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.