that works out to 12,800 that can be claimed as an educational expense deduction. So, 28,900 in total. 16% of that is 4,624 in tax savings – far better then the Liberal’s handout of cash, and this hasn’t yet accounted for other tax refundable education expenses.

These tax deductions can be saved until the student starts working full-time – giving them more of their money to pay off loans, or start up a family.

Worst. Ad. Ever.

2006-01-11T06:07:00.000-08:00

Canadians have seen plenty of dirty attack ads over the years, from both sides of the spectrum. This one will take the prize for dirtiest ad ever.

The Liberals went beyond attacking Steven Harper in this ad – they attacked our men and women in uniform. Our military was compared to that of one of those developing nation militaries that randomly overthrows the Government.

I’m pissed. These people have risked their lives to guarantee our rights – and the Liberals repay them with not only shoddy equipment, but now with outright insults.

To make this story even better, John Duffy apparently tried to intimidate Mike Duffy into not running or discussing the ad during the post-debate commentary last night. God knows, I don’t always agree with what Mike Duffy has to say – but his “we will not be intimidated” line was bang on. Hopefully he speaks for the Canadian people.

The Liberals want us now to “Choose (our) Canada”. Ok, I choose the Canada where we respect those that vow to defend us (military), properly equip those that try to protect us (police, customs agents), thank those that try to help us (whistleblower legislation), and do it all without stealing our money. There is only one party that has promised to deliver on all these, and that’s the Conservative Party of Canada.

You can view the attack ad, plus John Duffy vs. Mike Duffy, here.

The new Liberal national ad

2006-01-11T00:17:00.000-08:00

It's in the same boat as the Conservative / NDP ads. It is a flat out attack ad and doesn't tell us anything at all. All we have is "If Harper is elected, it will put a smile on George W Bush's face" etc.

Whoever is making these ads needs to get a clue, attack ads are the fastest way to get a mute button on a LOT of televisions. If you put out a positive message, people might see you as someone who wants to run the country but is not going to go down to immature methods to do it!

The latest poll numbers.......

2006-01-10T22:08:00.000-08:00

Well, the latest polls just game out, although as per usual, I'll take polls at face value, as polls.

Currently all of them are predicting a Conservative government with a Bloc official opposition. We have some predicting a majority (a huge turn) while we still have minority claims. The interesting point is the Bloc as the official opposition, this may be very bad news for Canada with respect to separation.

I'm not going to spend a lot of time going into each result, as they change by the day.

What is a bit interesting to see is who else is losing support. The NDP seems to have a slight downwards trend, I'm wondering if the Conservative support is coming from the NDP or is it coming from the Liberals. It seems a little weird for the NDP support to be going to the Conservatives, it seems like we're two ends of an table there.

Of course, we are still 13 days until the big day, polls can be right, but polls can be wrong. I think we will see a tighter race as we move closer.

So, take it as you wish, but I think we're in for a very very wild ride to the finish line.

Here's the links to the results (PDF warning):
Strategic Counsel
Ekos
SES
Angus-Reid

3 Easy Steps to Calculate Your 2% GST Tax Break

2006-01-10T20:21:00.000-08:00

Martin's said cutting the GST is peanuts, giving one 50 cents on the purchase of a new toaster. Ignoring the irony and apparent partisanship of him not wanting to cut the GST when he said in the 90s it had to be done, let's see what the GST amounts to, for average Canadians.
Stats Can has the average family income, from 2003 (the most recent I could find; anyone with mor recent data is invited to comment), at about $60,000. It may have changed significantly since then, but I doubt it (the economy's strengthened, so if anything, the tax cuts will be slightly greater than shown here).
Anyways, here's how to calculate one's break under Harper's GST cut.

1) Calculate your after tax income. My mom earns about 60,000 as a teacher here in Quebec (though I think they're trying to cut it, but that's another post for another time), and for her that means $35,000 after taxes. It may be slightly different for families totaling 60,000, but it won't be anything drastic.

2) Estimate and then deduct the percentage of your income that goes to GST-exempt things. This primarily includes savings and investments, most groceries (anything essential, GST is charged on junk food). My mom spends 30-40% of her income on groceries, and I guessed 10% goes to savings, which is probably more than the national average (statscan says we're spending more and saving less, though I couldn't find exactly what the averages are). It makes for easy calculations though: 40% for food plus 10% for savings means 50% goes to GST-exempt things. My mom spend $17,500 on items taxed by the GST.

3) Multiply the remainder of your income by 0.02 (2%). This should show you how much of your income will be saved by the tax cut. Rather than going to the government, it stays in your pocket. In my mother's case, 17,500 x 0.02 = $350.

My mom, and the average Canadian family gets a tax break of a few hundred bucks.

Statistics Canada

While we're crunching numbers, I'd like to point out that Harper's way out front in the EKOS polls. Notably, they're saying we Canadians believe he's most able to articulate a vision for the country. I'm proud to say that I said he was leading, before the polls came out, because of policy. Fellow commentators, besides pundits and people taking and calling odds on the election might care to check it out when I said on Dec. 26 that Harper's in the lead.

This article was written by lcrentre over @ http://centrerion.blogspot.com/ first. As lcentre's a member of the Decision Canada Team, I decided to crosspost it here, although I strongly suggest you read both blogs daily!

The new Liberal ad in BC

2006-01-10T17:54:00.000-08:00

Well, I guess someone from the Liberal Party was reading Decision Canada's reviews of the ads so far, as in BC, we are seeing a positive election ad. I'd just like to give kudos to the Liberals for cutting the attack ads, I hope I see the new Conservative and NDP ads do the same.

More of those NDP boot ads lately, those are as annoying as all, you're not telling us anything we don't know.

As for the Conservatives, I have not seen any of their ads today, their previous attack ones sucked, lets hope they've been reading too.

Let's all do the Charter

2006-01-09T20:24:00.000-08:00

In tonight's debate, Paul Martin came out with a plan to make Canada's beloved and brilliant Charter of Rights even more worthy of celebration - the Liberal government will introduce a constitutional amendment and start the process for the removal of the authority of the federal government to override constitutional rights.

Stephen Harper shot back that a Conservative government would amend the Charter to include property rights.

Jack Layton looked bewildered and, unable to ante up, delivered one of the many painfully dry advertisements (completely with slogan) that he delivered throughout the night, this one about healthcare. (Bravo, Jack, bravo.)

Gilles Duceppe... ah, no one cares about Gilles Duceppe or the Bloc. I'll be pretending they don't exist for the remainder of this.

And so in an odd twist, there is one federal party leader who currently supports the constitutional status quo, and it's... NDP leader Jack Layton. Quite the strategy to marginalize the smiling socialist, and I while I can't speak for other Canadians, it worked on me. (And might I just say, for shame Jack - for someone who supports same-sex marriage rights so vehemently, you should be on board for removing the power of the feds to take them away.) I was leaning towards the NDP going into that debate - mostly due to my support for proportional representation, and because I feel I owed Jack Layton a vote due to his campaigning for gay rights before it was cool, way back in the 70's - but the moment Paul Martin said the words I'd been waiting to hear ever since I first heard about that infernal clause, "[T]he first act of a new Liberal government is going to be to strengthen the Charter, and we're going to do that by removing by Constitutional means the possibility for the federal government to use the notwithstanding clause," I was floored. And the moment Jack Layton refused to endorse Paul Martin's plan, I was up again and sold. It's the Liberals for me in two thousand and... okay six. (For some reason, every rhyming slogan I come up with that includes the number "six" is just dirty.)

But I'm not without respect for the position of Stephen Harper on this one. His support for the notwithstanding clause is shameful and proof to me that he doesn't deserve to be prime minister, but he did say something I agree with. "We feel that the population must have the right to own property, to have a legal process in cases of expropriation, and we feel it's necessary to compensate people in such cases, and I feel those priorities should be protected by the constitution." Stephen Harper wants to amend the Charter to include property rights.

Now I must say, I am a fan of both of those proposals, though I obviously lean towards Martin's more. Just about the only thing Jack Layton could propose that would swing me back his way would be including "sexual orientation" in the list of protected categories. (It's already been read into the Charter by the courts, I know, but it would be symbolic. South Africa has it in their constitution - and I'd rather be more progressive than them. It's a pride thing.) Or possibly eliminating that obnoxious reference to "God" in a document that obviously has nothing to do with him, being that I'm a firm believer that mixing government with religion is bad for both. But even then, removing the notwithstanding clause still might resonate more with me.

Of course, the Liberals may well lose and not get to implement it. But now, at least, they'll go down fighting for something more than just power. Now, if they lose, they'll go down fighting for individual rights and freedoms, just like Trudeau did in what everybody thought was his last hurragh in 1979. (Need I remind you what happened next? Trudeau reclaimed power in 1980 and gave us the Charter of Rights itself in 1982.)

Unfortunately, there is an ugly side to this (besides just the possibility of a Liberal loss.) The ugly side is, of course, politics. Stephen Harper has refused to endorse removing the notwithstanding clause; the reasons for this should be copiously obvious. The notwithstanding clause is the only way for the social conservative wing of his party to legally implement their radical agenda, including stamping out abortion rights for women and scribbling "NO FAGS" in red ink across the pages of the Civil Marriage Act.

But I'm not letting the Liberals off easy. Within minutes of the debate, the Liberal Party called Harper's plan to entrench property rights - another fundamental value in liberal society which is conspicuously absent in our Charter - a "radical right-wing plan". I was actually surprised by that, because the Liberals don't usually venture into the blatant socialist territory of condemning private property. Even the NDP doesn't do that. It's a misstep in my opinion - one of many by Martin's less-than-stellar braintrust - but I can chalk it up to politics, because I know at the end of the day that a millionaire like Paul Martin really has no choice but to support private property, and with people like Scott Brison and Belinda Stronach in his cabinet, I'm not too worried about a socialist takeover of the Liberal Party happening any time soon. Still, it's disappointing rhetoric all the same.

It's disappointing because the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a wonderful document, but it is not a perfect document. Some would argue that it could never be perfect, and they may be right. But there are some changes that could be made to it in order to push it in that direction. Those changes include removing the notwithstanding clause, or at least making it almost as difficult to use as implementing a constitutional amendment. Also included is recognizing what the majority of people already recognize as the right to property property. Adding the right to privacy in general would, as well, be a boon. Removing the psuedo-theocratic reference to God would also be welcome for the constitution of a modern, secular society - God is best kept in the hearts and minds of his followers, not on a government document. And adding sexual orientation to the list of protected categories, along with gender, race and ethnicity, in recognition of the fact that gays, lesbians and bisexuals are just as much citizens of Canada as straight people. If that were done, the Charter would still not be perfect, but it would be damn close.

Ok, this is another crosspost from http://centrerion.blogspot.com/ which is in turn a crosspost from BlueGrit - I just really like it!

English Debate #2 recap

2006-01-09T19:54:00.000-08:00

Well, an exciting two hours of television is done, and it’s time for the pundits to talk about who won and who lost.

It started off poorly for Mr Dithers, saying “my vision of government ethics is honesty… it is also about telling the truth”. For most of us, those are the same thing.

Layton made the next odd statement, in saying “I think a big part of (the lack of civility in the House) is not having enough women in Parliament”. I guess he’s never heard Landslide Annie talk. Civility isn't a gender issue - it's an individual issue.

The blockbuster of the evening – Martin committed to removing the notwithstanding clause of the constitution. More on this in a bit.

Martin dithered again on handguns, saying, “we have 500,000 handguns in the hands of collectors that are one break in away from being used in a crime”. I thought that after he stated he would ban all handguns, he relented and said that collectors and target shooters would be allowed to keep their handguns. Following that quote, he said again he would ban all handguns.

After admitting that doctors offices are privately run, Martin stated that, “any money the federal government is putting into health care is going into public health care.” Maybe for him – he whips out his Visa when he goes to his family physician, but for most Canadians, our provincial health care system pays for our visits to the family doc.

The tax questions went better then I was expecting. Harper made a very good point – the 30% of the lowest income Canadians will not benefit from any income tax cut.

Martin stated that he “(doesn’t) know any country that can touch Canada in what we’re doing”. Well, he sure wasn’t talking about health care – we’re ranked 30^th. He wasn’t talking about cleaning up the environment – our greenhouse gas emissions are going up. He wasn’t talking about the economy – our unemployment rates are higher then the OECD average – and higher then the individual rates of Japan, the UK, and the USA.

The national unity question – Martin was stammering and stuttering worse then we have ever seen. He seemed genuinely afraid to answer direct questions from Gilles Duceppe – or from Harper or from Layton, when it comes to national unity.

The biggest part of the debate, as I mentioned before, was Martin promising to withdraw the notwithstanding clause. This would, to use the left’s term, Americanize our constitution, and gives judges the final say on the law. This works for the Americans – they have congressional oversight on the appointment of judges. As we have seen – if one of the parties is very uncomfortable with a judge, they will ensure that he or she does not go through the nomination process. In Canada, the Liberals have embraced the appointment of judges by the Prime Minister alone, without any meaningful input by Parliament. This, when combined with removing the ability for Parliament to overrule the judges, gives the Prime Minister the powers of a dictator. The laws of Canada will no longer be up to the elected representatives of the people, they will be up to the Prime Minister and his group of cronies.

This frightens me. The PMO already has too much power – and this removes any potential oversight by Parliament. If the Prime Minister wants something, under Martin’s plan, it will be done, and anything that goes to the Judges will be ruled on, essentially, by the Prime Minister’s closest friends.

To wrap up – the clear looser was Martin. He couldn’t stand up to Duceppe and the separatists, he couldn’t stand up to his own promises, and he couldn’t stand up to his record. The Winner? Duceppe did ok, but it was pretty clear that this was a throwaway for him – tomorrow’s French Language debate matters. Layton kept stammering about a third option – better then Ed Broadbent, but it was a one-hit wonder. Harper… he did well. He looked and sounded prime ministerial – no huge bombshells, but he remained solid. With Harper seeming more and more to be the man to beat, that pretty much counts as a win.

My final thoughts

2006-01-09T18:57:00.000-08:00

Winner is a coin toss between Harper and Martin. With my Canadian Olympic Loonie, I choose Harper as heads and Martin as tails. According to my coin, Harper won the debate.

The first half of the debate was interesting with some actual debating, the second put me to sleep. In the first hour, we actually saw some issues come up, sure, we had way too many attacks on the scandals.

Harper was trying to make sure he didn't say anything stupid, I'll pull the interesting quotes out later, he has a few.

Layton gave us a good 4 infomercials and a lot of recycled footage and a few good points, but not too many.

Duceppe finally used the word "Canada" to describe the country but went to show us that voting for the bloc is a vote for a divided country.

Martin looked as scared as all, I wonder if it was the poll numbers, or if he was just sick of this debate?

Well, those are my final thoughts after watching the debate, I'll put the usual play by play up later, it's time consuming and I don't have enough time to do it right now.

From Vancouver, I'm signing off for now.

Martin's Infomercial + Debate proposal

2006-01-09T18:44:00.000-08:00

At least he's only done it once although it was slightly less than Layton's infomercial. Harper's starting one now though.

I still raise the question, this is a NATIONAL debate. What is best for "Quebec" is one of the 3 phrases that is being recycled and recycled out of Duceppe. Why are we letting the Bloc debate nationally, why not have a "Quebec debate." See my previous post regarding the Greens in the National debate.

Layton's infomercial

2006-01-09T18:31:00.000-08:00

I thought this was called a DEBATE not an infomercial. I don't usually watch infomercials because I don't want to spend money, stop trying to dumb it down to an informercial level!

So, Mr Layton, how about some new words and not the same stuff again and again!

Editors Note: Welcome CBC readers. I hope you enjoy the blog, it's going to be updated a LOT during the next few days. If you're looking for more, please checkout the Canadian Policy Wiki to discuss and write policies and more so Mr Layton can have some fresh content from Canadians!

Quebec is NOT a nation

2006-01-09T18:13:00.000-08:00

Nation:

Wikipedia defines it as

One of the most influential doctrines in history is that all humans are divided into groups called nations. It is an ethical and philosophical doctrine in itself, and is the starting point for the ideology of nationalism. The nationals (the members of the "nation") are distinguished by a common identity, and almost always by a common origin, in the sense of ancestry, parentage or descent. The national identity refers both to the distinguishing features of the group, and to the individual’s sense of belonging to it. A very wide range of criteria is used, with very different application. Small differences in pronunciation may be enough to categorise someone as a member of another nation. On the other hand, two people may be separated by difference in personalities, belief systems, geographical locations, time and even spoken language, yet regard themselves and be seen by others, as members of the same nation. Nationals are considered to share certain traits and norms of behaviour, certain duties toward other members, and certain responsibilities for the actions of the members of the same nation.

Nations extend across generations, and include the dead as full members. More vaguely, they are assumed to include future generations. No-one fixes a timespan, but a nation is typically several centuries old. Past events are evaluated in this context, for instance by referring to "our soldiers" in conflicts which took place hundreds of years ago.

The term nation is often used synonymously with ethnic group (sometimes "ethnos"), but although ethnicity is now one of the most important aspects of cultural or social identity for the members of most nations, people with the same ethnic origin may live in different nation-states and be treated as members of separate nations for that reason. National identity is often disputed, down to the level of the individual.

A state which explicitly identifies as the homeland of a particular nation is a nation-state, and most modern states fall into this category, although there may be violent disputes about their legitimacy. In common usage, terms such as nations, country, land and state often appear as near-synonyms, i.e., for a territory under a single sovereign government, or the inhabitants of such a territory, or the government itself; in other words, a de jure or de facto state.

In a more strict sense, however, terms such as nation, ethnos, and peoples denominate a group of human beings, in contrast to country which denominates a territory, whereas state expresses a legitimised administrative and decision-making institution. Confusingly, the terms national and international are used as technical terms applying to states, see country.

Quebec is a province NOT a nation. I'm sure lcentre, our Quebec blogger, would agree that Canada is a country and that Quebec is a province within this country. Why do we have to touch this seperation issue again. I am sick and tired of heating about this. If Quebec's a "nation" then BC, AB, SK, MB, ON, NB, NS, PEI, YK, NW and NU are also "nations" - I don't see anyone else going and asking to be considered a nation.

To make a long post short, lets realize that Quebec is a province of Canada and end this pointless debate.

Layton

2006-01-09T17:55:00.000-08:00

Repeating the same words again and again really does not say too much. Please come up with something new as I'm getting tired of the words.

Same to you Harper and Martin, you're starting to sound like a broken record too.

Wow, transportation

2006-01-09T17:46:00.000-08:00

And almost nothing on transportation. Transportation is a fairly big issue, let's see some debate not a broken ipod type speech.

Health Care comments

2006-01-09T17:41:00.000-08:00

Duceppe has a good point about how we need more doctors. Martin's talking about how public money goes to public health care and that's fine, but is banning private health care the solution. Of course, Martin did not say he would ban private care.

Harper's got a bullet with his health care policy with the wait time list. He's the only leader who is open to it.

Layton started to attack Harper and Martin and for-profit providers. Layton made an attack on the cost of private health care and how private health care is evil. I'm sick and tired of hearing that, I'm throwing this round to Harper with Martin a very close second.

So far, a lot of words, not a lot of debate

2006-01-09T17:38:00.000-08:00

I haven't seen much in terms of actual debate, a lot of attacks.

Harper's crime speech is looking interesting. I wonder how Martin thinks banning guns is going to keep them out of the hands of criminals.

Again, I'm going to run the tape after this with everything play by play, I'm going to keep doing some minor updates with my thoughts as we go along.

The Play by Play of the debate - it is coming

2006-01-09T17:25:00.000-08:00

It's coming, I can't do the play by play live as it's a lot of typing.

A few things are no surprise, we are seeing attacks from everyone on everyone. Mr Layton's "you have a better choice, vote NDP" is through the roof and again.

I'm hoping this debate starts to focus on the ISSUES and not attacks on the scandals etc.

If you're interested in the voting choice, see my argument on strategic voting - it started with Layton's anti-strategic voting speech but went into why we need to change our system.

English Debate #2 Preview

2006-01-09T13:24:00.000-08:00

Well, it’s two weeks until E-Day. The polls are looking good, and the Conservative campaign is running smoothly – no musing about majorities (by the Conservatives, anyways, reporters are a different story), no candidates shooting their mouths off – life is good. It is anybody’s game at this point – and the debates could end up tipping the scale.

Here is a preview of tonight’s English language debate.

The SSM issue will come up again, taking the form perhaps of, “Mr Harper, why do you keep bringing up SSM as an election issue”. Martin and Layton will imitate the bobble-head dolls, and throw their two cents in on the Charter of Rights. I’m going to predict a draw on that topic, with a possible Harper edge if he can back Martin into a corner on how giving the same rights is discrimination.

We will see accountability come up here. Look for Duceppe bashing Martin, Layton with the thumb point and Ed Broadbent’s name being uttered once or twice, and Harper laying out the Conservative’s accountability act (with probably a bit of Liberal-bashing). Duceppe and Harper will come out winners on this issue, with bonus points every time they make Martin start to stutter.

Justice will be talked about a bit. This one will end up a Layton/Harper draw, as both seem to have a pretty clear plan. Martin will take a bit of heat for the disagreements between he and Irwin Cotler on the issue of mandatory minimums, although he will fight back with some Harris-bashing.

Health Care… well, Health Care will be talked about. The NDP have wavered a bit on the issue of privatization, I don’t see Layton bringing a perfect performance to this issue during the debate. Martin and Harper will end up neck and neck on this issue – expect to see Martin try to close with accusing the Conservatives of wanting to establish two-tiered health care, probably at the end of the health care session or during closing statements, when Harper doesn’t have a chance to immediately refute the statements.

Taxes will be mentioned… I hate to say it, but Martin’s gonna win it. While the Conservative position makes perfect sense (we are implementing our own tax plan, not theirs), the optics just aren’t there. Martin will call the Conservatives tax-raising right-wing hidden agenda rednecks, to some (albeit limited) success.

All in all, I expect to see a close debate, with a slim Harper win. The expectations for Martin are so low right now, as long as he doesn’t start drooling on the podium he’ll at least stay at the front of the pack.

The Comedy that is Liberal

2006-01-08T16:58:00.000-08:00

Wow. Now I’ve seen everything. The Liberals are trying to argue that the Conservatives’ budget numbers aren’t up to snuff. That’s hilarious. No, really, the party that has underestimated the expected surplus in every budget in this millennium is complaining that another political party cannot budget properly.

And, to add fuel to the fire, Ralph Goodale took a break from leaking sensitive government material to suggest that a Conservative government would have to cut programs in order to realize their vision of a smaller government, without running a deficit. Well, no sh*t, Sherlock. Definition of smaller: “Being below the average in size or magnitude, Limited in degree or scope”. A Smaller government, by definition, would be, well, smaller. Jeez, Goodale (or somebody in the Liberal war room) took their smart pills today.

On another note, the Liberals are beating the values drum again. Martin stated that, “Fundamentally it will come down, I believe, to the very deep value differences between the two parties… And those value differences become more and manifest with every day” Judging from scandal after scandal after scandal from the Liberals… yeah, there are some value differences there. Conservatives would treat taxpayer dollars with the same consideration as they do their own, Liberals can’t tell the difference between taxpayer dollars and their own.

Martin went on today to say, “I believe that both Kyoto and the wider environmental agenda is very, very much in line with where Canadian thinking is. Mr. Harper doesn't agree. I think Canadians are going to take that into account”. Ahh, the Kyoto drum again. The Conservatives don’t support Kyoto – that’s pretty clear. That isn’t to say that the Conservatives don’t support the Environment – rather, the Conservatives want to support the Environment in an economically feasible manner. Instead of buying hot air credits from Russia (which will do, say, our smog problem, a crapload of good), the Conservatives want to improve the environment by increasing the amount of ethanol in our gasoline, and increasing the usage of mass transport. The Liberals… well, they’re content to talk about Kyoto while seeing our greenhouse gas emissions go up. I don’t agree with Kyoto but, if somebody is going to talk the talk, they should walk the walk. Kind of like cutting the GST, right Paul?

I'd suggest that the Liberals be made into a TV Movie that could count towards the Canadian content requirements - but... that won't work, because of star candidate Ignatieff and Canada Steamship Lines.

Ads Review 3.0 - CPC

2006-01-07T15:03:00.001-08:00

(Cross posted at Centrerion)

Entitlements:
This ad focuses on the Liberals as a corrupt party, and cites Gomery. It's boring, features "average Canadians" in a diner, and doesn't especially make the case for voting for the Liberals. This would make more sense if the CPC, Bloc, and NDP had shared the costs of this ad, but I have the feeling the other parties wouldn't be dumb enough to pay for something so bland. The only thing to be said for this is that it features a humorous clip of some (I assume) Liberal MP saying "I am entitled to my entitlement." It would have been a better ad if they'd just turned it into a roll of Liberal bloopers ...
1.5/10
They'll Go Neg
For starters, I'm as puzzled as you are by the name of this ad. They'll Go Neg? Negotiate? Next? If the CPC intends to foster our future development by supporting education, maybe they might start by having an English prof proofread their website.
Anyways, the ad features a black and white shot of Martin while some guy says the Liberals have been in power too long and are corrupt. WOOHOO, NEWSFLASH.
0/10
Change
This shares footage of the same "average Canadians" as the Entitlements ad. The CPC will work for all Canadians, not just those with connections, says the ad. This is about as intelligent and exciting as a battle to the death between earthworms.
0/10
Our Priorities
This abhorrent fake news studio interview style. Dull, fake, and the "newscaster" woman appears to be competing with the soldiers from the Nutcracker as to who can be more wooden... and losing. They at least come to life at one point of the ballet.
There are things to be done on health, cleaning up the government, cracking down on crime, cutting the GST. After another fake "person in the street" asks "how are you going to do it when the other guys didn't?", Harper answers that they're going to be honest (i.e. not the Liberals), and make use of practical, affordable initiatives that will actually be carried through (A shot at the gun registry that doesn't fight crime? Probably just a general remark insulting the Libs...).
Generally speaking, this ad actually says something positive, giving reasons why Canucks should vote for the Conservatives, stating the what and the how of the CPC platform. The shots at the Liberals are useless, and the format/style of the ad is garbage.
7.2/10 - For saying positive stuff, this gets an average grade, a passing 'C-' (no pun intended). For being dull and wasting valuable seconds of my life droning on about the Liberals, it gets no better.
Seniors
Style: Another news interview. joy.
Message: Public pensions will be protected, private ones will be taxed less, seniors will get the respect they deserve. They fought for our country, and deserve our care.
8/10 - Dull style, gets a positive message across with no disses aimed at the LPC. I don't know how they'll be having this air, but it seems like they'll need to target the right shows, because though most Canadians agree and want to support their seniors, I doubt it's a decisive issue for them.
Trades
Style: News ......
Message: Easier to apprentice, pay for the tools.
8.3/10 - A message with wider appeal, because it speaks to Canada's future economic prosperity. Need I say something about the style? The policy itself appears to be half-baked though, from what I understand, because the dollrs for tools aren't enough to buy much. I didn't include that in my grade, because that would be appropriate in a policy review, and this is an ad review. More on that here.
Childcare
Style: News. The wording of the question reinforces what I said about how obviously fake and cheesy these ads are. After Harper says the CPC believes in a choice, a woman carrying a baby asks "Well, I want to know what you're going to do." A real newscast wouldn't have had the mother know what was just said. Bleh.
Message: Choice for parents. 100$ a month for daycare, babysitter, or help parent stay home.
7.8/10 - I don't know how broad the audience for childcare policy annoucements is, but at any rate, it can't have been impressed by this ad. The "choice" as to how to raise kids is a good point, but the dollars involved shows everyone just how half-baked this idea is. I did consider policy in reviewing this ad, because it was explicit in the ad.
Accountability
Style: News.
Message: The Liberals are corrupt ... and we're going to pass the Federal Accountability Act! It's "a real plan to clean up government."
8.6/10 - Finally! An ad that says what the Conservatives are going to do about corruption in government. Just telling Canadians that the Liberals are corrupt is boring and wastes our time. We know that! This is a diss but that actually says something meaningful, and appears to be the right way to attack the Liberals: with policy, not insults. If I were directing their ad campaign, I'd scrap anything that disses the Libs, and gives this ad the air time instead.
Taxes
Style: News
Message: Liberals been overtaxing everyone for 12 years, we're going to gradually cut the GST, which is good for working class Canadians (like the woman who asks "how about a tax cut that doesn't dissapear after the election?").
8.5/10 - Broadly popular message. My mom thinks it's BS though, because she recalls the Conservatives under Mulroney creating the GST to begin with, after promising not to. That was before I was born though, so I don't know what happened then. I'd say most Canadians like the idea, but it wouldn't be surprising if a large part of the populace was skeptical like my mom. No shots at the Libs, but still cheesy and dull.
Crime
Style: I can't type it again. I can't ...
Message: We'll ensure minimum sentences, end house arrest, make deported criminals actually leave.
8.2/10 - How many of us are going to be deciding our votes on this issue? The Conservatives have made it an issue, which is good strategy, but I frankly don't care all that much about whether or not criminals are in house arrest or in prison, so long as they're under arrest. Policy though, which is nice to hear.

All in all, the CPC ads are decent. The most recent ones are stupid, spiteful, and plain, and should be pulled off the air. The older ones state policy, but they're all in a grey style that's cheesy and patently fake. Furthermore, some of them show just how poorly thought through some of the policies are (when you pay a baby-sitter 30$ a night, you're not going to have her for 100$ a month, I hate to break it to you, Stephen), which obviously isn't to the Conservatives' advantage. The post- New Year's attack ads suck. The real ad-scam of this election is how much the CPC paid for those pieces ...
I'd review the Liberal ads, but like I've said before, they don't load on my pc (or at least, after 3 minutes of waiting, I grew impatient ... the CPC ads load in seconds, which I guess is something in their favour).
--
I, Andrew (of this blog) and the Blue Grit post centrist commentary, analysis, and humorous quips over at Centrerion.

An open letter to Jack Layton

2006-01-06T23:12:00.000-08:00

I found this on the can.politics newsgroup and I think the author makes a lot of very valid points. As such, I have reposted it here for review and consideration.

Mr. Layton,

I am following with great interest the developments leading up to the
Election Day on January 23rd, 2006. While I will say that my voting
tendencies are leaning one direction, I have an open mind in terms of all
parties, and do not hesitate to comment for or against an idea that I have
great or little affinity towards.

For instance, please accept my congratulations on your comment proposing to
hold a by-election to allow the voters of a riding to decide the fate of a
member who, like Ms. Stronach, decides to change political parties in the
middle of a sitting government, for whatever reason. I was outraged when
this happened, and I'm not even one of her constituents. I can only imagine
what those of her constituents who voted for her because of her affiliation
with the Conservative Party of Canada, and not because of the candidate
herself, must have been thinking when she pulled this stunt.

Today, however, I am writing this open letter to you based on a statement
that you made in response to the possibility of working with a possible
Conservative Party of Canada minority government. It was reported that you
said that the Tories have little in common with the NDP and are "offside
with the views of a great majority of Canadians" on most issues.

My question to you is simple, how can you or your party make a claim that
another party is "offside with the views of a great majority of Canadians"
when that party is currently polling more than TWICE as much support as
yours?

This is not the first time that I have taken exception with an NDP MP
"speaking for Canadians". Previously, Mr. Svend Robinson took it upon
himself to speak in the name of the government of Canada while in Israel.
With all due respect, sir, it is my belief that only the party forming the
government of Canada should be speak in the name of the government of
Canada. If, one day, the New Democratic Party of Canada should form the
government, I will stand by my countrymen and women's choice and the
government they elected, but right now, your party does not seem like the
viable alternative it claims to be, and I believe that instead of spins and
comments that are aimed to give the country a false impression of your
popularity, perhaps it would be more authentic to work towards gaining such
a popularity and level of support before claiming it exists.

Respectfully,

Mark G. (signed anonymously as it is being posted in an internet newsgroup.)
Montreal, Quebec.

Yet Another Liberal Scandal!

2006-01-06T19:09:00.000-08:00

On the heels of ITscam (Goodale-gate? Finance Fraud? Suggest your snappy name now!), and Options Canada, comes yet another scandal. Angry in the Great White North provides an excellent play-by-play of the Liberal Government paying a Liberal lobbyist to lobby a Liberal Government. And, part of that lobby fee just may have ended back up in the LPC’s coffers!

I’m still trying to get this straight – the Justice Department paid the Coalition for Gun Control to hire a lobbyist to lobby the solicitor general, the Treasury Board, and the Privy Council. That Lobbyist is a Deputy National Director of the federal Liberal Party, and is a senior consultant with lobby company “Capital Hill Group”. The Capital Hill Group, by the way, donated over $135,000 to the Liberal Party between 1993 and 2003.

I always thought that part of the $69,200 that Ministers were paid in addition to their parliamentary pay was in order to lobby their fellow cabinet members. Shouldn’t the Minister of Justice, instead of paying over $100,000/year for a professional lobbyist, have been talking to his colleagues in Cabinet?

This scandal a day proposal has some pundits wondering, should the RCMP set up a branch office at the Liberal Party of Canada’s headquarters? This should get support from all parties, not only does it help to get Canadian’s money back, but it also cuts down on greenhouse gas emissions as they wouldn’t have to drive from RCMP Headquarters to LPC Headquarters.

The NDP's "War on the Conservatives"

2006-01-06T17:38:00.000-08:00

Today NDP Leader Jack Layton announced a crime policy that sounds an awful lot like the Conservative platform. With the NDP attempt now aiming strongly at Conservative voters giving slightly more right wing policies might win some votes but the question is, how do you do it without taking votes away from the Liberals, the NDP's obvious second next choice.

Unless of course, Layton wants a Conservative government in power for a few years so he can appear to be the "hero" for bring in leftish policies in comparison to what he perceives to be an "war on the working people". In essence, I think his anti strategic voting campaign will be the key factor if we see a conservative victory and it's possible that Canadians will blame him for it.

Just a (off topic) little rant, I'm sick of hearing this "working people" rant come out of unions and socialist political leaders. Most people are "working" - sure, some may be slightly more fiscally better off than others, but almost everyone "works." Let's cut that phrase because it makes me sick!

If you Teach a man to Fish...

2006-01-05T11:09:00.000-08:00

The Liberals have finally come out with their education plan, just shy of a month after the Conservatives. The Liberals have focused on giving out bags of money to students – I guess they must be more trustworthy then parents (heh). Let’s compare the two plans

University/College (non-trades education)

Conservative: Tax deduction on books, which can be transferred to parents (to a maximum of $500 per year). Improvement to Student Loans, including lowering the parental contribution rates (so students can pay for their own education rather then relying on mommy and daddy). Exempting the first $10,000 dollars in scholarship or bursary income from taxation (helping those keeners who do well in school and qualify for many scholarships, plus work part-time).

Liberal: Pay half of the student’s undergraduate tuition during their first and last years, to a maximum of $3,000 per year. Expand some grants and create some new scholarships.

Ok, well, the Liberals are putting out more money for university/college. Ideologically, I’m not a huge fan of giving away a University education, but if you go for that kind of thing, the Liberals are giving more money.

Trades

Conservative: Allow for a tax exemption for purchased tools. Provide a $1000/year grant for apprentices in their first two years in an apprenticeship program. Provide a tax credit incentive for employers to create more apprenticeship positions.

Liberal: “work to increase participation in apprenticeships by making employment insurance more accessible and setting a benchmark for the number of apprenticeship graduates”.

Honestly, I’m not sure what the Liberal plan will do for people wanting to go into the trades. The Conservative plan is pretty straightforward and easy to understand.

All in all, the Conservative plan (for the most part) addresses the issues through tax incentives, whereas the Liberals hand out money. University will end up costing a bit less (probably) under the Liberal plan – I don’t necessarily think that is a good thing (devaluation of education – a bachelor’s degree is already nearly worthless in and of itself, this will make it more so; plus there is no external motivation to succeed at University when it’s being handed to you), but that’s where things stand.

Canadian Policy Wiki

2006-01-04T23:22:00.000-08:00

I was looking around the internet - as usual I visited Wikipedia and Slashdot. It was on Slashdot that I found that a US Senator was using a Wiki (a website that the public can edit) to help him create ideas for what to do if elected.

Liking the concept, I have launched the Canadian Policy Wiki @ http://www.canadianpolicywiki.ca
as a site where Canadians can join forces to draft policy documents and legislation. I have spoken to several MP's who are very interested in the idea of having Canadians express what they want in a public and open forum.

Again, the url is http://www.canadianpolicywiki.ca check it out, help write some policy and help improve our democracy!

Ads review #3.0

2006-01-04T17:48:00.000-08:00

With 20 days to go, the ad wars are finally heating up.

Conservative: The "attack ads" have started - attacking the Liberals record. After a more or less issue focused set of ads, it is disappointing that the Tories have resorted to attack ads and I don't like attack ads. The latest of corruption scenes with negative sounds don't connect at all. */5

Liberal: The Liberals have been focusing on Martin and the record lately, it's on topic and non attacking. I think a little too much Martin droning on and a little less front line, the new set is far less effective than the "reasons to vote Liberal" set. ***/5

NDP: Layton talking about issues. The new set is a lot more on topic than the previous "give the Liberals the boot" attack ads but still are like the Liberals ads, the leader droning on. ***/5

Why can't we go back to something positive and not focusing on the party leader. The new ads suck, plain and simple.

Detail About Green Party Policy Critique

2006-01-04T14:48:00.000-08:00

I did focus on the negative aspects, however I didn’t see any strongly positive ideas from the Green Party – at least, nothing that stood out in my mind as something better then proposals from one (or more) major parties. I was also trying to keep the post nice and short. Some comments to add to yours:

1) Canada is the world’s leading uranium producer – all from Saskatchewan. In 2004 they exported around $800 million of uranium – that’s a lot of money that would no longer be in the provincial coffers (through taxation at various levels), and a lot of people that would have to fill the “green-collar” jobs

2) The NEP was Trudeau’s National Energy Plan – to make a long story short he tried to force the West to sell to the rest of Canada at lower-than-market rates – that lead to a huge recession in Alberta.

3) If we are taking what is now the consumer gas tax, and applying it to the oil companies in a revenue-neutral manner, emissions won’t be reduced directly – rather, competition in the industry will be reduced, leading to higher prices at the pump and less people able to afford to drive.

4) More and more are putting up their own solar panels or windmills within cities – heck, some even put water in their attics and heat it via solar power rather then a gas or electric water heater. It’s not that difficult to do – and even doing that alone will reduce their tax bill under the Green’s plan, while getting the same services as everybody else.

5) If that’s all they’re going after – I agree with you, it should be equal pay for equal work, period.

8) This makes them sound somewhat ignorant about firearms – but, it’s the stance that everybody but the Liberals is taking right now.

9) Personally, I’d love to see an elimination of all Canadian content regulations – make our artists compare on a level playing ground, and maybe we’ll see some of our shows on American TV. Right now they have a guaranteed audience, so there isn’t as much of a requirement to make the programming… good.

10) I agree – and, I love private health care. I have no problem with people paying for their own health care, except for the dishonesty by some politicians regarding it.

11) If I want to smoke, what business of the Government’s is it? The estimated $3 billion in tobacco-related illness is already offset by the $3.3 billion collected in tobacco taxes (not to mention the double taxation much as we see right now on gasoline). I would much rather have that $300,000 million in my pocket to, oh, help pay for going on Zyban to quit smoking. You talk about large portions at fast food restaurants – if you don’t like it, BUY A SMALL! Nobody is being forced to super-size their Coke at McDonalds, the option is there to buy a small or, if you want a lot to drink, have a Diet Coke. The “Super-Size Me” (the main movie that showed to people that “McDonalds is Bad!”)science is complete and utter bunk – you can eat there every day and not become unhealthy. Even if you super-size every time, just drink Diet Coke instead of regular, have a salad instead of fries, and have some of the healthier items on the menu.

12) It’s simple economic theory – if the productive hours go down, and the rate of production stays the same, the overall productivity will decrease. That lower income (less goods from the company) will either result in lower pay for the employees, or lower profits (to the point of a loss at times) for the employer.

13) I agree with recognition of foreign credentials, it is asinine to have MD’s, engineers, and other professionals driving taxis because their certificate/degree is in another language. What I disagree with is racially-motivated hiring – like I said before, hire the best person for the job, end of story.

Review of the Green Party Policy Review

2006-01-04T10:55:00.000-08:00

I read the Green Party policy review we published with great interest, but with a considerable amount of disagreement too. Since a comment would not be seen by most of the readership, I thought it would be appropriate to turn this response into a full-fledged post.
Generally, my criticism of the review is that it isn't so much an informative review as an argumentative critique. The difference is that a review would point out the good things too, and offer the background to each subject broached. I understand that that would have made the post much longer, but the solution wasn't to shorten the review and be flippant, but rather turn it into several, more in-depth posts. I'm guessing this was just an accidental digression, rather than intended, as you wrote, "Let’s look at some of their policies (from their policy document) in detail:".
As it is, there are quotations taken somewhat out of context and short rebuttals that are more appropriate to conversation than writing. Also, I'm not sure that the Green Party is trying to position itself as right of centre.

1) I'm not sure why Saskatchewan would be put in the have-not category by rescinding uranium mining permits, unless an inordinately high percentage of its gross product was tied to such mining. In fact, if that even is the case, rescinding such permits would simply demonstrate that it's economy is weak and needs development, because mining Uranium is not a stable, durable economic endeavour. Uranium's uses are in nuclear energy, which will eventually be phased out in favour of greener alternatives (makes sense the Greens would bring this up then...), nukes (whose spread is trying to be limited), and depleted uranium weapons (which are banned, or in the process).
2) “Improve Canadian energy security by implementing a plan to address the
economic consequences of higher oil prices." I'm not sure what the NEP is, but this just sounds like incoherent nonsense the average Canadian won't understand. What's "energy security"?
3) “Shift taxes on fossil fuels to earlier stages in the production cycle to encourage competition among companies to lower operating costs while reducing
emissions.”
Charging the taxes to the companies means higher initial costs, so weaker set-ups will go under or get bought by the bigger companies. Even though they will pass the buck to consumers, it's debt on their hands until they do.
Also, because of the awkward run-along phrasing (I hate sentences with several "to"s), the point of this policy came across mangled. The idea is for companies to be taxed on their pollution, so that they will be forced to become more environmentally friendly to keep their profits up.
4) "So, if I generate my own electricity, deal with my own wastewater, produce little garbage etc., I don’t pay taxes yet get the benefits of taxpayers? (police/fire/ambulance, roads/sidewalks etc.)" Again, acting silly to be humorous. How is the average Canadian going to generate his own electricity, deal with his wastewater, and so on? Besides, with current taxes on income, businesses and consumption, if people have no jobs and no business (ie, they're on welfare), they only pay consumption taxes, so there's ways to get the benefits of paying taxes without paying much of them.
5) "gender and pay equity" If I'm not mistaken, this refers to the fact that women are generally paid less than men for similar/identical work. Saying gender and pay equity is a repetition there to emphasize the equity in question (as opposed to protecting black or gay rights, for example), and also just to sound more intelligent, the way I see it. It's like when you write an English essay and rephrase the same idea 5 times to make a paragraph.
6) I agree entirely with you on this point. Seats to the most qualified. If that means 100% asian women, that's fine by me, so long as they're the most capable.
7) I agree that unpaid work needs to be recognized, period. Not just that of women.
8) “Decriminalize non-compliance and eliminate registration fees with the national
firearms registry for firearms designed specifically for hunting…” I can see why this would make it look right of centre, but by now I think it's become a centrist position, given that it's widely acknowledged that the registry is a sham. If it had been more of a partisan issue, I could agree with saying this makes them look right-wing, but it no longer is.
9) Hahaha touche! An interesting initiative that with some retooling, could help our arts community. As you say, it's not well-formulated.
10) We already have private health-care. I wonder when our politicians are going to wake up and get out of their denial? Maybe we could accost a few after their visit to their local private clinic? ;)
11) This is a preventive measure that is worth doing. I would formulate the tax on junk food to be specific to fast-food restaurants that serve abnormally large portions, because studies have shown that this is what's making us obese. Taxing tobacco has caused people to quit, especially youth who can't afford it. Increasing tobacco taxes will only help them quit faster (or steal sooner?... addictions can do nasty things to good people). The alcohol tax seems questionable, and I have to acknowlegde your point about healthy food and caloric intake.
12) Don't know enough about this to be truthful, but France has it, and they aren't exactly a model of good economics, to my knowledge.
13) Seems like your personal feelings on the issue made you miss the point. I know foreign MDs who have to work as "consultants" and do all sorts of legally sketchy/grey things to practice. This is because our ridiculously stupid immigration services seek to attract professionals, then fails to negotiate deals to have them quickly recognized by the appropriate professional orders. This is particularly true of MDs and engineers, from what I understand, and in particular here in Quebec. It's become such an issue that I've seen it covered in the mainstream media, which, given their pickiness in choosing subjects for coverage, is saying something. It's more about national discrimination, rather than racial/sexual issue.
14) This is a far-left position. When this is advocated as foreign policy, it's hard to claim the Greenies are right of centre. I agree it would be laughed down.

You presented some valid criticisms, and made a number of good points (particularly on the non-paid work). However, for a number of different reasons, your review is more of a one-sided critique that doesn't acknowledge the good points in the Green platform. Getting rid of uranium mining is a plus. Fighting pollution with taxes rather than eternally marginalized protests is a good shift. Ditto taxing tobacco and products that are generally bad for our health (though I'm not sure alcohol fits that description). A concern for the arts, however the policy may be misguided, is good to see (hell, even Harper's policies on day cares, and certain other issues have a good intention but aren't thought out all that well ... and as I pointed out at my blog, Centrerion, Harper's leading the race because of policy. Several days before the poll came out with him ahead, I might add.)
The Green Beans are still left of centre.
--- shameless plug ---
My blog features centrist commentary and analysis of Canadian federal politics. It's also got usually unrelated daily quips. The address is http://www.centrerion.blogspot.com.

Green Party Policies reviewed

2006-01-04T07:36:00.000-08:00

Well, I decided to look at the Green Party’s platform – they are trying to bill themselves as the environmentally-sensitive right-wing alternative. Let’s look at some of their policies (from their policy document) in detail:

“Rescind all uranium-mining permits and prohibit the export of fissionable
nuclear material.” Thereby trying to put Saskatchewan into the have-not category.

“Improve Canadian energy security by implementing a plan to address the
economic consequences of higher oil prices.” Sounds like the NEP to me – Good bye Alberta’s prosperity, and with the first policy there goes Saskatchewan’s two major natural resources.

“Shift taxes on fossil fuels to earlier stages in the production cycle to encourage competition among companies to lower operating costs while reducing
emissions.” Don’t these oil companies already have a reason to try to lower costs – so that they can maximize the profits for the shareholders?

“Begin a partial, gradual, revenue neutral tax shift from income, consumption
and business taxes to resource use taxes, pollution taxes and land value
levies reflecting corporate profits.” So, if I generate my own electricity, deal with my own wastewater, produce little garbage etc., I don’t pay taxes yet get the benefits of taxpayers? (police/fire/ambulance, roads/sidewalks etc.)

“Develop tax incentives for companies to meet the highest standards of gender
and pay equity.” So… the pay equity, sure, but what do they mean about gender equity? Are they talking about taxing companies based on the proportion of women to men?

“Introduce laws guaranteeing a proportion of seats for women in government
appointed bodies.” Even if there are more qualified men? Why not, ‘introduce a law guaranteeing the best suited individuals are appointed to government appointed bodies’?

“Recognize and value the unpaid work of women through reforms to our tax
system.” I have no problem recognizing the work that women do that is unpaid (although I would think a feminist would cringe at this thought, because it seems to reinforce the idea that there are “woman jobs” and “man jobs”), but, let’s also recognize the work that men do that is unpaid. If we are going to give a $1.00 tax credit for every dish washed, let’s give the same credit for every cubic meter of grass cut.

“Decriminalize non-compliance and eliminate registration fees with the national
firearms registry for firearms designed specifically for hunting…” See, that’s a misleading one. Many firearms used for hunting aren’t necessarily “designed specifically” for it. The classification “designed specifically” could also apply to some handguns or other restricted/prohibited firearms.

“Introduce a law mandating cinemas and video chains to have 20 per cent
Canadian content.” And watch the cinemas and video chains go out of business because they are being forced to make 20% of their content less profitable. This will work if a corresponding law is passed mandating that 20% of the movies watched by individuals are of Canadian content – in fact, if the Canadian Content was of higher quality (as judged by the viewing public), then more people would go to those movies/rent those movies, and this law wouldn’t be necessary.

“Use the full force of the Canada Health Act, federal spending power and the
notwithstanding clause of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to oppose any
steps that open the way to two-tier health care in Canada.” Wait a minute, I thought the left hated the thought of the notwithstanding clause. So, I guess sports teams won’t be able to have their own physicians – professional athletes who are injured and require reconstructive orthopaedic surgery will have to wait a year and a half, just like the rest of us.

“Increase taxes on tobacco products, alcohol and junk food.” I can see the tobacco (although I disagree with the sentiment that the Government has to step in to protect me). I disagree with the alcohol because of the multitude of studies that have shown that a daily consumption of a small amount of alcohol is good for the health, and disagree with junk food because it is a discriminatory tax. “Junk Food” typically provides more calories per dollar spent then “good foods”, therefore unless this is combined with a reduction in the price of healthy food – this could make it difficult for low income Canadians to get the caloric intake they need.

“Implement a managed reduction in the standard workweek to thirty-five work
hours per week.” Either we’ll see paycheques go down (because people are working less) – or businesses start to go under because their productivity has decreased to the point of not being profitable.

“Combat racism in hiring practices and give greater recognition to foreign
qualifications.” So, would that include when public works forbade the hiring of white males? Let’s combat racism and sexism in hiring by ensuring the most-capable person is hired to do the job, not the person that will make the workplace the appropriate colour mix or the proper usage of bathrooms.

“Propose a reform of the UN Security Council, eliminating vetoes and
expanding membership.” Yeah, because those on the security council (who would have a veto over this decision, I would think) will really want to give up their power. We can propose it… and then listen to the laughter as the policy is voted down. A nice “feel-good” useless policy there.

“A” For effort for the Green party – they almost tried to move to the right of centre, but in such a manner that shows why they have not won any seats yet in Canada, and will not form Government for a long, long time.

Layton and strategic voting - a better solution!

2006-01-03T23:30:00.000-08:00

NDP leader Jack Layton is trying to shore up support by discouraging possible NDP voters from voting Liberal to prevent a conservative victory. Nobody knows what effect this may have on the overall NDP number of seats but if Layton wants a move central government, strategic voting might be his only option, trading NDP seats for Liberals might suit his agenda more than NDP seats under a Conservative government. Sadly, strategic voting is almost essential under our current voting system of first past the post.

Until we change our voting system to something closer to proportional representation - BC STV (wikipedia link) is one model that was looked at extensively in British Columbia and was passed by the majority of voters but failed to reach the supermajority required to pass by less than 1%.

Under such a system, voters could vote for their first choice candidate, say the NDP candidate. STV creates a threshold of votes required to be elected, unless enough people vote for the candidate on their first try, they won't get in.

Our hypothetical voter could vote NDP but with the Liberal as their second choice. Strategic voting would be non-existent because the voter could choose their second best candidate and still have that candidate elected. If the non-desired candidate didn't pass the threshold, the 2nd choice votes from the NDP voter would go to the Liberal and possibly the Liberal would be elected.

Of course, electoral reform is something most politicians will sway away from because it gives more power to the individual voter and less from them. It's just food for thought at the moment, but if enough Canadians raise a fuss, it could become a reality.

BC-STV or some incarnation of it is on the ballot in the next BC Provincial election, if it is passed we might see an effort federally.

Attacking the US - maybe not such a bad move to win votes

2006-01-03T23:03:00.000-08:00

While I think attacking the US will have a very negative impact long term, the fact remains it will win votes. While watching the 2006 World Junior Hockey Championships held in Vancouver B.C. it was very interesting to see the reaction of the fans to Team USA being on the ice. With the exception of goaltender Cory Schneider who is a Vancouver Canucks draft pick, Team USA was booed almost constantly. In Jersey sales, only 4 US Jerseys were sold. Out of 19,000 fans in the building, it's pretty slim, every other team had more sold stuff.

Is it Canadian fans just don't like the US team or is this because Canadians are not happy about the softwood lumber policies, about Iraq, about the lack of response to global warming that we have seen out of Bush's White House. If the latter is the case, attacking the US will win votes, but it wont' win Bush's love - would you want a leader who is hated by Bush or someone who can at least tolerate Bush?

Media Bias

2006-01-03T23:00:00.000-08:00

Well, the CBC is likened to the BBC - few question the BBC on fair reporting. Well, in comparison to Fox News, the CBC is pretty non-partisan.
The following is a comment I posted on http://nl-outsidethebox.blogspot.com/2006/01/cbc-in-conflict-of-interest-with and I have reposted for Decision Canada's readership on bias.

The CBC does post some conservative articles, their blog watch seems to be fairly open minded. I haven't found a lot of bias out of the CBC, although I would not suggest any one voter use only one outlet for all of their news. CanWest has a slight Conservative bias, CTV is slightly Liberal.

Of course, with Harper being in the news constantly, it's hard to decide who is being biased and who is just reporting whet is on the wire.

So, for any well educated Canadian, take your news from a wide range of sources. http://www.nonpartisancanadians.org has a pretty even set of blogs that seems to post an overall non-partisan approach to the news. Checkout Wikinews for some international coverage, although Wikinews does not have even the content of one of the daily freebie newspapers, it has some excellent commentary. Just don't use one source for all of your news and you will get a pretty open non-biased view.

And yes, I am telling you not to use this blog as your sole source of news because we don't post everything here, we don't have the resources of the mainstream media. Checkout other blogs, I read dozens a day, there's lots of great content there too!

The Green Party Platform

2006-01-02T13:13:00.000-08:00

We all know the Green's goal this election is to elect an MP, not to form the next government. Although the document consists of some 36 pages the mainstream media has decided to sum it up in bullets.

minimum efficiency standards for cars
Ban on pesticides for cosmetic purposes
Banning bulk water exports
Taxing non-renewable energy and offering incentives for renewable energy.

Of course, they missed a lot of extra points.

More GST cuts on essential supplies
More foreign aid
Lower the voting age to 17
proportional representation

The Green platform does bring up a lot of encouraging ideas, the GST cuts would help a lot of people out and lowering the voting age to 17 would be one of the smartest ideas I've ever seen. Encouraging democracy is never a bad idea is it? With respect to the foreign aid, I think we need to focus on who gets our aid, currently we're giving money to countries that have huge shopping malls and everything else developed nations have.

The big one that shows up is proportional representation. This country is as uneven as a country can go, and that needs to change. Our voting system is broken and it's going to take an outside party to see that!

Have a look at the Green Platform, it can be found online @ http://web.greenparty.ca/download/GPC_Platform_2006.pdf - even though the Green's won't form government, there's a lot of great ideas in there that we need to look at and debate!

Liberals trying to get "Tough on Crime"

2005-12-31T16:32:00.000-08:00

Wow, looks like the Liberals are willing to declare war! Oh, wait, it’s a war on guns. Yup, Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin, Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty, and (Liberal) Mayor David Miller agreed to, as CTV puts it, “use all levels of government to bring about tougher sentences, tougher bail conditions and the full force of the RCMP and Justice Departments.” In fact, “They also spoke of increasing mandatory jail sentences specifically for gun-related crimes.”

Wait a minute, where have we heard about increasing the sentences (and mandatory minimums) on gun crimes before? Oh, right, from the Conservatives.

Bill C215, tabled by Daryl Cramp (Prince Edward – Hastings), reads in part

“(3) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to an additional minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of

(a) five years if the firearm is not discharged in the commission of the offence or during flight after committing the offence;

(b) ten years if the firearm is discharged in the commission of the offence or during flight after committing the offence; or

(c) fifteen years if the firearm is discharged in the commission of the offence or during flight after committing the offence and a person, other than the offender or a party to the offence, is thereby caused bodily harm or death”

It goes on to clarify that those are consecutive times, not concurrent times, with the original offence.

So, defender of our streets Paul Martin must have supported this, right? Nope. Harold Macklin, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, stated, “ … the manner in which Bill C-215 proposes to realize that objective raises serious concerns. The most glaring concern is the proposal to add a sentence on top of a life sentence in the case of murder committed with a firearm.” (and if Life in prison meant Life in prison, that’d be almost a decent point, but Life doesn’t mean Life). This one died on the order paper – it squeaked through second reading 149-148, with all the Conservatives, all the NDP, and 34 Liberals supporting (Paul Martin not among the supporters)

Come on, Paul, if you’re going to try to pretend to be the defender of our streets, put your vote where your mouth is.

Harper's transit pass tax credit... a good start but lets do more

2005-12-30T17:14:00.000-08:00

I like this, I love it.

Conservative leader Stephen Harper announced a 16% tax credit for people who use public transit passes to get around. I agree that this is a good way, raising the credit even more might help attract even more users to transit and get more cars off of the road.

While we're giving environmental tax credits, why not cut the GST on bicycles, why not offer a tax credit on hybrid cars. Public transit works for some trips but for others that I make often, it takes me 5 times the time (no pun intended) to take transit than it does to drive. When time = money, it's hard to justify using transit.

So, a great move to start Mr Harper, lets keep the environmental tax credits flowing faster than Alberta crude!

Ads review #2.0

2005-12-28T18:45:00.000-08:00

This is the shortest ads review ever. We need some new ads!! I have seen a grand total of 0 new ads come out in the time from my last ad review, maybe BC isn't the battleground that it is.

This just in! As I'm writing this, the Conservatives just came up with a new ad. Another attack ad! I'm sick and tired of hearing about how bad the other guy is and what they (the party/leader) would do to improve the company. 2/5* for this ad!

Toronto was "Innocent"?

2005-12-27T21:08:00.000-08:00

“Toronto has finally lost its innocence”, said Det. Sgt. Savas Kyriacou of the Toronto Police. With no offense intended to my friends from Toronto, didn't that ship sail a long time ago? Yet another crime committed by an illegally-carried (and likely, illegally-possessed) firearm, that our precious firearms registry didn't prevent (just like, oh, the other 52 shootings in Toronto over the past year).

The Liberal solution is, in a word, asinine – they want to make illegal guns illegal. That's like me saying, “there are a whole lot of murders happening, so let's make it a crime to commit the felony of murder”. It makes no sense. We don't know yet if the crimes were committed by an adult or youth (the fact that no specific age or name has been released leads me to believe that the individual arrested was a youth), but given the state of our justice system, if it was a youth he/she will probably get off with a few hours of community service, and a stern lecture from a judge.

Toronto's mayor is marching right along with his Liberal friends. CBC reports that Miller, “... said the provincial and federal governments needs [sic] to do more to help get guns off the streets.” Sure – let's do that. The guns on the streets, by and large, aren't ones that law abiding citizens own. Statistics Canada (or any other such group) hasn't done any research that I can find to show where these firearms uesd in crime are from – I'll bet strongly that the majority are prohibited (under C-68) firearms that were smuggled across the border.

Getting a gun (or ammunition) isn't as easy as the left (such as, for example, Michael Moore) want us to believe. Watching that movie, we saw Michael walk into an Ontario Wal-Mart, and buy some ammunition. Shows that “Canadians are peaceful, even with guns”, or some such BS like that. Well, either Michael and Wal-Mart set something up to fake the purchase, or Michael (and Wal-Mart) broke the law. You need a possession/acquisition license (PAL) or possession only license (POL) to buy ammunition (or guns) in Canada. He may have applied for, and received (well in advance of his trip to Canada), a non-resident temporary borrowing license for non-restricted firearms (hunting/target rifles, shotguns; unless the gun looks scary, then it'll be considered restricted) The other possibility is that he brought a firearm with him, declared it at the border (answering, by the way, less questions then a Canadian wanting to get a gun), and filled out a Non-Resident Firearm Declaration form.

That being said, the limitations that we have in Canada haven't stopped crime – they have, in fact, increased it. Read through criminologist Gary Mauser's “The Failed Experiment”, published by the Frasier Institute. That will also show what can happen if we go further with the prohibition of guns, looking at Australia and England's prohibition and the resulting increase in crime.

You want to stop crime? Let's get more police officers on the street. Let's make sure they have the equipment they need to do their job, which often includes tasers. Let's make sure that our border is secured – more men and women patrolling it, and equipping them properly – if we want them to stop a gun smuggler, they may want to be armed themselves. Let's get some tough sentences – life in prison meaning just that, mandatory minimums for violent crime, reforms to young offenders, consecutive sentences rather then concurrent, to name a few possibilities. Let's crack down on the criminals, rather then those of us who just want to enjoy a nice day at the range.

It's break time, see you in the new year

2005-12-24T00:08:00.000-08:00

Many readers to Decision Canada 2006 have been wondering (yes, we've had emails) why there hasn't been an update in x days. To make a long story short, it's coming up on the Christmas/Holiday/Whatever you want to call it season and one of the few times of the year to be with family etc.

The leaders are not doing much this week, so I figured I'd give it a rest and spend some quality time with my family/friends. The same goes for the rest of the Decision Canada team.

From all of us, Have a very safe and happy holiday and a happy new year. We will see you in 2006!

Out in Quebec, On My Street Corner

2005-12-21T13:12:00.000-08:00

Well, things have been pretty interesting here in the francophone province since my last post.
!) M. Alain Dubuc, of La Presse, has written an article that isn't anti-Harper! It even sanctions him to the extent of saying that his views on decentralizing power from Ottawa, allowing Quebec a presence on the international scene in certain areas (delineated by articles 91 and 92 of the Constitution, if I'm not mistaken), and dealing with the fiscal imbalance are similar to the average Quebecker's views. Now, if you read Dubuc's editorials, you would know his positions go from just left of center, to way out in left field. I was delighted to read this centrist, common-sense article that cuts straight to the facts.
@) French language channel TQS has offered to televise the PM debating Duceppe, on "any street corner in Quebec, at any time" as Martin challenged Duceppe. Ironically, Duceppe accepted the challenge, and Martin's declined TQS offer. Guess who's said they'll go on TQS to debate Duceppe, here in Quebec? Lil' ol' Stephen Harper. From what Andrew's explained (below, in one of his posts on the debates) Martin had his ass handed to him by Duceppe in the French debates last year, so I'm not really surprised at the PM's reaction.
#) If Harper and Duceppe want it, I'll be glad to have them drop by my street corner and have it. We had 41 cm of snow here in Montreal last Friday, and given our mayor's terrible inefficiency, it's still there. It'll be a real, authentic Canadian setting, and I'll even make them lots o hot cocoa during the debate. Speaking of debates...
$) The Liberals keep dodging around with my requests to have Justice Minister and Mount-Royal MP Irwin Cotler join a candidates' debate I'd like to organize in the riding. The Green, NDP, and Conservative candidates have all agreed to participate, and I expect the Bloquiste to join the fun too, as soon as I can contact him (the phone number the Bloc HQ gave me is out of service, and the Bloc hasn't answered my email...). More details at my other blog: http://www.centrerion.blogspot.com.
%) With two Quebecker police officers dying tragically in the past coupla' days (one retired, from the RCMP, got shot in Haiti, the other also got killed, but I'm not quite sure how) I'd like to know what the leaders would do to strengthen the RCMP. Incidentally, it seems Harper's got a good idea with raising minimum sentences. One of the RCMP guy's catches was a big mob boss who was bringing in dope and laundering money, and he got out of prison (though his two brothers are still there.) I don't understand people ruining others' lives and being allowed back into society after a couple of years. I'd like to see minimum Life in Jail, nogetoutajailfreecard (IE good lawyers who get parole and/or deals for assholes), sentences for this kind of guy, who's causing havoc with society. The drug lords and mob bosses need to get busted, and stay busted.

Can we stop the mud slinging please!

2005-12-20T18:16:00.000-08:00

Conservative leader Stephen Harper's latest statement on Quebec regarding how the Liberals wish the Bloc to take power so they can be heroes for uniting Canada is your typical dirty politics and guess what Harper, we're not buying it.

Of course, I'm most likely picking on Harper just because he's been the party leader in the headlines 99% of the time so of course I will see his dirty politics more than the others. I'm sure there's not one party leader that isn't engaged in some mud slinging and I'm sick of it.

Can we start talking about what people would do to improve Canada and stop the dirty attack on the records etc. You wonder why voter turnout is at an all time low, Canadians are sick of dirty politics!!

Is Harper encouraging separation with his new stand on Quebec

2005-12-19T19:52:00.000-08:00

With Conservative leader Stephen Harper's announcement today that if elected, he would give Quebec more independent control - possibly allowing Quebec to have it's own national hockey teams among other "national" roles.

Aside from the obvious blows to Canada's national hockey team this move would cause, there are several reasons why this is a bad idea.

from cbc.ca

Revising and tightening all procedures related to issuing contracts and using public funds.
Giving greater independence to the ethics commissioner and increased powers to the auditor general.
Creating an independent and objective parliamentary budget authority.
Ensuring that all governmental institutions Â including foundations Â are subject to full audits by the auditor general.

While some of his ideas such as the tigher control on funding to prevent another scandal would do some good to prevseparationtion, letting Quebec make one step towards seperation is a bad idea, once we seed the idea we never know where it will go!

Of course, I do think it's time for Canada to have equal representation across the country with seats being assigned to population and nothing else. I don't think Harper will do much to this front as he's scared of losing Quebec support.

I will have the final part of the Vancouver debate within the next couple days, I just have had way too much stuff on my plate and it's made the back burner!

Vancouver Debate: Part III

2005-12-17T11:51:00.000-08:00

Here is part III of the Vancovuer Debate, 3 parts down, 1 to go after this.

Issue 9: “National Day care program – should money flow to families”

Layton: Liberals have only had promises on child care, not deliveries. NDP will invest in new spaces. ANSWER THE QUESTION! The question asked should money flow to families, he didn’t answer it.

Harper: The Conservative government will bring in a federal tax credit for parents. Harper will bring in the child care allowance which goes to money. Attack on public centers having too much red tape.

Duceppe: Quebec program is the best in the world, CAN YOU ANSWER THE QUESTION please!

Martin: More spaces in the public sector and a focus on early learning. Attack on the child care money being a tax cut and doesn’t cut access to high quality child care.

The question asked should money flow to families, almost nobody answered that question!

Issue 10: Atlantic Canada isolation

Harper: Policies that are fair and balanced that don’t reward friends of the government. Regional strategies are needed, did not get specific.

Layton: EI doesn’t work, attack on Martin regarding tax cuts. No investment in post secondary funding, needs strategies not tax cuts. Another “vote NDP message”

Martin: This is a rural issue – needs a strategy for rural areas. Called for re-training and more not just taxes.

Duceppe: Attack on the Liberals – better access to EI is necessary, suggested many things but no solutions.

Issue 11: Softwood lumber – “Should we re-negotiate NAFTA”

What a good question, this one should be good

Duceppe: The problem is not NAFTA; it’s the US not respecting NAFTA. Must give loan guarantees to companies affected.

Layton: Independence of Canada challenged by NAFTA. Another attack on Martin. Proposed import duties regarding energy and water. Opposed to NAFTA’s provisions. Called for NAFTA to be re-worked.

Martin: Will not re-negotiate until US agrees to their provisions. Discussed additional markets, China etc that are opening. “Will stand behind Canadian workers” – no real platform.

Harper: NAFTA is critical for Canada, must improve access to the US market. Must not simply shout anti-American statements, must focus on envoys etc to improve relations.

Well, this is the hot issue; I think nobody really won it. Layton may be too aggressive and tick the US off further which won’t gain us anything, Duceppe and Martin call for domestic strategies to ease pain and Harper wants to get into bed further with the US. 4 positions, 0 winners!

The follow up questions basically brought in attacks on each other; I did not see any actual debating, just a bit of an insult fest!! On the issue with Iraq, it was only insults and no real debate!

Ok folks, the mics are turned off for a reason, it means your time is up, so shut up and move on!!!

Issue 12: “GST – How a reduction in income tax opposed to GST would help?”

Martin: Focus on income taxes because it will put more money in pockets. Suggested refundable tax credit for people who are unable to work.

Duceppe: Must reduce income tax but must focus on transfer to the provinces.

Harper: Cutting income tax would leave out people who do not file tax returns and low income earners. Called for additional tax refunds on income taxes for specific people. All tax cuts must be visible.

Layton: People need the help that they need, how tax cut won’t lift people out of poverty. Attack on Martin’s corporate tax cut. Would rather spend money and did not support tax cuts at all!

Well, I can see Harper winning public support on this one, Martin may come in a close second. Layton’s strategy of not cutting taxes won’t win with voters at all. Duceppe kept calling for more money to the provinces (read: Quebec)

To wrap off this component, we started to see the leaders drone on. We saw more mic cut offs (I think Layton was the worst for going over followed by Martin and Harper) than the previous segments. It’s not as bad as the shout fests of past, but it’s starting to get there…

On deck is the final issue of the debate, the Quebec seperation issue. I'm going to take a little break from the debate (the leaders are sounding too robotic now) and will post the final segment later today.

Vancouver Debate: Part II

2005-12-17T11:17:00.000-08:00

I’m finally awake again – it’s time to post another segment.

Issue 4: Immigration – What is your plan to stop discrimination against new highly educated immigrants? With respect to respecting degrees.

Duceppe: Education is a provincial responsibility; Ottawa needs to work with provinces to modify rules to ensure that trained people can do the jobs they are paid to do.

Layton: Another “getting something done or the record” speech. Attack on cuts to immigration startup program, did not offer any platform.

Martin: Program in place called “bridge to work” to help immigrants come in. Also believes Canadian government has a role in allowing immigrants to obtain Canadian work experience. Also called for language training.

Harper: Will setup Canadian agency for assessment of credentials to allow immigrants to obtain Canadian credentials without starting from scratch.

I think Harper won this won by a mile; Martin gave a speech about what they have done, but did not provide any idea of what he would do. Layton and Duceppe basically talked about what a big problem it was but did not offer solutions. This is our first clear cut winner this debate!

Winner: Harper

Issue 5: Accountability – Why should party leaders not be accountable for actions?

Martin: Talked about Gomery report and how Martin turned it over to the RCMP. Claimed Liberals formed lawsuits to recover funds lost. Essentially tried to save face.

Duceppe: Talked about how Martin expelled 10 members from the Liberal Party and how he paid back $300,000 of taxpayer’s money. Demanded Martin release names of people who received money.

Harper: “Only way for government be held accountable is to defeat it” – Again his fast act being the Federal Accountability Act to ensure scandals don’t happen again, limiting donations to parties to $1000, independent offices of Parliament and commissions etc. Also called for whistle blower protection.

Layton: Many Canadians have lost face in the democratic process. Another “vote NDP” message (what is that, 4 times in a half hour.) Called for removal of lobbyists.

Reaction to all leaders being called crooks: Everyone basically called for accountability. Everybody was shocked at being called crooks.

On the issue, I don’t think anyone really won; the only one to bring out policy was Harper, although he has touted the Accountability act too much to make an impact.

Issue 6: What would you do to stop “party hoping?”

Duceppe: Stated MP’s won’t be re-elected unless they leave for good reasons and people are not fooled.

Layton: NDP opposed to hopping, brought in legislation in the House to stop hopping, MP’s could only sit as an independent, not as a member of another party. “Elect NDP” message 5

Martin: MPs must be able to have a free vote and must be able to change if the party does not suit their views. A question for Harper on third party advertising and more.

Harper: Attacks to move MP’s were “bribes” – Conservatives have looked at various private members bills on the issue – stated that bill would give too much power to party leaders.

Issue 7: “Would you be willing to enforce legislation to ensure that an election promise would be executed reasonably within a fair period if time, if they did not, they must resign?”

Harper: Conservatives would implement changes immediately, suggested such a process would simply bog down in the courts.

Martin: Voters must punish voters who do not keep promises but it cannot be set in law. Suggested benchmarks in promises, suggested many Liberal promises met.

Layton: Agrees with Martin but an attack on Martin for breaking promises, turned into an attack on Martin. He was attacking Martin on broken promises that were slightly unreasonable. Brought up international aid issue how Bono was not supporting Martin. Guess what, Bono isn’t even Canadian, the Canadian people told Martin how to allocate funds, NOT a music star!!!

Duceppe: Another attack on the Liberals regarding Liberal changes to platform. It would be tough to bring in a timeframe, the situation changes too much.

Issue 8: “Do leaders have a plan to ensure that MP’s will get down to work?”

Layton: ANOTHER “vote NDP message!”

Harper: Some obligation for MP’s to work together. Talked about Conservative record was solid and then an attack on how the Liberals would not admit they had a minority.

Duceppe: “Bloc is open to ideas” – is it good for Quebec being the issue. Gave stats on voting record. Talked about when Quebec’s interests are at stake. What is this guy doing in a NATIONAL debate talking about Quebec’s issues?

Martin: It will work if party leaders want to make it work – the other party leaders are not willing to debate and work. “Let’s work together.”

Nobody really won this one, everyone gave the run around! Is it that hard of a question, it really was not that hard to answer?

Part III is coming up next with taxes and the economy on deck!

Off topic: Where the parties web servers are located

2005-12-17T10:57:00.000-08:00

I found this link when looking through my comments today, I find it rather interesting. Both the Liberals and the Conservatives have a Canadian address on their webservers, the NDP does not. For someone talking about protecting "Canadian jobs" - the NDP should at least stick their web servers in Canada

http://www.catprint.ca/blog/blog/linux/idiots.html is the link

Vancouver Debate - Issue by Issue

2005-12-16T22:36:00.000-08:00

I'm posting this as a work in progress - this will be updated very frequently within the next two hours, so check back often.

Now that the debate is over, we come to the review and analysis. I've recorded the entire debate on my TiVo, now I'm going through each issue and my thoughts on who won the "issue."

As an opening note, a poll conducted before the debate told us that 29% of people expected Paul Martin to win the debate, 25% for Harper, 10% for Layton and 3% for Duceppe and 33% didn't know, that is a pretty big undecided margin, we could swing either way here.

Opening statements: Martin made the very inspirational "belief speech" Duceppe made the attack on the sponsorship scandal and Layton focused mostly on health care as well as additional attacks on the Liberals and the Conservatives. Harper focused on accountability, taxes and crimes - basically the party platform in 30s. Everyone but Martin of course made attacks at the Liberal party over the sponsorship scandal.

First issue: The same sex dispute.

Harper: Supports traditional definition of "marriage" - supports additional definitions for other relationships. Will allow free vote on the issue but the only person to bring the issue up.

Martin: Must protect rights of everyone, the PM cannot cherry pick which rights he wants to protect. A short attack on Harper with respect to changing the definition and how Harper cannot change it without the notwithstanding clause. The theme of "taking away a Charter right" was a common theme in Martin's speech on the matter.

Layton: Proud of how NDP candidates stood up for rights of minorities and how it is a sad that this issue is coming up. For the third time in the debate so far, telling people to vote for the NDP.

Duceppe: Similar to Martin and Layton, a speech about respecting rights for individuals and how rights must be protected. How the "religion of some" should not overwrite the rights of others.

Everyone but the Conservatives wants to consider the issue closed, and to be honest, I'm sick and tired of the issue coming up. The law was passed over a "free vote" and that is it. Let's drop the subject and move on to something more important.

Sub issue: Who interprets the Charter, the Courts or the Government

Layton: Off topic response, did not address issue.

Harper: Parliament should make laws and courts should interpret laws.

Duceppe: Parliament to make laws.

Martin: Attack on Harper, speech about how Martin will defend Charter of Rights.

Issue 2: Gun Control - Is the gun control bill a failure? What change would you make to gun control bill?

Martin: Must choke off supply of handguns by tighter controls at borders and prevent guns from being stolen. He will create special squad of RCMP officers to help with issue. Will ban handguns and give people hope.

Duceppe: Tougher control of border. He brought up issue of closure of RCMP offices at border. Suggested definition of different types of firearms. Attack on the mismanagement of the gun registry.

Harper: Effective handgun ban for years, suggested abolishing gun registry. Harper would spend money from gun registry into enforcement, mandatory prison sentences for illegal guns.

Layton: “Why hasn’t there been action on this” – suggested Liberals will talk again and not do anything. Focused on cutbacks under Martin, no platform just an attack on Martin.

All promises there, no real action plans. Nobody won this one; it was a lot of attack ad style speeches and not a lot of platform. Why can’t we give solutions and stop screaming at the other leaders!!!

Issue 3: Health Care – What steps would you take

Layton: Very anti private health care, only supports public health care. Supports additional training and certification for foreign trained doctors. In addition, he would reduce price of drugs.

Harper: No “quick fix.” - Will work with provinces to bring in “health care guarantee” to ensure that if people don’t get services within a timely manner, they can go elsewhere and the government will pay for it.

Duceppe: Way too much red tape. Wants front line people not marketers.

Martin: Have to protect universal publicly funded health care system. Will fund home care, will fund new doctors. Announced benchmarks to measure healthcare system.

I think everyone had a good point here, I think Layton does need to stop thinking that the private sector is evil, some private providers are a good thing! I agree with Harper and Duceppe there, we need to cut the red tape and bring in more front line people who can deliver the services. More doctors and fewer managers, that’s what will solve this crisis. Not a word about the big system, keeping people healthy and more. Almost everyone passed the problem off to the provinces, and no-one provided specifics.

And with 3 issues down, I’m going to call it a night. I’m about to fall asleep on my keyboard, and asleep commentary is not good commentary. I’ll have this finished by tomorrow afternoon at the latest!

The full transcript of the debate can be found at

http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/voterstoolkit/debate_trans.html

Update: Liveblogging status

2005-12-16T17:02:00.000-08:00

I had a last second reservation that I have to meet, the debate is on my TiVo, I will post commentary when I get back (around 8PM PST)

Update 2: I'm about halfway through the debate on my "play by play" of the debate, I should have the article posted by midnight.

Ads: NDP hits LPC hits CPC hits BLOC hits LPC...GPC ignored

2005-12-16T10:31:00.000-08:00

Ads in review: week 2.5
The CPC's french language Quebec ads (like there are french language ads elsewhere right?...) portray the Bloc as making a valiant effort to defend Quebec. The catch is that without power, the Bloc can't achieve anything, say the ads. For example, one of them portrays a sweating, fighting cyclist (the Bloc) and eventually fades to reveal a stationary bike. The other ad is boring and just features a woman (quebec as rep'd by the Bloc) talking without a mic, so no one can hear her. Incidentally, I just found this video called Momentum, and it's a collage of campaign footage. I noticed that in it, and elsewhere, Harper's smiling. It doesn't sound like much, but the media here have made a big issue of it.
It was cute, it got the point across and the French was proper and had a French accent, not an Anglo one.
Score one for the CPC
The Bloc, basically ignoring and discounting the CPC as a serious contender for any Quebec seats, has focused its energies on the Liberals. Some of it is informal advertising, like these videos of Jean Lapierre, which show the Liberal Cabinet minister back in his Bloc days. These not only attack the Liberals' integrity, but are also humorous in an ironic way, as one of the videos shows Lapierre lauding the separatists who always stayed true to the cause.
The Bloc radio ads are also highly likely to succeed. They parody a well-known French folk song that teaches little kids the days of the week, but substitutes the happenings of each day for scandals and problems with the Liberals, like tax evasion and being the worst at implementing Kyoto. Interestingly, the ads link Martin and Chretien, which might presage things to come in the Bloc's campaigning.
The Bloc's funny, and issue focused. Nice.
I tried to watch the Liberals' video ads, but they took forever to load, and I finally dropped the topic. I listened to Paul Martin's weekly radio addresses. The latest one attacks Harper's tax cuts as fluff that won't save Canadians anything substantive, while the Liberals will cut (if I understood this well; it sounded vague) middle Class Canadians. Martin's accent is a strange mix of Anglo and Franco, and he stumbles in a few places in his speech banning handguns. (You'd think that with the Liberals having experts find editing of the Grewal tapes, they could at least cut the stumbles out.)
At any rate, the speech is well-focused on the issues, though as I noted on my own blog, Centrerion, there are a few difficulties with this handgun ban promise (namely that handguns are already pretty much banned. Interesting ideas, but it's dry stuff, and there's a good handful of grey areas. For example, is there really a problem with Americans gun smuggling, or is he just playing to stereotypes of Americans as trigger-happy nuts?
I should point out, however, that there is an exception to the otherwise dry stuff: Martin's speechwriter has a blog, and he's Funny.
The NDP, for its part, has a series attacking the Liberals corporate tax cuts, referring to them as gifts to their well-connected friends. It's mostly funny, and Layton's also talking about the environment and such. "The Liberals promised to reduce pollution and yet pollution is up." Coming from this guy, it sounds credible, and it makes the point with some decent examples. Also, it's short and sweet, as opposed to the Libs' radio spots.
I notice they have very little in way of ads, and nothing specifically for Quebec...
I'll edit and add the Greens tomorrow, cuz I have to go now.

Debate 2006 from Vancouver

2005-12-15T22:21:00.000-08:00

Tomorrow, just a few kilometers from me, the leaders of 4 political parties (every major one but the Greens) will be engaged in Debate 2006. As you know, changes have been made to prevent this from becoming a shoutfest like last time.

The broadcasters producing this debate have thoughtfully decided to mute the other mics when someone is not scheduled to be speaking, much to the delight of our ears. Think about it, for once we will be able to hear what someone is saying instead of 4 voices giving us mumble jumble.

I will be liveblogging the debate tomorrow, check back for fequent updates as the debate progresses. In fact, the entire Decision Canada 2006 team will be watching and posting their thoughts as the debate progresses with lots of follow up coverage tomorrow.

If you want to catch the debate, it can be seen on just about any major tv network in Canada. Apparently, for the first year ever, the debate is also going to be broadcast in HD as it's showing up in my on screen guide as being on CBC-HD and CTV-HD in addition to the regular CBC and CTV channels.

Ad Battles Continue in Quebec

2005-12-15T14:25:00.000-08:00

Update on the LNI vs. the Liberals, and other issues pertaining to ads in Quebec.

The Union of Artists has thrown its support behind the LNI. They agree with the LNI's claim (that their rights in the intellectual property of the Improv games have been violated. Now they've got a lawyer and they're grandstanding.
Picking up on an important issue mentioned thus far only in sidelines, today's La Presse editorializes that the principal reason for all this hemming and hawing is that the LNI and its members' entourages are generally separatists, and thus want to fight the Libs.
The passing newspaper references to the LNItes support for the Bloc became increasingly noticeable, but today's editorial puts things in perspective saying that its basically friends trying to steer their friends away from helping the enemy. It sounds logical, because if this push was really just about getting paid, there wouldn't be this repeated demand for the ads to be pulled, and furthermore, the LNI wouldn't have rented its place out to begin with. It's not like their set is some generic backdrop. You see the thing, and you know it's the Improv' artists' place.
In other news, the Conservative candidate running for the riding of Pontiac has dared, believe it or not, to put up unilingual ENGLISH signs. Naturally, anti-anglo hardasses are whining and 'demanding' that the signs be removed, stating that if there are going to be any unilingual signs, they ought to be in French. Ironically, those guardians of French orthodoxy, the Office Quebecois de la Langue Francaise, have ruled the signs to be legal. The Conservative candidate has said he has no intention of removing the signs, and to be quite honest, considering Pontiac's significant anglophone population, he's right.
Doubtful any CPC running in Quebec will get elected, but he's right on the issue, at any rate.
---
For more commentary and analysis, from the perspective of a Centrist in Quebec, check www.centrerion.blogspot.com

Conservatives to elect Senate

2005-12-14T17:59:00.000-08:00

The topic says it all and this is a GREAT idea that is long long overdue. Currently Canada has a rather ineffective senate that is nicknamed "floridenors" - Canadian senators must be a huge boost to the State of Florida's economy!

However, we do not pay Senators to sit on a beach chair in Florida, we pay them to ensure that Canadian laws are reviewed to prevent the House of Commons from rushing in a bill that has no purpose.

Of course, opponents will claim that an elected Senate will halve the speed bill are passed, but look at our last government, nothing was passed within a reasonable amount of time anyways, so what is the difference.

The point being, an elected Senate will restore accountability, accountability that has been long lost over the years of political "rewards!"

Martin on Bush

2005-12-14T17:46:00.000-08:00

Over the last few days, Liberal leader Paul Martin has had one attack after another attack after another attack on the United States, especially President George W. Bush.

The US has not been exactly nice and many many Canadians are not very happy with our friends down south. We are experiencing major turmoil with Canada leaning one way and the US another. Canadians are not happy about Iraq, Canadians are sure not happy about way the Americans have cheated Canada on the softwood lumber dispute.

Naturally, the US needs to recognize climate change, Bush's policy is a joke and Martin does need to take a stance. As the recipients of most of the pollution coming out of the US, Canadians have a right to demand that the US agrees with an international treaty (that has still yet to be signed by the US) that helps propose a solution. The US is a joke with their lack of respecting the fact that global warming happens, and someone needs to give them a kick in the pants.

However, Martin's plan of attacking the US may have some problems down the road. As much as Canada may like to see the Bush administration gone, it's not going to happen for a few years unless a miracle happens, and granted some of Bush's previous attitudes, insulting him is going to bring nothing but bad for Canada.

Martin's strategy is making Canadians happy, but over the long run, it's going to put Canada-US relations even further down the drain, something that isn't going to help Canadians!

Liberal Adscam Vol II

2005-12-13T09:31:00.000-08:00

Guess what the Liberals are being accused of, and who they're working with, these here days in Quebec?
1) Stealing from ordinary Canadians.
2) Old associates involved from Adscam vol I.
The Liberals' ads in Quebec are modelled along the lines of popular local improv-comedy show, the Ligue Nationale d'Improvisation, or LNI for short. In a miniature sports-style arena, members of two teams debate an issue and then people vote on who said the best things, awarding points to the funniest group.
In the Liberal ads, members of a Liberal team are seen discussing important issues, while their separatist opponents are stuck repeating the word sovereignty over and over.
So? (The following is paraphrased from Tristan Peloquin's article in today's La Presse).
The shit hit the fan a few days back when members of the LNI claimed they didn't know what the Liberals had rented their premises for. "The Liberal party never indicated that it wanted to make ads using the LNI's space, " said Yvon Leduc, the LNI's co-founder. The LNI people recognize having rented the place, but they complain that the Liberals are violating their real rights (real rights are property rights opposable to third parties, as opposed to personal rights, which only bind someone in particular) in the intellectual property. "Renting a place does not equal acquiring the rights [to the intellectual property]," Leduc said.
Other LNI people were equally furious. "It's pure theft," said Luc Piche, an LNI board member and bigwig. He added that the LNI leases the rights to its idea to groups in Europe.
Andre Noel of La Presse also found that people formerly employed by GroupAction, one of the adscam companies, were responsible for the LNI-ad idea. The man in question is Marc-Andre Rivard, a former VP at GroupAction. Interestingly, the ad was carried out by Turbo Marketing, which was devoid of employees and resources until quite recently. Noel's newspaper article also reveals that a number of other Adscam tainted companies were involved in the creation of these ads.
With this background, stay tuned for yours truly and Decision Canada's review of ads during week 2 of this federal election campaign. Andrew's invited me to join the panel, and we're going to have a crazy post for your on the week's ads!
---
You can also find my analysis of the campaign and his entirely unrelated, smart-ass Quip of the Day (QOTD aka aka Quoted aka Quote it!) over at www.centrerion.blogspot.com. As the pseudonym suggests, I'm a centrist in Quebec.

Harper: more airborne troops

2005-12-13T09:17:00.000-08:00

Conservative leader Stephen Harper announced today that he would buy more military aircraft to replace our aging transports but also form a new airborne division of our armed forces.

Yes, Canada does need a military, yes, a few planes would be nice, but shouldn't we make sure that our troops on the ground had the proper equipment before we start creating more demands on a shrinking budget!

Poll report: (short edition)

2005-12-12T22:45:00.000-08:00

Liberals: 34%
Conservatives: 30%

This is the short poll report. It does seem rather interesting that despite Harper's daily policy announcements, the Tories are dropping in the polls. Is it the public doesn't trust Harper or are they fed up with him being constantly in the headlines?

Either way, it's not looking good for the Conservatives at this point in the game.

This was the latest Ipsos poll conducted for GlobalNational's "Decision Canada."

Child care: The 2 camps

2005-12-12T17:43:00.000-08:00

With respect to the child care plan, we have two main camps.

The Liberal/NDP Camp
The Conservative Camp

The Liberal and NDP camp consists of the two parties, both platforms are basically the exact same wording, spaces for a Quebec style system of public day care centers. The Liberal plan is $6.4 billion over 4 years the NDP plan is $8.7 billion over 4 years.

The Conservative camp on the other side offers a $1200 annually "baby bonus." The cost of such bonuses will be aprox $1 billion per year. The purpose of such a bonus is to allow parents to choose which style of daycare they want for their children.

Both plans have their merits, I do like the ability for parents to choose their daycare provider yet I am concerned that some parents will spend the money on other things and not direct the money directly into day care. For most people, it will work, for some, the Liberal/NDP plan works better (for the children at least)

On the other hand, the Liberal/NDP plan of creating solely public spaces prevent the funding going anywhere but day care yet it doesn't allow one to have any choice, it's the government funded program or nothing. In addition, government centers may not be convent or accessible for some parents!

Either plan, it's a glass half full or half empty depending on which side you are on. Neither gets glowing review, you can't have the best of everything.

Is There Anyone the Liberals Actually Like?

2005-12-11T13:07:00.000-08:00

Over the past three days, the Liberals have managed to insult, oh, nearly half of Canada’s population.

It started on Friday, with the finance ministry’s communications director, John Embury, calling Canada’s Association for the Fifty Plus Associate Executive Director Bill Gleberzon “old and confused” for having stated that he was contacted by Goodale’s office hours before the official income trust announcement. This leaves me asking, hey guys, do you think that all elderly Canadians are “confused”, or just the ones that you told about the income trust decision ahead of time. This was reported by CTV.

And then this morning/afternoon, two senior Liberal strategists opinioned that parents would be more likely to spend the $1,200 (Conservative) direct child care transfers on “beer and popcorn” then on quality child care. First came Scott Reid (Martin’s Communications Director) on CBC, and then Martin’s senior advisor John Duffy backing it up on CTV. This follows Ken Dryden stating that parents taking care of their own children does not constitute “child care”

So, by Liberal logic, seniors = “old and confused”, parents = selfish… I suppose they haven’t insulted parentless 18-49 year olds, or children (except those that own firearms). But, never fear, the campaign is still young.

One tax cut promise after another, we're not buying it Harper!

2005-12-10T12:11:00.000-08:00

It seems within the last week, Conservative leader Stephen Harper has been making one tax cut announcement after another tax cut after another tax cut.

The problem is, we're not buying it.

Canada's economy is fairly stable but who knows how it will last. With our aging population we will require more and more funding for health care and other services seniors require however with many of the tax cut promises, seniors won't be putting in as much money into the tax pool as before.

We simply can't afford such tax cuts. Canada's deficit is still way too large, we need to pay it down to make sure we are fiscally stable. While I admit, we are not in as bad of shape as our friends to the south, Canada still is way too deep in the red!

What we need to do is figure out ways to streamline operations, ensure that we don't have government waste on the books and then look at tax cuts once we have enough income to do it. There is still far too much red tape and bloat in the government and that needs to stop. Focus on the issues before promising rosy tax cuts that you can't deliver on please!

Ads review #1

2005-12-09T17:49:00.000-08:00

We are one week into the run and we just received the first NDP ads. Now that we have all 3 parties ads, here's Decision Canada's review by it's panel of one judge (me)

Conservative: Scripted "news interview" - the anchor looks like she is reading off a teleprompter the whole time, it seems a little fake. The message does make sense, though it is very conveniently packaged and doesn't imitate a real news program at all. **

Liberal: Very open, they almost look like they are produced by somebody walking around with a camcorder. Seems to give the real Canadian approach, not someone in a suit yapping on forever. **1/2

NDP: The classic American style "attack ad" - very similar in scope to the ads the Conservatives presented last election, may work with some people but overall is way to negative and may discourage voters. **

This will be a weekly feature reviewing the ads of the week. We will introduce a bigger panel soon, if you are interested in joining the Decision Canada ad panel, email us @ decisioncanada@gmail.com

Harper attacks Liberals over seniors' funding

2005-12-09T10:34:00.000-08:00

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper made an announcement regarding pensions today but the topic quickly changed to the latest information leaked regarding the Liberal's platform regarding income taxes and the lack of change on taxes involved with them.

As usual, we have a call for a resignation over something we don't know or understand. Leaks happen, it might have been an intentional leak, it also could have been false information. We simply do no know.

Harper's attack on the leak consisted of "Remember, it was the Liberals who threatened to tax income trusts," Harper said. "This was a direct attack on the retirement incomes of millions of Canadians. And when the government changed its mind, it now appears that it was again privileged insiders, not ordinary seniors, who benefited."

Trading was up on income trusts, leading to allegations that people were profiting on the insider information.

Now for Harper's actual statement (copied from cbc.ca)

The Conservatives, he said, would work for the benefit of seniors by protecting all existing public pension plans, and by doubling the amount of pension money they can shelter from taxes.

That amount would go up to $2,000 in 2006, he said, and would be raised further to $2,500 over time.

Harper said the promise is worth $2.2 billion over five years.

As well, he said, a Conservative government would create a national seniors council to advise the minister responsible for seniors.

----

As usual we have the usual political statements. I think we do have some very valid ideas in Harper's plan, the question is would he follow through with it, or would he simply "forget" about such a plan.

Federal Involvement in Provincial Jurisdiction - it Can be Done Well!

2005-12-09T08:11:00.000-08:00

Let’s start off by saying, education is a provincial matter. Any federal program dealing with education has to be very careful to ensure it does not infringe on provincial responsibility. That said, I think that the Conservatives are on the right track with yesterday’s release of an education plank of the policy.

This helps not only those attending universities, but those who are going into the trades as well. Harper announced a tax deduction for tools, an apprenticeship grant for apprentices, and a tax credit for companies who bring on apprentices (I think that one was a double-release from their small business tax announcement a couple days ago). This should help to attract more people into the trades and open up training spots for them – there is a shortage of skilled tradespeople in Canada right now, and this will address the issue to the best extent that the Federal Government can.

And then, we have the post-secondary education planks. A tax credit of $500 for textbooks is good – that’ll cover, oh, between a third and half of the cost of textbooks over a year, helping students without giving them a completely free ride. Working with the provinces to increase family income thresholds for student loans – absolutely good idea. I wanted to take out a loan when I was in University in order to pay for my own education (rather then live off my parents), but because my family income was too high (you only needed, at that time, a family income of around $50k or so for a single child not to qualify) I could not take out a loan. Yes, my parents could have afforded to help me out some – but, instead of living off them, I wanted to work it off myself. Exempting the first $10,000 in scholarships and bursaries from taxation – again, a good idea.

This goes about as far as the federal government can (and should) go with regards to education. It doesn’t infringe too far on the provinces, and instead of hauling bags of money around, it seeks to reduce tax burdens.