Get out and vote!

Today is election day in Canada. Canadian voters decide who will represent them in Parliament.

Whatever your political stripe, get out and exercise your democratic right! Don't let negative attack ads, or fatalism about the outcome dissuade you, especially basing your decision whether to vote or not coming out of the results from pollsters. YOU determine who will represent you in Ottawa. And collectively, Canadian voters decide who will run the country.

If you're not sure what you need to do to vote, Elections Canada helps you out.

Remember, if you don't vote, you don't have the right to complain about the results.

Ethnic votes

The Conservatives have been chasing the "ethnic" vote in order to get their coveted majority. They've been doing this by espousing policies that resonate with the particular groups their after. This is nothing new, since it has been a long tradition amongst political parties. The difference with the Conservatives is, they're hypocrites.

For the past year or so, they have been airing attack ads against Michael Ignatieff saying that he's "not here for you." That he has lived abroad for many years; that he calls other countries "his own"; that if defeated, he will just go back to Harvard. What I find interesting is how this plays against the ethnic vote.

When you look at the ethnic vote, you'll find a number of them are 1st generation Canadians. Many of them have dual citizenships, and most significant of all...they vote in the elections of their home countries. Many countries allow their former citizens to vote in their elections. I know of at least one country that will allow the adult children of these immigrants to vote in these elections, as long as they register. Does this make them less of a Canadian citizen? I don't think so. Then why was Mr. Ignatieff being pressed about whether he had voted in foreign elections? (For the record, he said he has only voted in the UK, as a Commonwealth, i.e. Canadian, citizen). Add to all of this that many naturalized Canadians, decide to go back and live in their home countries for months or years at a time.

This is an example of the Conservatives being hypocritical. On the one hand, they criticize Mr. Ignatieff for living abroad, and on the other hand, they vigorously pursue ethnic voters who engage in the behaviour they are attacking. Why hasn't the media pressed Mr. Harper on this? Why don't they reveal this incongruity, which I would say is significant, since not only does it examine the Conservative political strategy, but criticizes their attack ad strategies.

My charge to journalists is, press Mr. Harper on this issue. He'll obviously dance around the topic, like he often does, but at least it will get voters thinking.

Conservatives promising to open an office to support religious freedoms

Another example of the Social Conservative (SoCon) agenda that the current Conservative caucus is moving towards. The Conservatives have promised to fund a centre to promote religious freedoms around the world. One example he gives is the persecution that the Coptic Christians experience in Egypt. But I wonder if they will treat all religious persecutions equally?

The historic tradition in Western democracies is a separation of church and state. Although there is some dabbling in each other's affairs (The Vatican making political statements, and governments observing religious traditions), in recent memory there has not been a real merging of the two...until now.

The Conservatives want to help Coptic Christians in Egypt, but will they defend with the same vigour Tibetans in China? Muslim sects persecuted by other Muslim sects? And what about the Morman sect in British Columbia that believes in polygamy? Will the Conservatives fight for their rights? Where is the line? What constitutes a religion? Will they recognize the Falun Gong?

This issue is politically polarizing and obviously catering to their Christian core support. This office will more likely support lifting Christian persecution only, instead of all religions (unless it garners votes from a particular religious group). And how is the publicly funded centre hope to achieve their objectives? Do they really think they will be able to influence foreign governments through this office?

No. This is first and foremost a vote grab for religious voters. Second, it's a vote grab for particular religious groups that feel persecuted (such as Coptic Christians in Egypt). And although promoting religious freedoms around the world may be a good idea, it is not something that should be part of an election promise, especially when public funds are being committed to it.

Rising gas prices now an election issue?

It appears the party leaders are fielding more questions regarding rising gas prices (with the exception of Mr. Harper of course, who only receives scripted questions). People are mad about rising costs, without any readily apparent reason other than because of oil speculators (similar to what happened prior to the recession). Canadian voters are asking politicians what they will do to fix it.

Politicians, being what they are, say they will have inquiries to get to the bottom of this to see if there is collusion, appoint an ombudsman to hear public complaints, and various other touchy-feely band-aid promises. The reality is there was a commission a few years ago to determine collusion, none was found. And none of these answers actually fix the problem.

Gas prices, like pretty much everything else, are typically driven by supply and demand. But huge investment firms and hedge funds like Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan and the like (not that I have investigated whether these particular firms actually engage in this) invest in crude oil futures quite vigorously, which drives up the crude oil spot price. The fact that Canada is a net oil exporter would make you think that Canadians wouldn't feel the pain at the pumps. Another factor that has been cited is that refining capacity in Canada has dropped over the years, which means Canada has to import its gas.

Now, back to the problem of high gas prices as it relates to election promises. The biggest mistake made with respect to this issue is when Petro-Canada, which was a crown corporation, was sold to private investors. This meant that the Canadian government had no proxy in the free market to ensure sufficient competition in the marketplace. Since buying Petro-Canada back would be an expensive proposition (in the tens of billions of dollars), beyond the fact that it could be political suicide for any party that puts it in its platform during an election (because of the cost), I believe the government does have an opportunity to play an active part. The government should direct the Canada Pension Plan, which already has billions of dollars in the open market, to buy a majority of shares (51% or more) of Petro-Canada.

With the CPP having a controlling interest in Petro-Canada, they can install their slate of candidates on the Board of Directors, as well as recommending their picks for senior management. In doing so, they can pursue the following strategy:

1. Ensuring Petro-Canada has a complete supply chain under their control, i.e. from well head to the pumps. That means not only drilling and having gas stations, but having a significant transportation and refining capacity.



2. Because it is a for-profit organization, having a policy of cost plus reasonable profit pricing strategy ensures shareholders (including the CPP) are taken care of.



3. Buying up more shares over time to ensure the CPP maintains its majority stake.

By following this strategy, the government now uses the CPP as its proxy to maintain controls on gas prices within a free market economy, through the use of competition. Other oil companies will be forced to match gas prices at Petro-Canada pumps, thus reducing the possibility of gouging and influence of oil speculators. No need to form commissions, which find no evidence of collusion (and wastes a few million dollars doing so), or hire ombudsmen, or otherwise increase the size and cost of government.

What can the average Canadian voter who is worried about the gas price do now? Remember this: gas prices are affected by supply and demand, use less gas, demand goes down. Demand goes down, supply increases. Supply increases, prices come down. How do you do this?

Boycotting a particular gas company and buying your gas elsewhere doesn't fix the problem, because you're shifting the same demand to fewer gas chains. This reduces competition, which makes matters worse. You need to reduce your consumption! How can you do this? Here are a few ideas:

1. Instead of buying a gas guzzling SUV, buy something that's easier on gas. Of course if you only have one vehicle, you want to buy one that suits your needs. But you don't necessarily need a huge vehicle to accommodate the occasional time you load up with materials from Home Depot. You can always rent a van or trailer. You want a vehicle that meets more than 75% of your needs. Not necessarily 100%.



2. When buying a vehicle, look for vehicles with fewer cylinders. The more cylinders, plus the higher the engine displacement, the more fuel you go through. Compare that to hybrids. Typically, hybrids are more expensive to purchase so going with a smaller engine will be less costly and have a competitive fuel economy.



3. If you decide you need two vehicles and you absolutely need an SUV or minivan, your second vehicle should be one that has the best fuel economy that you can get in the class you need. Typically it just needs to get you to work, so you don't need a large interior, therefore a sub-compact will do. Keep the SUV in the driveway when you don't need the capacity.



4. If you're fortunate enough that you don't need the regular use of a car, rent one when you actually need one. Using the services of companies such as Zipcar, where available, make this very convenient. But where Zipcar is not available, the prudent use of traditional rental car companies (they're everywhere) may do the trick.



5. Buy foods that are produced locally, as much as possible. This encourages local producers which reduces transportation requirements, thus the need for gas and diesel used in transportation systems. When it comes to fresh produce, you need to take advantage of seasonable supply of the various offerings. Try to stay away from foods shipped in from other countries, especially from overseas.

Canadians are looking to the government to fix the problem. Maybe they want to hear that the government will reduce their taxes at the pump. This is a big mistake, because it will quickly get absorbed by the gas companies and Canadians will be back to square one, and governments will have less revenue to deliver programs that Canadians want. Government has a role to play, but not the way politicians are dancing around it. The CPP is the best immediate option to deliver what Canadians want: Reasonable gas prices.

DOH! Moment: Liberals' "Career Politicians" talking point

The Liberals have come out and described Mr. Harper and Mr. Layton as "career politicians" in one of their latest attack ads. Is this wise?

The Liberals' strategy has been to shy away from promoting Mr. Ignatieff as the great leader (unlike what the Conservatives have done for Mr. Harper - even going as far as to rebranding the government and calling it the "Harper Government" - and what the NDP have done for Mr. Layton). Instead, Mr. Ignatieff has focused on his "team". I have news for you Iggy, some of your caucus members are career politicians, including your school mate, Mr. Rae.

This is not an effective attack and it should be dumped. Obviously, the Liberals are trying to fight back the NDP surge and making their ad buy effective by lumping Mr. Harper and Mr. Layton in the same attack. If you really wanted to do that, you might have focused on their idealogical platform extremes, i.e. right vs. left. The message would be that Liberals represent the moderate, middle-of-the-road political stance that will resonate with most Canadian families and business.

Will a Conservative majority make abortions illegal?

Women's health groups in Canada have come out and said that Mr. Harper and his Conservatives will open up the abortion debate and make abortions illegal if they get a majority government. Mr. Harper has come out to categorically deny this and has said that if legislation comes up for a vote, that his government will vote against a law that bans abortions. I say poppycock!

Abortion is a key plank in the religious right vote, which is the Conservative base. Even though the government may not introduce legislation, a Conservative backbencher might (the same thing that happened when a bill was introduced to strike down the long gun registry - another Conservative support plank). Mr. Harper claiming that his government would vote against it means he will have to "whip" the vote, i.e. force his caucus to vote a certain way. I've heard it said that two thirds of his caucus supports making abortions illegal. If they are forced to vote against this legislation, these MPs will have to go back to their constiuents, who will no doubt be angry with them, which would mean a reduction in support for the Conservatives. If Mr. Harper allows a free vote, he's going to have to cross his fingers that enough of his caucus and the members of the Opposition will be sufficient to defeat this legislation. That would be walking a knife's edge, depending on the number of seats the Conservatives hold.

I'm doubtful that Mr. Harper would sacrifice support for his party in order to keep abortions legal, given his own religious beliefs, as well as the support he enjoys from the religious right. It means ensuring none of his backbenchers introduce a bill. I find it hard to believe Mr. Harper will be able to control some of his more militant caucus members if the Conservatives have a majority government.

DND no longer backing Conservatives on F-35 purchase

OH NO! Looks like Mr. Harper is going to have to eat his words. He said that the life cycle cost of the F-35 program for Canada would be $16 billion over 20 years, i.e. $9 billion for acquisition and $7 billion for service contracts ($350M per year). Today, the Canadian Department of National Defence (DND) came out and said that those estimates are now low but they are waiting for details from the Pentagon to asses the impact. A former Candian Defence official indicates that he currently estimates the cost of a Canadian service contract (not including procurement) at $24B over 30 years ($800M per year) based on figures from the Pentagon, an increase of more than twice the previous amount estimated by DND.

This supports Opposition assertions that the replacement of the CF-18s should go to tender and a competition held. This will ensure that Canada gets the best bang for the buck, with a guarantee of industrial offsets (see my previous post on Apr 8, 2011). If Mr. Harper and his Conservatives get a majority in this election, you can kiss the promises he's made to be implemented when the books are balanced (you know, the ones he's promised families) a big sweet goodbye!

Leader's Debate: Mr. Ignatieff's point the most important for Canadian voters?

Did one of the leaders deliver a knock-out punch in last night's debate? I agree with others that there were no knock-out blows, but each of the opposition leaders had their rabbit punches.

Mr. Harper remained calm (but always speaking directly to the camera creeped a lot of people out), despite having a reputation of blowing up behind closed doors, although he did engage in some significant obfuscation and misdirection (saying that there were no upcoming corporate tax cuts, even though it's in the government's latest budget, is one that comes to mind). Mr. Layton seemed the most relaxed and came up with a couple of good zingers ("...criminals in the Senate" was probably the best one). Mr. Duceppe seemed to have a little difficulty debating in English, but came up with some good attacks (bringing up the 2004 coalition accord that Mr. Harper initiated and signed, as well as pointing out that he promises that his government won't open up the abortion law among others, but may use someone in his caucus to raise a private member's bill like he did with the gun registry, were the most memorable).

However, I think the most poignant moment for all Canadian voters, the one that everyone needs to consider, is the point made by Mr. Ignatieff. Although not a knockout blow, it is one that the media hasn't really held up as important for voters. Mr. Harper went on about one of his main talking points (and plea to Canadian voters) that they're "asking Canadians for a clear majority so we can get on with the nation's business..." Mr. Ignatieff retorted with, "You haven't earned a majority. Majorities are things you earn when you earn the trust of the Canadian people. And you haven't earned the trust of the Canadian people because you don't trust the Canadian people." Mr. Ignatieff also said, "You don't deserve a majority because you don't respect our democratic institutions." How telling is that? The polls consistently show that among committed voters, the Conservative numbers have remained flat, and have so for the past several years. I think that this shows that Canadian voters are not ready for a Conservative majority and certainly not one with Mr. Harper at the helm. Could the Conservatives be deliberately engaging in obfuscation and misdirection to so thoroughly turn voters off the election process that minority Conservative support turns into a Conservative majority parliament because so many people that will not vote Conservative just stay home on election day? It certainly appeared that way in the 2008 election. It was the lowest voter turnout in Canadian history, yet the Conservatives failed to form a majority government.

Are the Conservatives aiming for new lows in voter turnout so that they do have a shot at a majority? Election Day will tell the tale, unfortunately hindsight will be 20/20. Whatever your political stripe, get out and vote. Don't let this election be a Sienfeld-esque "election about nothing." Make it about who you want to lead Canada. Make it about what YOU want, not about what someone else wants, because you didn't bother voting. THAT is what democracy is about!

Should Canada buy the F-35?

An election issue that is being debated is the decision by the Conservative Government to purchase F-35 jet fighters as replacements for the CF-18's.

The Conservatives argue it's the best plane available in the time frame that Canada needs a replacement and is coming in at a good price. The Liberals are criticizing the Conservatives because they want to enter into an untendered contract (i.e. no competitive process) and that they are purposely low-balling the cost estimates (not to mention there is no requirement for industrial offsets - something that is very common in these types of contracts, regardless of which country is buying the equipment). Many sources (including the Parliamentary Budget Officer - Kevin Page) are coming out and saying that the actual costs are going to be significantly higher (see my other post about the PBO posted on March 18, 2011). Before you take sides, consider this: if you're going to undergo a major renovation on your house, are you going take a quote from one company, or are you going to ask for at least three or four quotes? Mike Holmes would say you get a few quotes before you decide and Mike is never wrong!

The process that picked the F-35 is flawed. The debate should not revolve around whether the F-35 is the best plane, since this is a simplistic argument. What is the definition of 'best'? Of course if you ask the military what they want, they'll want the 'best' and shiniest piece of hardware they can find, not unlike a child that wants an expensive toy. The reality is that there are competing forces on taxpayers' money, not to mention that the top 5% in system performance usually accounts for a significantly disproportionate amount of the unit cost. The way this process is supposed to work is that the Government makes defence policy (when is the last time the Canadian Government issued a white paper on defence?). Defence planning is developed from this policy and consequently, manpower is allocated and equipment procured. Getting back to the purchase of the F-35's, a statement of requirement should be developed based on the government's defence policy (and not written to a particular platform, which is sometimes engaged in these types of contracts). A request for proposals should be sent to potential suppliers to see what's available to meet the requirements. If there are insufficient candidates because the requirements are too stringent, then the statement of requirements can be revised to list what are must-haves and which requirements can be less stringent (with alternative benefits) to include more suppliers. After an initial vetting process, shortlisting to three contenders allows the government to wrangle some significant concessions out of the suppliers during final negotiations. In the end, maybe Canada will choose the F-35, but it will ensure it got it at a competitive price and with industrial offsets. Something that was done during the purchase of the CF-18s but is not guaranteed at this point of the new fighter aircraft purchase. Makes sense doesn't it?

So even if the Conservatives form the next government, there's still an opportunity for Canadian voters to make it known to their elected representatives that Canada needs a competition to choose it's next front line fighter aircraft. But it doesn't hurt if voters make their thoughts known to their candidates during the election, because candidates are seeking your vote and they're more likely to listen! P.S. Remember my "PMO watches the movie Wag the Dog" post (March 22, 2011)? I heard in the media recently that one of the reason's that a Canadian general is leading the NATO task force is that the CF-18's have old technology that "can't communicate" with American forces so this was an opportunity for Canada to make a significant contribution (or words to that effect). I find this hard to believe. There are NATO standards that every NATO member must meet. Communication is certainly one of them. I think this was a little tidbit sent out into the ether to support the purchase of the F-35's. I'm just sayin'...

Should Elizabeth May be in the televised leaders' debate?

Should Elizabeth May, Leader of the Green Party, be allowed to debate with the other party leaders in the televised debates next week? The simple answer is YES. My reasoning for this is simple. The broadcast consortium running the debate say that since the Green Party doesn't have a seat in Parliament, the leader isn't allowed in. It has been argued that the reason they don't have a seat is because of the "first past the post" electoral system used in Canada. If seats were allocated by the popular vote, that the Green Party would most definitely have some sitting MP's. However, I think that the argument that the number of votes they received in last election qualifies the Green Party to receive the full per vote subsidy is a good reason, and that they deserve to be heard as a legitimate voice in political discussions in Canada, since they receive significant public funding. But, to make sure we don't have too many voices, regardless of whether a party receives any per vote subsidy, in the interest of having a civilized debate, it should be limited to party leaders that earned at least 5% of the popular vote across Canada (the Green Party had 6.8%). This ensures a plurality of voices to be heard without muddling the discussion too much. I also think that the debate format used in 2008 (when Ms. May was included) was not a very good one. This needs to be revised. One suggestion I have is to dedicate a significant block of time for a debate strictly between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition has an official status in the Canadian Parliamentary system and therefore should have special status in a debate so that the Opposition Leader has the opportunity to debate issues directly with the Prime Minister without the other leaders interjecting and creating a lot of noise. Typically, it's the parties of the Government or the Official Opposition that are voted into the next government and voters need to see how the leaders of each of the parties stack up. Finally, it has been suggested that decisions regarding the debates be taken away from the broadcasters and an independent body be used to manage the debates (as it is in the United States). I applaud this. Broadcasters are too close to this issue. They need to be at arms length. The independent body could negotiate terms with the broadcasters and the broadcasters would have to televise the debates as part of their licence requirements. Someone suggested that the people running the Munk debates could take this on, and unless someone has a better idea, this appears to be a sound idea. Canadian voters need a plurality viewpoints so that they can decide who to entrust their democracy to!

DOH! Moment: Conservatives announce Children's Arts Tax Credit

Mr. Harper and his Conservatives announcing a Children's Arts Tax Credit (allowing a credit of $500 per child per year to attend arts and cultural activities) as one of their campaign promises made me fall off my chair! This is the same man who a few years ago wanted to cut off arts funding because their "elite" members were overpaid, when in fact many artists barely make a living wage in Canada. How do Mr. Harper and the Conservatives reconcile funding for children to attend arts activities, getting them interested in this area, only to cut them off if they decide to make the arts their career when they reach adulthood? Oh wait, I almost forgot. It's election time and the CONservatives are promising little nuggets to anyone that will give them a vote. It's not about principle, or good public policy, it's about getting a/any vote! The policies of Mr. Harper and his Conservatives never cease to confound and amuse me.

Globe and Mail proves corporate tax cuts do not equal jobs

Here's an article from The Globe and Mail's Karen Howlett that supports the idea that corporate tax cuts do not necessarily equate to more jobs. Instead, The Globe and Mail's analysis shows that over the past several years as successive corporate tax cuts have been implemented, corporations have been hoarding their new found cash, instead of creating new jobs. There is nothing wrong with keeping corporate tax rates competitive with other industrialized countries. This puts Canada on the map when it comes to international corporations considering investment in the country. However, corporate tax rates alone will not be a factor. As I stated before, productivity needs to be a consideration. Administrative costs (such as payroll taxes, and the work required to fill out forms and reports), benefits to employees (such as health care), livability for a company's transplanted workers, etc. are just some of what corporations will also look at. This means that Canada doesn't necessarily need to strive for the lowest corporate tax rate. There has to be a balance. And if provinces want corporations to locate and grow in their jurisdictions, they have to do their part too, which is what the Province of Ontario just did by announcing the reduction of the provincial portion of the corporate tax rate. Getting back to the other factors that attract corporations, such as health care, there needs to be a balance between reducing the corporate tax rate and paying for social programs. The Liberals announced this tact in their election platform by balancing the corporate tax rate with the need to institute new spending that considers the needs of Canadians. I've been arguing that corporate tax cuts should not be instituted and instead, the money should go to social programs, but I don't know if raising the federal tax rate back to 18% (versus the current 16.5%) is necessarily a good thing, coming out of a recession. I believe that the demand for Canadian resources will create a greater growth rate than is projected, which will pay for the new social programs announced by the Liberals. However, it's difficult to predict this with any certainty. Unfortunately, foresight isn't as accurate as hindsight. The bottom line is that the Conservative message of killing the federal corporate tax rate cut, i.e. from 16.5% to 15%, is going to kill jobs is a bunch of unfounded fear mongering as the CONservatives grasp at anything and everything to hold onto their tenuous power.

Worst campaign promise this election!

Mr. Harper has issued the Conservative's first campaign promise of this election. To provide families with young children the ability to use income splitting to reduce their tax burden. BUT, you have to wait until the budget is balanced, which is expected to happen in four or five years from now. This is the worst campaign promise this election, which is saying a lot, because the election is only a few days old! Many voters don't trust politicians as it is, do the Conservatives really believe voters should trust the Conservatives now? This is above and beyond the criticism that's emerging on this policy. That it will not apply to all families with young children, but rather families with a single income earner making over $100k (yet the average income earner in Canada is about $46k). That it will encourage one parent to stay at home, even after the kids are old enough to go to school. This is Social Conservatism. The idea that a family is made up of two parents (let's call it for what the Conservatives think that is and that the two parents are a man and a woman), where the woman stays home and the man brings home the bacon, and that bacon has to be substantial! And what happens if one parent does stay home until all their children are out of the house? After all the years this person has been out of the workforce, what skills and experience will they have to rejoin the workforce, if that's what they wish, or need to do? Will we see elderly people manning the majority of positions in fast food outlets, instead of high school students getting their first job experience? If the Conservatives really wanted to help families, then it should be across the board. Eliminate tax on anyone making a wage below the poverty line. Reduce the tax on the lowest income tax brackets (Mr. Martin and the Liberals tried to do this when they were in government, before they were defeated by Mr. Harper's Conservatives, who rolled that back). This helps everyone, regardless of income level, regardless of whether they have children, regardless of whether they are head of a single parent household. It never ceases to amaze me that Mr. Harper, a trained economist, is making public policy that makes little sense from a economic standpoint. The biggest gaffe was reducing the GST. It was a good sound bite for the 2006 election. People certainly hated that tax, but the consequence was to reduce revenue for the government which put the country into a much larger deficit situation now, than Canada would have been had that not been done. A better policy would have been to reduce personal income tax so that Canadian voters could choose to do what they wanted with their money, whether it was to save for their children's education, save for retirement, or spend it on an expensive pair of sneakers. Instead, the Conservatives are rolling out high sounded policies that target specific demographics and even then, it becomes more narrowly defined when you get into the details. It makes me wonder if Mr. Harper would get a failing grade from his economic professors. The Conservative Government gloats that Canada is in the best economic situation in the world, but just imagine where the deficit would be if the Conservatives actually made good economic policy, rather than imposing their narrowly defined Social Conservatism and vote grabbing public policy. Voters need to ask the hard questions of the Conservatives now, because outside of an election campaign, the Conservatives keep tight control over the media regarding their message.

"I think I can" Liberals?

I'm going to go out on a limb right now, on the first day of the election and say that the Liberals will form the next Canadian government. It will likely be a minority government, but a small chance at a majority. Forget about any coalition talk. That kind of talk doesn't matter until after the election. I know what you're thinking, that I'm crazy. The polls have been strongly in favour of the Conservatives for some time now, and even flirting with majority territory. But this is why I think the winds will change:

1. The polls have been looking less favourable towards the Conservatives, given their latest antics of being found in contempt of Parliament, and their lacklustre budget.


2. An election will give the opportunity for Mr. Ignatieff a voice to write is own narrative, instead of the Conservatives writing it for him.


3. I wonder if the constant attack ads from the Conservatives will have run their course, because Canadian voters will be tired of them and in fact there may be a backlash against them.


4. It has been said often that you can't form a majority without winning Quebec or Ontario. The Conservatives are done in Quebec. Mr. Duceppe will build a sufficient narrative for people not to vote Conservative, but even if they don't vote Bloc, they'll vote Liberal or NDP. I think the Liberals will make some inroads here and potentially grab some seats from the Bloc. In the last election, I think that many Quebec voters parked their vote in the Bloc, because voting Liberal was distasteful (despite the Liberals having someone from Quebec leading the party). They will go back to the Liberal camp.


5. Ontario will be a big battleground, especially in the GTA. The question will be whether the Liberals will hang on to what they have and potentially grab a few seats. There may be a few exchanges, with the Conservatives taking immigrant votes (the traditional power base of the Liberals), but I think the net result will be in favour of the Liberals.


6. The Conservatives started out at the centre-right of the political spectrum when they won their first minority in 2006, but have been slowly moving further and further to the right. They've been able to use this to attract some immigrant voters, but I think it's beginning to lose traction with the middle of the road voters. The Liberals' centre-left stance, with emphasis on families and elder care in their current platform, will resonate with the public.


7. The caveat to the above point is that voters will see that the Conservatives were throwing peanuts at families and the elderly in their latest budget. Unfortunately, the Conservative climate over the past few years will have people throwing up their arms and saying it was better than nothing and possibly voting for the Conservatives with the notion of the devil you know.


8. B.C. voters are still smarting from the HST implementation, even with the cheques they received in the mail, courtesy of the federal Conservative Government. B.C. voters may not vote Liberal, but going to NDP, and possibly Green Party in one or two ridings, will reduce the Conservative caucus.


9. Canadian voters are not happy about going to the polls for a fourth time in seven years. They will be looking to vote in a majority government. Voting in the Conservatives for a majority will be sufficiently distasteful for enough Canadians that the Conservatives will fall short, so swing voters will vote for the Liberals.


10. From their recent appearances in the media, the Conservatives seem to be running scared. They're trying to go on the attack by raising the "coalition" boogeyman, but I see them going on the defensive during the campaign. Defense of their budget will not amount to much, especially if the Opposition can sell items like the Corporate Tax cut as something Canada can't afford at this time.


11. The Conservatives will have more difficulty controlling the media because they will need them to get their message out. Therefore, Mr. Harper will have to answer questions, rather than turning away and leaving (like he did after the post non-confidence vote statement he made yesterday). The Conservative handlers will also have more difficulty in picking and choosing which media outlets are picked to ask Mr. Harper questions. If they stick with their close control of the media, as they have been for the past several years, the media will turn against Mr. Harper and show the Conservatives as the party with something to hide.


12. But most importantly, in the last election, there was the lowest voter turnout in Canadian history. Many believe it was because Liberal voters stayed home since they couldn't support Stephane Dion as the Liberal leader. I believe that these voters will feel that they can come out and vote for the Liberals with Mr. Ignatieff at the helm. The Liberals have to focus on getting Liberal voters to the polls.

On May 3, you'll see me gloat, or eat my words!

Coalition, shmoalition

You know what I'm sick of already about the election that's going to start tomorrow? How reporters keep asking Mr. Ignatieff whether he is going to form a coalition government. He says he and his Liberals are in it to win it. Just like Mr. Layton and his NDP are looking to do the same. Reporters can't seem to fathom the idea that political parties don't go into an election with the idea of forming a coalition, whether that's in Canada, or any other country that does end up with a coalition government. The reality is, when the vote is in, and a single party cannot form a majority to move through the policies that they were voted in on, that two or more parties can get together and agree how they are going to form and run a government. It's not the first time it's happened in Canada, and it won't be the last. So, is there a hidden agenda? Of course not. It all depends on whether two or more parties need to get together to run the country. Reporters seem to buy into the notion that a coalition government is bad thing, not remembering that in 2004, Mr. Harper proposed a coalition with the Bloc Quebecois and the NDP to bring down Mr. Martin's Liberal Government. That's right, you read it right, Mr. Harper wanted to form a "coalition with the socialists and separatists" to bring down the government of the day. If it wasn't a coup d'etat when Mr. Harper tried to do it when he was in opposition, it isn't one when he's in power. Instead of taking up air time asking about coalitions during this campaign, how about we focus on other matters. There will certainly be time to talk about coalitions, if necessary, after the election. Let's not get into sensationalistic reporting. Do reporters really think they'll have some kind of big scoop by getting Mr. Ignatieff to admit that he would form a coalition after the election if he doesn't win a majority? I marvel at the so called "objectivity" of the press. It appears that five years of Conservative rule is driving Canadian media attention.

Unnecessary election? For whom?

Mr. Harper and his Conservative cronies have shamelessly used the term "unnecessary election" to describe the current political environment in Canada. Unnecessary for whom?

Pundits are citing the fact that Canadians will 'endure' their fourth federal election in seven years if the Conservative Government falls tomorrow. Well, it would have been one less if Mr. Harper didn't trigger the 2008 "unnecessary election". And make no mistake, the Conservatives are triggering this election too (see my previous post "Don't be fooled..."). The Conservatives are citing events in the Middle East and Japan as reasons for not having an election. MAHUH?!?!?! When in the last four decades have there NOT been significant events in the Middle East? When have there NOT been economic events like the one being caused by the Japan tragedy? Heck, the last election occurred on Oct 14, 2008. By that time, it was widely expected that the Canadian (and most of the rest of the world) economy would go into what turned out to be the greatest recession since the 1930's Great Depression.

The Conservatives keep saying Canadian voters don't want an election and it makes me wonder, are the Conservatives deliberately using this as a strategy to stay in power? Are they forcing elections every couple of years and then blaming it on the opposition parties so that voters (who seem to be tired of going to the polls so often) will either vote against the opposition, or even just stay at home so that the minority of Canadians that are hard core Conservatives have a better chance of voting the Conservatives to a majority?

Think about that and let it sink in for a few minutes....

Democracy is never unnecessary. If politicians can't play nice on Parliament Hill, then maybe it's time to switch it up a little. A political party facing scandal after scandal? Maybe it's time to change leaders, like what happened to the Liberal Party.

There is no such thing as an "unnecessary election", except when it is "opportunistic", like the one that the Conservatives forced in 2008, when they tried to shoot for a majority. The only reason this coming election can be accused of being "opportunistic" is that it gives the opposition parties to agree on a principle to cause the plurality of their votes to cause the Conservative Government to fall in their "coalition" to topple an overbearing ruler.

By the way, the Conservatives going on about how they want to focus on the economy reminds me of Bill Clinton's campaign for presidency when the campaign motto was "It's the economy, stupid." Another lesson the Conservatives are taking from the American political playbook.

To vote, or not to vote

When polled, Canadians say they do not want an election. Unless someone can prove different, I would argue that Canadians never want an election, as long as they have their job and they don't receive huge tax increases. The public sees some tax increases as good, as long as the government can spin it so that the increases support health and/or education. But increase the cost of driving a car or taking significantly more out of the public's pay cheque (as opposed to increasing payroll taxes by a little bit here and there), then watch out!

Canadian voters need to get their heads out of their asses! There...I said it.... The media is plastered with images of a democracy movement happening in North Africa and the Middle East, fighting for a right that Canadians take for granted. A huge turnout of Afghanistan voters happened during their last election, despite long line ups lasting hours, and the death threats issued by Al Qaeda. Yet, Canadians grumble about spending a few hours learning about the issues, then stopping on their way home from work to vote. If you really need to watch Oprah that day, how about setting up the PVR to record it?

The Canadian election in 2008 had the lowest voter turnout ever. Was it apathy? The issues weren't compelling (this was before the recession hit)? Liberal supporters staying home because they didn't want to vote for a Stephane Dion led party? Who knows. But this is your chance.

Get your ass off the couch and spend a few minutes getting engaged. Talk to the candidates that come to the door. Ask them about the issues that matter to you. Read their literature. Go to their websites when you're surfing the Net. Watch the leader's debate. At the very least, get out and vote. If you can't decide whether there is candidate in your riding that suits you, then vote for the candidate that represents the party that best aligns with your values.

Voting shows the political parties that you're engaged in the political process and you want a say in government. Not voting gives more power to special interest groups and may benefit a party you didn't want to govern. Not voting also doesn't give you the right to complain.

Stop doing the Canadian thing by whining and get out and vote!

Bon Coalition/Bad Coalition?

Mr. Harper and company have been calling it the Opposition Coalition ever since a year and a half ago when the Liberals, NDP and Bloc Quebecois formerly joined forces to defeat the Conservatives. Mr. Harper promptly prorogued Parliament, which caused the downfall of Stephane Dion as Liberal leader, and saw the rise of Mr. Ignatieff as the new Liberal leader. It seems the Conservatives have taken great delight in using that term whenever the other parties would raise points against the Conservatives that were difficult to defend against. As if a "coalition" was an evil and undemocratic thing to do.

Yet, as the Canadian Forces have committed six CF-18's to the fight in Libya, Mr. McKay (Defence Minister) has taken great delight in declaring that Canada is part of the "Coalition" of allies protecting Libyan civilians (and more likely to topple Gaddafi).

So is being part of a coalition good or bad?

The Oxford Dictionary defines coalition as:
1. Union, fusion.
2. (Political) Temporary combination of parties that retain distinctive principles.

Nothing evil about the definition, except of course if it threatens your hold on power. The United Kingdom is currently enjoying a coalition government, and this is the country that developed the government system that Canadians use. The British accept that a coalition represents a majority of the people that voted in the last election, just as if a coalition government in Canada had assumed power. There is nothing in the Canadian constitution or Parliamentary rules that I'm aware of that would prevent this. But the Conservatives would have you believe that it amounted to a coup d'etat.

But wait a second. The Canadian Government sent fighters to participate in the "Coalition" against Gaddafi forces. So, here it's a good thing (unless you're on the side of Gaddafi, who is in power at least in parts of Libya). Apparently, coalitions are only bad when you're the leader that the coalition is after.

Yet again, the Conservative Government turns something that at one time was black and white into something that is now shades of grey, to suit their own purposes. I'm tired of their antics and I can only hope that they are forced out of office by Canadian voters in the upcoming election. But I fear the memories of voters are short and self-serving.

As a side note, I want to state categorically that I do not support Gaddafi in any way shape or form. He is a despotic dictator who, true to form of any dictator, exploits his citizens. He should be deposed, but I could imagine the way events would unfold, that there would be significant issues to overcome (history repeats itself, yet again). Only a few Western countries have supported the UN resolution on Libya (Germany is opting out, and there is very little support for NATO taking over, which would like cause Italy to pull out of supporting the action by no longer allowing the use of their bases), and the coalition actions are now causing Arab groups to call the coalition "crusaders" and "colonialists", as the Arab League gets cold feet in their initial support for this action. The more things change...

Don't be fooled, the Conservative Government is forcing the election!

The Conservative Government would have you believe that the Opposition parties are forcing an election because they have stated they will not be supporting the budget. But I will show you that it is the Conservatives who have presented a budget that is a Conservative-induced election.

Before I get into the budget details, let us consider the Conservative tactics over the past couple of months. First, the ever present attack ads. Because an election hasn't been called, they are free to spend as much as they like on attack ads, and spend they have! The fact that they are making personal attacks, rather than on the policies of the Opposition, makes these go even further below the usual mud-slinging (you can thank Conservative strategists for taking lessons from American politics). Let us also consider the $26M the government is spending on promoting the Economic Action Plan. An unprecedented amount, even for a large corporation such as P&G promoting consumer products. Why are they doing this? The program is winding down (projects will have to be finished by the end of the year), and no new money will be allocated. It has been reported (and I have to agree) that this is a way for the Conservative Government to promote themselves, without having to dip into their party's war chest.

Now for the budget. The Conservative Government has said they have provided what the Opposition, and in particular, what the NDP had wanted. Mr. Layton has stated that the budget provides peanuts compared to what they were after and that they couldn't support the budget. Obviously, Jack isn't that cheap. So let's look at some of what the Conservatives are offering and why they're offering each item:

1. Forgiving a portion of student loans for doctors and nurses located in rural areas. This is in direct support of Conservative roots, and an attack on an rural NDP ridings. Rather than increasing the number of doctors, it merely relocates them from urban areas, likely on a temporary basis until their loans are paid. It doesn't stop them from relocating back to urban areas, and will create more difficulty in urban areas as doctors and nurses relocate until they meet the terms of this budget line item. Think about the TV series Northern Exposure.

2. Tax credit for volunteer fire fighters. Volunteer fire fighters are typically located in rural areas, so again, support for their rural base and an attack on NDP rural ridings.

3. Funding an all-season road link between Inuvik and Tuktoyaktuk. This is currently an NDP held riding and the Conservatives lost by 523 votes (only 3.8% of total votes cast). Obviously a riding the Conservatives are targeting to win.

4. Providing money to gun owners so that they don't have to pay anything for their gun registration renewal fees. The Conservative government couldn't kill the gun registry, so why not give money to their support base so they're not out of pocket?

5. Providing funds for closer ties to doing business with India. Increasing trade with other countries is not a bad thing, but given the gaffe from Jason Kenny's (Immigration Minister) office regarding releasing the Conservation plan to attract the immigrant vote, the cynic in me says they're trying to buy the South Asian vote in urban and suburban areas in order to grab a few seats.

6. Eliminating mandatory retirement. Again, not a bad thing, since it is discriminatory. But again, cynically speaking, it's a cop out in not providing better retirement benefits for the Boomer generation. This, combined with a modest increase in payments for seniors with the lowest income (Guaranteed Income Supplement), means they might get a few grey power votes. They missed the mark by not committing to pension reform.

7. Providing $4M to build a cyclotron in Thunder Bay to produce medical isotopes. A riding currently held by the NDP. The Conservatives were in a distant third place in both ridings in this area during the last election, so it looks like a Hail Mary pass to me. Maybe they think they have star candidates lined up that have a chance. Especially considering their other budget measures would be attractive for voters in this area.

8. Providing $50M over five years to the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics located in Waterloo, ON. This riding is held by a Conservative, but he won by only 17 votes! This riding will be hotly contested in the next election.

I think I could find other examples, but I believe I've proven my point, the Conservatives WANT THIS ELECTION! They are going after a majority by targeting specific ridings they intend to snatch from the Opposition parties. Are they using the events in Japan and Libya to overshadow ethical lapses and other scandals? The media will be distracted. A dissolution of parliament means no more committees to dredge up more wrongdoings. I've heard it said by one pundit that events that distract from elections, favour the sitting government. I believe the Conservatives are taking this to heart and going after the brass ring. The question that won't be answered until after the election is, will they snatch it?

PMO watches the movie "Wag the Dog"?

I fear that the Conservative Government is employing "Wag the Dog" tactics, i.e. if you want to change the channel, wage a war.

The Conservative Government has sent six CF-18s to help enforce the UN sanctioned Libya no-fly zone. Mr. Harper seemed to support this very quickly. In addition, it has been reported that the Canadian Special Forces (JTF II) was also sent. Although the government doesn't comment on JTF II operational matters, they won't confirm what they will do, if in fact they are there. Presumably, if any Canadian nationals that wanted to get out, but couldn't, required rescuing, JTF II would be there. But it also raises the spectre of this group also engaging Gaddafi forces outside of that mandate, if required. They were reportedly employed in Afghanistan operations.

The Conservative Government have committed to daily briefings on operations conducted, which have the potential to crowd out Conservative scandals and a spring election from the news cycle. Especially, if a Canadian pilot or soldier is killed or captured during operations.

Another possible scenario is that if a CF-18 is shot down, or crashes, during operations, that the Conservatives would use this to justify the spending of $16B (or $22B for 20 years/$30b for 30 years, if you listen to Kevin Page, the Parliamentary Budget Officer) on purchasing the F35 fighter.

Excuse my cynicism, but the Conservative Government (as well as lot of the politicos on Parliament Hill) antics over the past couple of years have brought me to this.

Kevin Page, PBO (Punish Bullshitters Outright)

The Conservative Government (also known as the "Harper Government") is on another campaign to discredit the numbers published by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Kevin Page. Now, the Conservative Government is getting the Department of National Defence to do their dirty work. This keeps going on and on. The Conservatives always disagree with Mr. Page's numbers when the numbers go against the Conservatives, but almost in the same breath, say they are the ones that created the office.

If the Conservative Government wants Mr. Page to publish accurate numbers, maybe they should actually provide them to Mr. Page! Mr. Page has gone on record that when he was researching the numbers for the F35 program, nothing was provided by the government and that the Department of National Defence hadn't even made the calculations yet! Mr. Page went to the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), as well as governmental organizations from at least a couple of countries that are involved in the F35 program to collate the info and come up with his figures. Of course, there will be a difference in the bottom line figures, as the Conservatives will defend, but they would make you believe that they are the ones that are correct. The Conservative Government have been accused of using numbers provided by the F35 contractor, however Mr. Page is using numbers from not only different sources, but from countries that have gone through many of these types of procurement programs. Who would you believe, somebody that uses several sources, or the one who uses the numbers from the company that regardless of cost overruns, will get their money? I know who I would choose to believe.

It's become obvious that the Conservative Government thought they could create a toothless tiger by creating a Parliamentary Budget Office, on their "Accountability" and "Transparency" campaign, and then underfund and severely limit the info that they provided to this office. Thankfully, they didn't count on Mr. Page being so resourceful with what was available to him and sticking a thorn in the Conservative Government's side.

I would work for Mr. Page. Not because he's a thorn in the Conservative Government's side, but because he's shown himself to be the most resourceful and ethical guy working in the government on Parliament Hill. This guy deserves the Order of Canada! Someone call Rideau Hall!

Anti-nukes are a bunch of blow hards

The earthquake and tsunami that hit Japan so hard have now resulted in a crisis at one of their nuclear plants, resulting in some release of radiation to the environment and mass evacuations of the area. Despite this ongoing tragedy, which has yet to be resolved, some anti-nuclear activists have come out of the woodwork to use this tragedy to rally people to their cause. They say that now is the time to shut down all nuclear plants and go to green alternatives, such as wind and solar power.

I support the use of green alternatives where they make sense, but this technology is not a panacea, nor is it a one size fits all solution for the world's power needs. I did a little research and found out that a single unit nuclear reactor can create more or less 800 MW of power (I did not research all the current offerings from different countries, but let's use this as a typical example -- you can use other nuclear reactor numbers to compare with the other figures I provide). Typically, there are multiple reactors on a single site (assume 4), and the site will occupy approximately 2,000 acres in North America.

An equivalent wind farm in Texas (Roscoe Wind Farm) has the capacity to generate 780 MW, but of course, that depends on wind speed throughout the day and year. Even assuming that they get full generation throughout the year (which is unlikely), they would generate 7 TWhr of electricity in a year. About the same capacity as one nuclear reactor (remember we are considering 4 units on one nuclear site). Yet this particular wind farm occupies 100,000 acres, i.e. 50 times the area of a nuclear generator site, producing less than 1/4 of the power!

Having a look at solar, the Harper Lake California solar farm has an 80 MW capacity on 120 acres. To achieve the 800 MW capacity, it would have to occupy 10 times the space or 1,200 acres. However, they reported generating an average of 125 GWhr of electricity per year, which is an efficiency of just under 20% -- and this is in the desert! This is in part because the sun doesn't shine 24 hours a day in this location!

It's clear that from a land use perspective, nuclear power is the most efficient. Of course there are issues such as potential radiation leaks to the environment, what to do with the spent fuel rods, and what happens when the facility is at the end of its useful life. But there are also issues arising from these "green" sources. One current discussion is the effect of low frequency noise coming from wind turbines that are affecting the health of local residents. What about the high cost of solar panels (although prices are coming down)? Not to mention that wind and solar generation are not reliable sources of energy and are considered as visual "pollution" by many. Are you going to get a lot of wind during a hot and humid day to run air conditioners? Are you going to get enough solar power in the winter (not to mention at night) to run your furnaces? Environmentalists aren't talking about these issues. In fact, I recall a long time, well known environmentalist (his name escapes me, but I believe he's located in the UK), has come out and supported nuclear power as a "green" alternative until the next generation power source is developed. What does this tell you?

I think these anti-nuclear activists taking advantage of the situation in Japan are despicable, and unfortunately, the media is giving them a voice. I'm not against debate on the subject, but this should not be an either/or discussion. Nuclear power should be part of a larger energy plan, optimizing all of the available technologies. Where nuclear power is used, nuclear engineers need to use the occurrence in Japan to review and revise their risk assessments, and look at how they can make their facilities safer. Nuclear facilities have back-up power in the form of fuel generators and batteries to ensure the water pumps run in the event of a power outage. Could the addition of wind and solar power at these sites provide supplemental back up power if there was a catastrophic event such as what we've seen in Japan? Makes you wonder.

Iggy's first election gaffe?

Did Michael Ignatieff, Leader of the Liberal Party make his first political gaffe of this spring's election (the writ hasn't been dropped yet, but everyone is saying it's just a matter of which of the many issues will trigger it)? He promised to help fund a Quebec City arena that would attract an NHL franchise, if elected. He went further and said that he would do this across the country, which was a sticking point when previously debated. The Conservative Government had already nixed this idea previously and is now using the sound bite (or talking point, whichever you prefer) that this is subsidizing billionaires who hire millionaires (referring to team owners and professional players).

At first I agreed that the government should not subsidize professional sports teams, but then I reframed the issue. Obviously, the biggest beneficiary to having an arena operate is the community that it's in. It employs people, it draws in tourists who spend money in the local economy, and builds pride in that community. But typically, a local community can't afford to pick up the entire tab, and it's direct income streams (i.e. going into the municipal coffers) is limited. Thus, the province should step in. They benefit in many more ways, i.e. income tax from the people employed to build and run the operation, a portion of the HST (or the entire PST if the province doesn't have HST) in the materials used to build the arena, plus concession sales, and obviously tourism to the province. Ultimately, these two levels of government should fund the arena, but maybe the Federal level should provide some seed money to get things started.

The Federal Government receives benefits in the form of income taxes from the people that build and operate the arena, as well as GST or HST from the building and operation of the arena. So could we look at the Federal contribution limited strictly to calculating this value, over say 10-15 years, and providing funding limited to that amount and not one penny more? That any cost overruns to build the facility are not a Federal responsibility (it took forever for the Big O in Montreal to get paid off)? Surely the Parliamentary Budget Officer could crunch the numbers (he's been so good at it!)?

I would also argue that the ownership of the arena should remain in the local government's hands. It should not be sold to the private sector, as is done quite often, usually at a huge loss (see SkyDome in Toronto). This would generate an ongoing revenue stream (i.e. leasing and concession sales) to the municipality (other than property taxes and municipal services) that would allow them to recoup their investment, and hopefully, become profitable soon after.

I think this is doable, but it has to be well thought out. To recap, the Federal Government should help build sports arenas with the following provisos:

1. The Federal Government limits their contribution to the building of the arena to the direct benefit it receives in income tax and HST/GST it receives in building and operating the arena over a 10-15 year period, so that the net benefit is zero.

2. The Provincial and Municipal Governments agree on their splits for the contribution to the remaining amount required to build the arena.

3. The ownership of the arena remains in Municipal Government hands and not sold to private interests. They can set lease rates and are in the best position to attract professional teams.

Having said all this, building an arena does not guarantee a professional sports team franchise. The best example that comes to mind is Hamilton. They built a great arena, but they are too close to Buffalo and Toronto to allow an NHL team. In addition, Mr. Bettman, the NHL commissioner, has stated that an NHL team will not be going back to Quebec City. Presumably, it does not fit in with his expansion strategy into the U.S. where there is a greater opportunity to make money, but you can always hold up examples such as Atlanta, Phoenix, Nashville, etc., however that's a whole other conversation. As long as the local community assumes the risk, since they stand to benefit the greatest, I believe a working formula can be made.

This discussion should not be strictly about the best sound bite, doing what the other guys aren't to buy votes, or pandering to hockey-mad Canadians. Let's look at the business case: will the building (it doesn't have to be arenas only) attract who you want, and will the facility ultimately make money for those who need it the most, i.e. the Municipal Government.

I think a business case can be made, and I think their will be a net benefit for all Canadians. To bring it back to Iggy, yes, it is possible to fund arenas across Canada, but be VERY careful how you frame it. Also, make sure you put it into short simple terms for everyone to hear and understand, because you're only going to get 10 seconds at a time to say it.

Like an "opportunistic" election has never happened before

I have to laugh at the latest "talking point" of the Conservative government. Prime Minister Harper has said it, Government House Leader Baird has said it, and Conservative strategists have said it. "It" is that the opposition rumblings of forcing an election (by calling for a vote of non-confidence, since the opposition is claiming the Conservative government of being undemocratic) are "opportunistic"! It never ceases to amaze me when it comes to the hypocrisy of politicians. It was Prime Minister Harper that forced the 2008 election, after only two years in office, and AFTER enacting legislation that would prevent the sitting government from calling snap "opportunistic" elections to gain more seats, in his bid for a majority. Disgraceful. And it just goes to show you how short memories are. I have yet to hear of anyone in the media pointing this out.

The side show to all of this is three Conservative MPs announcing that they will not be running in the next election. I find it interesting that MPs Strahl and Cummings were first elected to the House as Reform Party Members, and Stockwell Day was the Canadian Alliance (which rose out of the Reform Party as a basis) leader. Interesting in that the Alliance Party, "...platform and policies emphasized, inter alia, the rights and responsibilities of the individual, Senate and other democratic reforms, and smaller more fiscally responsible government." Yet, people have argued that the Conservatives have become less than democratic. They have run up a record high deficit (some argue the government would have run into significant deficit even without the recession happening) and Mr. Harper, in this latest session of Parliament, has a record number of Cabinet Ministers (37 at last count), not to mention the Parliamentary Secretaries on top of that, thus increasing the costs of running the government.

It makes me wonder if these former Reform/Alliance members are bristling at Mr. Harper's (and those of some of his Cabinet Ministers) antics, which clearly rub against the grain of the former Reform/Alliance platform. I think a strong case for this is when Mr. Day was asked why he was leaving, he said he wanted to focus on the future, and when he was asked for specifics, he seemed very vague about what he may do (other than spending more time with his family). It was pointed out by one media person that all three bailing MPs currently hold BC ridings and that they would feel the effects of the province adopting the HST. It was also noted that these are strong veteran Western MPs (the Conservative Party base) and that some of the remaining strong MPs are in Ontario and were members of the Mike Harris Ontario provincial government. I guess it will be the Ontario "elite" that will be holding the reins of the Conservative Party through the next election.

When the election does come, Canadian voters need to ask hard questions of their candidates. Try to get past the talking points and decide which candidate, and party, you want to vote for (or vote against). I think its time for Canadians to stand up and voice their concerns, not just stay away from the polls because they can't be bothered or are upset with politics in general. Afghanis had massive voter turnout even when faced with death threats from Al Qaeda! Surely you can get up off your couch and vote. You don't vote, you can't complain about the result.

Really, Mr. Harper?!?!? Democracy?!?!!? Really?!?!?!

Really, Mr. Harper?!?! The Speaker of the House of Commons ruling against your government on withholding cost information required by law, as well as at least one of your ministers "misleading" a parliamentary committee?!?!?! Really?!?!? And you call this a "distraction" and a "game" by the opposition??!?!?! Really??!?!?! Excuse Canadian voters, for they did not know that democracy is an inconvenience to you!

Of course Canadians are concerned about their jobs and the economy, but in a Westminster Parliamentary system, the opposition MPs have the right to question the government on its programs, receive information on the cost of proposed government bills, among other things, to show all Canadian constituents what the government plans and how their hard earned tax dollars are being spent. Your Finance Minister, Mr. Flaherty, just standing up and saying trust me, just doesn't wash. He did the same thing when he was Finance Minister for Ontario, and he left a mess for the new government that took over, not to mention his statements over the past couple of years like no recession, no deficit, and small deficit.

Clearly, your government is engaging in a lot of obfuscation, so who is really playing "games"? You rode into Ottawa on a platform of "transparency" and "accountability", yet time and again, media reports that you and your cronies are doing the exact opposite. Tell me, are your former Reform colleagues bristling in their seats, trying to keep their mouths shut?

Democracy is not just about elections. Check your Oxford Dictionary. It's defined as, "government by all the people." Are you that cynical that you think that ALL Canadians would act in this manner. Who is really playing games?

A cynicist would say that you are doing anything and everything possible to not only retain power, but try to win a majority in the next election (and it seems, taking lessons from the American political process, i.e. attack ads). According to the latest polls, your party is way ahead, but just short of majority territory. However, we'll still have to see the polls after the Speaker's rulings. But, as many have said, the only poll that counts is the one on election day. Should you win enough seats to form another government in the next election, I pity Canadian voters (and especially those that don't vote). But it reminds me of the saying, "Every nation has the government that it deserves."

Coporate tax cut: Job creator, or fatter bonus?

Will a Canadian corporate tax cut of 1.5% really create jobs? That's what the Conservative Government and a number of economists will lead you to believe. However, I'm wondering if they're relying too much on economic theory and coming up with an easy sound bite for the public to digest. Or is this just another political move for the Conservatives to finally achieve the majority that has been just out of their reach all these years?

I've had some instruction on economics, but not enough to argue this over economic theory, so I decided to look at this from a more practical standpoint. Statscan tells us that from the 2005 census data, the average Canadian worker earned $41,401. Assuming that "payroll taxes" (i.e. benefits, company contributions to CPP & EI, etc.) account for 25% (this would vary from company to company, depending on a number of factors, but let's use this as an average), that would mean a company would need a benefit of $55,201 (41,401/0.75). Consequently, for the 1.5% tax reduction, a company would have to have revenue of about $3,7M (55,201/0.015) to justify hiring an additional worker. I couldn't find the data, but I suspect many small companies would not make sufficient revenue to fall into this category, and it is often said that small companies are the economic engine of Canada.

So, where would this reduction in taxes go? Canadian Business, in their Investor 500 list, has Manulife Financial Corp as the top revenue earning public company at $34,550M. Using the revenue figure from above, that would mean Manulife could hire up to 9,337 new employees, just from this tax giveaway! Will they do it? Highly unlikely. What sane manager would hire more people just because they could? It's more likely they would give fatter bonuses to their employees, and/or increase their dividends to shareholders, which in effect, raises the stock prices, and makes the Manulife managers with stock options ever richer. Now, I'm not trying to single out Manulife for anything other than they were the top revenue earner on the list. I use them to illustrate the point that putting money in corporate pockets won't necessarily lead to jobs. But the Conservative Government would lead you to believe that this is the case. The real driver for business is to generate more sales. More sales means more production. More production means capital investment and/or the hiring of additional staff. In order to be competitive, it comes down to productivity, i.e. output per unit of input. This is especially true in labour intensive industries where low cost countries have a competitive advantage. The U.S. and Germany (both G8 countries) have significantly higher productivity rates over Canada.

The fact is that Canada already has the lowest corporate tax rate among G8 countries, and that opponents such as Jim Stanford (an economist with the Canadian Auto Workers union) have come out against lowering the corporate tax rate. Mr. Stanford points to the fact that over the past 20 years, corporate tax rates in Canada have dropped from 29% to 16.5% (much of it during a series of Liberal Governments), yet capital investment in Canada has declined.

I can't help wondering if this is a little Three Card Monty trick the Conservative Government is playing so that it appeases their Conservative base, while trying to sell it to the more middle of the road public under the general "will create jobs" banner. Given that Canada fared better than most countries during the recession, and that the economic recovery is still tenuous, with an ever-present fear of a double-dip recession, I would suggest that putting this latest corporate tax cut on the back burner for now would be a good thing for the country. Especially considering the Conservative Government is facing a $45 billion deficit in the next budget, with a quickly rising debt level.

What do you think? Contact your MP and let them know!

Engage in the political process

A new organization has formed to engage Canadians in the political process. They are Leadnow.ca. I've only just heard of them (since they went public just last week). They claim to be a non-partisan organization that are getting Canadians to hold their politicians to account.

I fully support this and hope that they:
1. Continue to be non-partisan;
2. Vociferously hold politicians to account for their, and their party's actions; and
3. Engage the Canadian public in the political process to reverse the apathetic trend.

This is the type of organization that the general public needs to get involved with, lest Canadians suffer the same fate as people in North Africa and the Middle East are currently suffering, in their fight for justice and democracy.

It reminds me of that famous quote that has been attributed to Edmund Burke (but is disputed), "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing". I find another interesting quote from him that is just as applicable, "The true danger is when liberty is nibbled away, for expedients, and by parts."

To Leadnow.ca I say, a long and fruitful existence!

The passing of Jim Travers, Star columnist

James Travers, Toronto Star Columnist on political matters, died last week. Many accolades have been coming from colleagues, politicians and the general public alike. As a tribute to him, The Star reprinted a story he wrote on Apr 4, 2009, called, "The quiet unravelling of Canadian democracy." I suggest everyone take the time to read it.

I've had the opportunity to see him on television and I found his deconstruction of the political scene illuminating. It's unfortunate that we've lost such a great journalistic mind.

My condolences to his family.

Going off the rails on a crazy train?

Another scandal for the Harper Government. Using Parliamentary resources for partisan purposes, i.e. campaigning for contributions to the Conservative Party of Canada. And to think, Helena Guergis, the MP kicked out of the Conservative caucus for suspicion of wrongdoing, was the ethical one when she refused to participate in the "in and out" campaign funds maneuver that is currently under intense scrutiny by Elections Canada. Add to that the Bev Oda affair, Lisa Raitt, Maxime Bernier, etc. Does this mean the Harper machine is finally running off the rails? Well, no doubt they'll try to spin the Liberal sponsorship scandal as something more heinous, as they are oft to do.

I suppose that the voting public has come to believe that they cannot expect completely ethical behaviour from every politician out there. But scandal after scandal must indicate a change that requires cleaning out the House. Yet, poll after poll indicates that people favour the Conservatives to run the Canadian government, and that Mr. Harper is the best candidate for Prime Minister. This defies common sense. People seem to be short-sighted. Because the Canadian economy is in better shape than most industrialized nations and unemployment isn't too bad, everyone seems to think the Harper government is doing fine. But let us not forget that it was the previous Liberal government that generated a surplus that allowed the Conservatives to give "gifts" like rolling back the GST (see my other post about why that was a mistake). It was the Liberals that set the stage for the banking system to weather the recent economic storm, but the Conservatives are taking credit for it. There may be some good things that the Conservative government have done (not that I can think of any off the top of my head), but the NDP have some good ideas too (not that I think Mr. Layton should become Prime Minister). Even Mr. Duceppe surprises me with the odd great idea or point, even though he is classified a separatist. But this is moot.

The bottom line is that the current Conservative caucus seems to be getting a little too comfortable, and maybe a little too bold, in their quest for a majority government. Then what will we see? The abolishment of the gun registry? The reopening of the abortion debate? The definition of marriage narrowly defined as that between a man and a woman? These are questions that have been raised because they are platforms espoused by hard core Conservatives.

I don't have a crystal ball, so I don't know the outcome of the next election. What I do know is that Canadian voters need to vote their conscience, not cast their vote as a popularity contest. If it comes down to voting against somebody, rather than for someone, then so be it. I just think that change, any change is good. And the change I'm hoping for is another party running the country, not giving a majority, or even another minority, to the current government.

Libya, a Lesson in Democracy

The current events in Libya are troubling. Not just that a dictator is using violence, killing the citizens of his country, to hold onto power by his fingernails, but also the responses by world leaders. The wave of protests throughout North Africa and the Middle East have shown that the citizens of these countries have had enough of their officials, whether they are corrupt, not doing enough to reduce unemployment, and/or not being able to elect new leaders to respect their democratic voice. The fact that Western nations are talking about overtly interfering (calls to impose a “no fly zone” to protect Libyan rebels from pro-Gaddafi air attacks), or whether they are already covertly supporting the rebels (at this time, there are no reports of Western advisors making contact with the rebels, nor supplies being delivered), one thing is clear. This protest has turned into civil war. The question is, should other nations intercede, or at the very least, take sides?

No Western democracy will publicly support Gaddafi at this time, even though for many years, even before his mea culpa of a few years ago (when he shook hands with Tony Blair), companies within these Western democracies did business with Libya, with or without the knowledge of their governments. The fact that the public knows of certain Western companies doing business in Libya is an indication of the attitude of: we will tolerate the dictator, as long as we benefit. Case in point: Nelly Furtado just declared that she is going to donate to charity the fee paid to her by the Gaddafi family a few years ago to perform (not unlike the whole Sun City thing in South Africa during Apartheid). The winds of change are blowing and everyone is piling on to wash their hands clean.

But where is the justice for Bahrainians? They too are protesting peacefully, with many Bahrainian soldiers marching in solidarity with the protestors. Yet, the police have fired upon and killed protestors. Where is the world public condemnation over this? Is it because Bahrain is a Western ally? Is it because it produces a lot of oil for the West? Or is it the fear of the rise of a group that would obtain power and act less favourably towards the West? I would venture that Western leaders are breathing a small sigh of relief that the events in Libya are occupying the world’s attention.

There are many instances in the past when foreign nations have intervened in the affairs of countries. One of the more recent occurrences is Iraq, but have we forgotten (Soviet-era) Afghanistan? Vietnam? Or even the American Revolutionary War and the American Civil War? During the American Revolution, it was the French who helped the American “rebels” defeat the British. During the American Civil War, there was some tacit, unofficial support from the British for the Confederate “rebels”, but firm support did not materialize under the threat of war against Britain from President Abraham Lincoln.

Humankind has a history of interfering in the affairs of other countries, for good or bad. Hindsight is always 20/20 and making the right choice, and picking a “winner” is difficult given the information available at the time. Unfortunately, many decisions are based on ideology, money, and/or the concept of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”. Over the years, we have developed treaties and conventions to protect the innocent within conflicts, one example being The Geneva Conventions. Quite often, despots do not adhere to these rules, in their bid to remain in power.

I find these current events ironic when I think back to the G20 protests in Toronto, Canada last summer. People using “black bloc” tactics marched through the streets of Toronto, vandalizing property and taunting police. But, instead of protecting property and arresting the perpetrators on the spot, the police force (made up of Canadian local, provincial and federal police forces) broke up a peaceful protest in a government sanctioned designated protest area, and “kettled” a group at a downtown intersection, after most of the G20 leaders had already left! Current investigations are still ongoing, so no final reports are complete, but there are a few interesting points to be made:
1. Most violent protestors were not arrested during the demonstrations, but have been systematically arrested and charged after the fact, through the police’s investigations using in part, photographic and video evidence.
2. A peaceful protest (there were no reported indications of violence) in a government sanctioned designated protest area was broken up by the police force using riot police and police on horseback.
3. Hundreds of protestors were held in detention for many hours, many of them released at the end of the weekend without charge.
4. Some of the people “kettled” in the downtown intersection reported that they were not part of an actual protest, but just happened to be walking in the area and getting caught in front of police lines.
5. The accusations by some of the arrested of the excessive force used by police did not get far and investigations were dropped (due to “insufficient evidence”) until people came forward publicly with photographic and video evidence to support charges to be laid against individual officers.
6. It was widely reported during the G20 that the police were given the power to stop, question and search anyone within a certain distance from the fence surrounding the summit site, regardless of these “suspects” exhibiting suspicious behaviour, and the police exercised this power. At the end of the summit, it was revealed that police were not given any such powers by the government.

At this time, I want to state my unequivocal support for police. We ask them to make many sacrifices to perform very difficult work. I am sure that many of them would agree that a few bad apples should not mean we throw out the bushel. But, the actions of individuals are one thing, the decisions of the leadership is another. Who ordered the use of horses to break up the sanctioned protest? Who ordered the kettling? Who perpetuated the idea that people could be stopped and searched just because they were walking near a particular fence? Are these people being investigated, or is this going to be a state sanctioned “insufficient evidence to pursue” result. Why did the police hold up confiscated “weapons” seized from protestors (and a small number of “weapons” at that, in comparison to the number of people at the protest) to be used as justification for breaking up peaceful protests and arresting people? I had some difficulty with classifying some of the “weapons” they displayed as actual weapons that could do significant harm. If I happened to be walking home from a friend’s place carrying a 6” long screwdriver I used to do a little electrical work at his apartment, and I was in the wrong place at the wrong time and was arrested because I had a “weapon” in my pack, does that show intent to do harm at a protest? Are we moving to a “Minority Report” type of world?

Ultimately, we have developed the concept of democracy where we elect representatives to manage our interests. We believe this to be the power of the people. If we do not like how they manage our affairs, we have the opportunity to vote them out of office. Voter apathy is not an option. Recent elections in Afghanistan showed huge voter turnouts, even under the threat of death from Al Qaeda, proving that people want a voice in the determination of their future, even at the expense of their security.

There may be times when wrongdoers escape justice, but not every conflict is won by the most righteous. The best that outsiders can do is allow the populace of countries to sort out their own affairs, while protecting the innocent to the best of their abilities, and that International Law will allow. Whether that’s flying foreign nationals out of Libya, with or without Gaddafi’s permission, publically condemning in the strongest way the killing of peaceful protestors in Bahrain, or bringing to justice the people responsible for using excessive force on peaceful protestors at a G20 protest in Toronto. As Thomas Jefferson (a former President of the United States and American Revolutionary) once stated, “The will of the people is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect its free expression should be our first object.” I would add that media, including the use of photographic and video evidence (recorded by reporters and/or the public), is a tool for the people to hold governments to account.

It is everyone’s responsibility to protect the safety and security of the innocent. However, it is the people that must decide their own fate, for good or bad. To turn a blind eye when it is inconvenient makes us just as guilty as if we had perpetrated the deed ourselves. The blood stains our hands just as much as it stains the hands of those responsible. We cannot base our decisions on ideology, money, or the idiom “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” It appears that most citizens of the world want the same thing, i.e. safety, economic well-being, and the right to voice a dissenting opinion in a peaceful manner. Governments that suppress these needs do so at their own peril. Governments that turn a blind eye to their peers’ actions face trying to rub out that “damned spot.”