How to attack Harper's assertion that the choice is between a Conservative Majority a Coalition

Ignatieff has to turn the tables on Harper's coalition clap trap. This is how he could do it.

"Mr Harper says the choice is between a Conservative majority and coalition of the other parties. He said he will not form a minority led government. In other words, if he does not get his majority he is going to take his ball and go home. This shows a shocking lack of leadership and it is a slap in face of every Canadian, particularly every Canadian who supports him. If the Canadian people give Stephen Harper another minority on May 2, and obviously I hope that this is not the case and believe that it will not be the case, I expect Mr Harper to accept the Governor Generals invitation to form the next government and to work with other parties to make it work. I do not expect him to cry like a two year and proclaim that a minority is not a good enough and that all he is willing to accept is a majority."

Euthanasia

Solid support for it nationwide: check
A very big issue in Quebec: check
Social conservatism is Harper's Achilles heel: check
Liberals are behind in the polls: check

So, why are the Liberals not talking about euthanasia?

Time for the Liberals to send up a Hail Mary or two

I very much doubt there is anything the Liberals can do to stop the bleeding and after the CBC interview and the debates I have no faith in Ignatieff whatsoever, but here is what I would do.


English Canada: The Liberals have lost the Francophone vote. There no hope of getting them back. So there is no need to pander to them anymore. Talk about the Clarity Act and its importance. Characterize Stephen Harper as once having been an Alberta separatist for having written the Firewall letter and Separation Alberta Style and blast Jack Layton as having abandoning the Clarity Act and supporting the extension of bill 101.

French Canada: Talk about social issues. Harper's Achilles heel has always been his social conservative base and the Liberals have been stupid not to attack it. At the this point in time the Liberals have to drop a bomb shell. I have always favored legalizing marijuana, but think it is too late for that now and doubt Ignatieff has the ability to make his lunch let alone the case. Maybe he could suggest that he would be willing to entertain the idea. However, Liberals definitely need to talk about legalizing euthanasia.

Liberals could be finished as a party: Big Conservative Majority looks likely

It looks like I will again be updating my seat projections.

Liberal support is going right and going left. The Liberals look like they could be finished as a political party. As things break down now, East of Toronto the party will be lucky to win a seat.

Not a Minority but not a Majority either

Holy Crop. The Crop poll makes a Quebec a whole lot more interesting. I do not think this will be the last update. I suspect I will be moving more Bloc seats to the NDP and possibly some Liberal ones as well. As things stand, I have the Conservatives plus Arthur at 154 and Liberals, NDP and Bloc at 154. Imagine that.


Conservative pick ups

Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca from the Liberals
Kington and the Islands form the Liberals
Brampton West from the Liberals
Brampton Springdale from the Liberals
Avalon from the Liberals
Saint John's Mount Pearl from the Liberals
Madawaska-Restigouche from the Liberals

Western Artic from the NDP

NDP pick ups

Hull Aylmer from Liberals
Brossard-La Prairie from Liberals
Winnipeg North from the Liberals

Jeanne-Le Ber from Bloc
Ahuntsic from Bloc
Compton-Stanstead form Bloc
Alfred-Pellan from Bloc
Laval from Bloc
Brome-Missisquoi from Bloc
Drummond from Bloc
Gatineau from the Bloc
Saint-Lambert from Bloc
Shefford from Bloc

Pontiac from Conservatives

National

Conservatives 153
Liberals 67
NDP 49
Bloc 38
Independent 1


BC

Conservatives 23
Liberals 4
NDP 9


Alberta

Cons 27
NDP 1

Sask

Conservatives 13
Liberals 1

Man

Conservatives 9
NDP 4
Liberals 1


Ontario

Conservatives 55
Liberals 34
NDP 17

Quebec

Bloc 38
Liberals 12
Conservatives 10
NDP 14
Independent 1

NB

Conservatives 7
Liberals 2
NDP 1

NS

Liberals 5
Conservtives 4
NDP 2

PEI

Liberals 3
Conservatives 1

NFLD

Liberals 4
Conservatives 2
NDP 1

Yukon

Liberals

NWT

Conservatives

Nunavut

Conservatives

Layton's attack the Liberals first Strategy is stupid: Part 2

There is no chance whatsoever that the NDP is going to overtake the Liberals this time around.

If the NDP is going to replace the Liberals as the official opposition in the near future, one thing has to happen this election. Harper has to be held to a minority. Otherwise, the Liberals will have 5 years to recover and any momentum the NDP might have in Quebec will be lost. Hold a Harper to minority and the Layton will be able to proclaim himself as the only true opposition to Stephen Harper as both the Liberals and Bloc continually prop up the government as they search for new leaders,

Layton's attack the Liberals first Strategy is Stupid

Layton has chosen to focus his attacks and Ignatieff and not Harper. This is a strange strategy for three reasons. One, Harper is on the verge of a majority. Two, the number of close battle the NDP have with the Conservatives is far greater than the number of close battles the NDP have with the Liberals. Three, in most parts of the country, especially west of Ontario, voters are far more likely to move between the NDP and Conservatives than between the NDP and Liberals.

Tight NDP Conservative battles

Burnaby-Douglas
New Westminster-Coquitlam
Surrey North
Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca
Edmonton-Strathcona
Western Arctic
Saskatoon-Rosetown-Biggar
Sault Ste. Marie
South Shore-St. Margaret's
Vancouver Island North


Tight NDP Liberal battles

Vancouver Kingsway
Winnipeg North
Trinity-Spadina
Sudbury

Tight Three way races

Welland
St. John's South-Mount Pearl

Prediction: Conservative Majority -- well sort of

This is a much harder election to call than 2008, but here it goes.


Conservative pick ups

Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca from the Liberals
Kington and the Islands form the Liberals
Brampton West from the Liberals
Brampton Springdale from the Liberals
Avalon from the Liberals
Saint John's Mount Pearl from the Liberals
Madawaska-Restigouche from the Liberals

Western Artic from the NDP

NDP pick ups

Winnipeg North from the Liberals
Gatineau from the Bloc

Liberal pick ups

Ahuntsic from the Bloc
Jeanne-Le Ber from the Bloc
Brome-Missisquoi from Bloc
Haute-Gaspésie-La Mitis-Matane-Matapédia from the Bloc



National

Conservatives 154
Liberals 73
Bloc 43
NDP 37
Independent 1


BC

Conservatives 23
Liberals 4
NDP 9


Alberta

Cons 27
NDP 1

Sask

Conservatives 13
Liberals 1

Man

Conservatives 9
NDP 4
Liberals 1


Ontario

Conservatives 55
Liberals 34
NDP 17

Quebec

Bloc 43
Liberals 18
Conservatives 11
NDP 2
Independent 1

NB

Conservatives 7
Liberals 2
NDP 1

NS

Liberals 5
Conservtives 4
NDP 2

PEI

Liberals 3
Conservatives 1

NFLD

Liberals 4
Conservatives 2
NDP 1

Yukon

Liberals

NWT

Conservatives

Nunavut

Conservatives

The bus driver Arthur becomes a Conservative and gives them a very slim majority indeed.

voter turnout 59%

NDP and Liberals later go on to merge

“It’s past time the feds scrapped the Canada Health Act"

Harper headed a organization, the National Citizens Coalition, dedicated to the privatization of public health care for 3 years and was Vice president for two more. This fact seems to be lost in the attribution kerfuffle. Whether it was Harper who said “It’s past time the feds scrapped the Canada Health Act,” or his boss David Somerville, the position of organization was clear.

Liberals need to Disseminate Harper's "Separation, Alberta-style: It is time to seek a new relationship with Canada"

Stephen Harper's "Separation, Alberta-style: It is time to seek a new relationship with Canada" is really a must read. The Liberals need to be emailing it to every Liberal in the country and telling them to email all their friends.

http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/02/09/stephen-harper-and-canada-a-love-story-iv/

Hilights

Stephen Harper "Canada appears content to become a second-tier socialistic country, boasting ever more loudly about its economy and social services to mask its second-rate status"

Stephen Harper "Any country with Canada's insecure smugness and resentment can be dangerous."

Stephen Harper "It is to take the bricks and begin building another home -- a stronger and much more autonomous Alberta. It is time to look at Quebec and to learn. What Albertans should take from this example is to become "maitres chez nous."

How to use Stephen Harper Quotes

In the past the Liberals have employed a shotgun approach when disseminating Harper quotes. This was a huge mistake. Not only was the reader overwhelmed by the sure volume, but most of the quotes were pretty tepid stuff and this tended to moderate the damage some of the real gems. The Liberals need to take a few quotes and repeat them endlessly. These are the ones I would emphasize.

1) "Canada appears content to become a second-tier socialistic country, boasting ever more loudly about its economy and social services to mask its second-rate status, .... "

2) "Any country with Canada’s insecure smugness and resentment can be dangerous".

3) "In terms of the unemployed, of which we have over a million-and-a-half, I don't feel particularly bad for many of these people."

4) "You’ve got to remember that west of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from eastern Canada: people who live in ghettoes and who are not integrated into western Canadian society"

5) "Whether Canada ends up as one national government or two national governments or several national governments, or some other kind of arrangement is, quite frankly, secondary in my opinion…"

Stephen Harper: "Any country with Canada's insecure smugness and resentment can be dangerous."

Stephen Harper: "Any country with Canada's insecure smugness and resentment can be dangerous."

http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/02/09/stephen-harper-and-canada-a-love-story-iv/

Stephen Harper says that a Conservative majority is the only answer to Quebec separatism. Now leaving aside the fact that Quebecers hate his guts and a Harper majority would likely increase support for separation, Harper record leaves a lot to be desired.

After all, this is man who wrote a paper called "Separation, Alberta-style: It is time to seek a new relationship with Canada."

http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/02/09/stephen-harper-and-canada-a-love-story-iv/

This is a man who said Albertans had a lot to learn from Quebec Separatists.

"It is to take the bricks and begin building another home -- a stronger and much more autonomous Alberta. It is time to look at Quebec and to learn. What Albertans should take from this example is to become "maitres chez nous."

http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/02/09/stephen-harper-and-canada-a-love-story-iv/

This is a man who held up Belgium, a country on the verge of breaking up, as a model for Canada

"I think we should look at more creative ways of dealing with some of the demands for change in the country," Harper said. "I used the Belgium model."
... "I want my party to consider how this model could be adopted to Canada," Harper said in a prepared text of the speech.

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20041019/harper_belgium_041019/

And this is man who downplayed the importance of a yes vote for separation and said it was of secondary imporatance to him.

"Whether Canada ends up as o­ne national government or two national governments or several national governments, or some other kind of arrangement is, quite frankly, secondary in my opinion"

Harper's Separation, Alberta-style: It is time to seek a new relationship with Canada

Stephen Harper's "Separation, Alberta-style: It is time to seek a new relationship with Canada" is really a must read. Read it, email it, post it on face book, post it on twitter and mention it in conversation.

http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/02/09/stephen-harper-and-canada-a-love-story-iv/

Hilights

Stephen Harper "Canada appears content to become a second-tier socialistic country, boasting ever more loudly about its economy and social services to mask its second-rate status"

Stephen Harper "Any country with Canada's insecure smugness and resentment can be dangerous."

Stephen Harper "It is to take the bricks and begin building another home -- a stronger and much more autonomous Alberta. It is time to look at Quebec and to learn. What Albertans should take from this example is to become "maitres chez nous."

An Easy way of short circuiting the Conservative's Separtist Talking Point

"Conservative Leader Stephen Harper says he needs a strong result in the election to ward off resurgent sovereignists in Quebec."

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/976093--harper-says-majority-needed-to-stop-sovereignists

Now every time Harper trouts out that line, the Liberals need to fire back with this.

Stephen Harper "Whether Canada ends up as o­ne national government or two national governments or several national governments, or some other kind of arrangement is, quite frankly, secondary in my opinion"

and Harper's Separation, Alberta-style: It is time to seek a new relationship with Canada

http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/02/09/stephen-harper-and-canada-a-love-story-iv/

Canada needs more Skilled Immigrants

The average Canadian in 2004 was 39.7; that makes Canada one of the oldest nations on earth. However bad things are now things promise to get a lot worse. The percentage of Canadians over 65 is set to go from 14.7 now to 27.6 in 2050. If the situation was ever allowed to get this bad, the economy would at best be stagnate, the federal government would surely be in deficit, and virtually every public entitlement program would be under enormous pressure or would have already collapsed. Most notably our health care system would be in serious trouble. Indeed as it stands now "People age 65 and older accounted for 13.2% of the Canadian population but consumed an estimated 44% of provincial and territorial government health care spending in 2005."

The problem is this.

In 2005, per capita health care spending was found to be highest at the beginning and at the end of life but, in general, to increase exponentially with age. While 65- to 74-year- olds consumed $6000 per capita, 75- to 84-year-olds consumed $11 000 per capita, and 85-year-olds (and those older) consumed $21 000 per capita, on average. In comparison, per capita health care spending among those age 1 to 65 was approximately $1700.[While 65- to 74-year- olds consumed $6000 per capita, 75- to 84-year-olds consumed $11 000 per capita, and 85-year-olds (and those older) consumed $21 000 per capita, on average. In comparison, per capita health care spending among those age 1 to 65 was approximately $1700.

http://www.bcmj.org/canada-s-coming-age-how-demographic-imperatives-will-force-redesign-acute-care-service-delivery

This problem is not going to go away. Even if today's 60 is tomorrow's 70, we all die and most deaths are preceded by some kind of serious illness. As a critical mass of people reach whatever is the average life expectancy, they will cost the system more -- a lot more.


The notion that this problem can be addressed by encouraging Canadians to have more kids is unrealistic. Currently Canada has the 144 highest fertility rate and our birth rate is 190th in the world. http://www.photius.com/rankings/population/birth_rate_2010_0.html
What goes for Canada goes for the rest of the Western world. There is not one Western nation with a fertility rate above the replacement rate yet alone one with a fertility rate high enough to withstand the aforementioned increase in the number of seniors as percentage of the total population.

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=sp_dyn_tfrt_in&idim=country:CAN&q=fertility+rate+canada

To think that Canada has a chance to nearly double its current fertility rate of 1.6 -- and that is what it would take -- is pie in the sky nonsense. Moreover, far from making things better a massive baby boom would only increase an already mushrooming dependency rate for a good number of years. There is something perverse about wanting Canada to become a country of the very old and very young supported by taxes on a rapidly shrinking working population.

Canada has no option but to continue with a high rate of immigration.

Immigration is allowing us to make some headway. 2001 study found that based on 1996 census if Canada did not allow any immigrants, then the number of seniors as percentage of the population in 2050 would be 29. 8. If on the other hand Canada let in 225,000 annually, then that number would drop to 25.4. Finally, if Canada let in 450,000 annually that number would drop further still to 22.9. http://sociology.uwo.ca/popstudies/dp/dp03-03.pdf

That is the good news. The bad news is that Canada's immigration system badly needs to be reformed and for reform to mean anything Ottawa needs to reestablish that immigration is a federal issue. Indeed, what is the point of reworking the points system, for example, if Gordon Campbell and his ilk are working with big business to set up a rival system in which restaurant hostess is a skilled position?

Family reunification is a great place to start. There is no reason why an immigrant should be able to bring in anyone other than his spouse and dependents. After all, if the main point of a high rate of immigration is to lessen the effects of an aging population, what sense does it make to allow immigrants to sponsor their parents and grandparents?

Family reunification is part of a larger problem, viz., the ratio of skilled principle applicants as percentage of the over number of immigrants to Canada is way too small. Currently less than one in 5 immigrants is a skilled principle applicant. And however much I am loath to admit it, the Mark Steyn's of the world are right about one thing. Allowing someone to immigrant to Canada has a huge potential cost associated with it. This is especially so with regard to any other category of immigrant other the skilled principle applicants. After all, it is only skilled principle applicants that are earning anywhere close to what their Canadian peers are earning and skilled principle applicants are the only category of immigrants that are working in numbers that even approach the Canadian average.

"At 26 weeks after their arrival, 50% of all immigrants aged 25 to 44 were employed. This was 30 percentage points below the employment rate of about 80% among all individuals aged 25 to 44 in the Canadian population. ... At 52 weeks after arrival, the employment rate among prime working-age immigrants was 58%. This narrowed the gap to 23 percentage points. At 104 weeks, or two years after arrival, the employment rate among prime working-age immigrants was 63%, 18 percentage points below the national rate of 81%. ... Immigrants admitted as principal applicants in the skilled worker category had an even better record for employment. At 26 weeks after arrival, the gap in the employment rate between them and the Canadian population was 20 percentage points. By 52 weeks, this had narrowed to 12 points, and by two years, it was down to 8 points."

http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/051013/d051013b.htm

If you tease out the numbers, 55% of non principal skilled applicants in the 25 to 44 age group are working after 2 years! Canada needs to do a better job of ensuring that immigrants are able to succeed and while some bleeding hearts will no doubt claim that a complete turn around is possible, an approach that is far more likely to bare fruit is eliminating or greatly limiting those categories of immigrants that are not likely to succeed economically. To say that Canada needs immigrants is only half right. We need young well educated immigrants who are proficient in English. Indeed, we need a lot more than what we are allowing in now. We do not, however, need their parents and grandparents. We also do not need refugees. Most of all what Canada does not need is cheap unskilled guest workers.

Given Jason Kenney's stated desire to avoid “the kind of ethnic enclaves or parallel communities that exist in some European countries” and Mark Steyn's rantings about second generation Islamic exterminism in Europe you would think that Kenney and Steyn would reel back before the subject of guest workers like vampires before garlic. Instead, Steyn's musings reduce to an infantile and bigoted ethnic essentialism and Kenney seems hell bent on allowing more guest works than Germany did in the 1960s and 1970s.

Indeed, whereas the typical guest worker was once an American transferred to a branch office in Canada, the fastest growing category of guest worker is now the unskilled type with poor language skills. Under the Conservatives, Canada has allowed in some two hundred thousand plus unskilled workers a year. In other words, the average Canadian tax payer now pays through the noise to have cheap labour sent in from other countries for the sole purpose of cutting his wages. Forget Conservative talk about such provincial programs bringing in much needed skilled workers, this was the kind of positions Alberta was hoping to fill through its guest worker programs this past summer: Front desk clerk, short order cook, baker, maid, assembly line worker, server, buser, bellhop, valet, and cafeteria worker, laundry attendant, pet groomer, general labourer, and hair dresser. All that is required of such would be immigrants is that they score 4 or 24 on the language assessment. In other words, they can be functionally illiterate and still get it in.

Pace Mark Steyn, Integrating immigrants is really quite simple. If you bring in young well educated immigrants that are fluent in English, they will integrate. It will not matter a lick what their background, religion or skin colour is. On the other hand, if you bring in non English speaking uneducated immigrants to clean toilets and serve donuts at Tim Hortons, you have recipe for what happened in Europe, viz, poor race relations, xenophobia and illegal immigration. It is really that clear cut and Kenney should know this. Every expert on immigration does.

It takes a great deal of chutzpah to Kenney to talk about wanting to avoid “the kind of ethnic enclaves or parallel communities that exist in some European countries” and then go about encouraging the very thing that led to the creation of these communities in Europe, viz., importing gobs of unskilled guest labour who are socially, economically and legally marginalized.

In addition to letting in more skilled immigrants and less of everyone else, Canada needs to refine what it means to be skilled applicant.

The point system is a mess. It is weighted, accidentally I am sure, in such a way as to favour older applicants over younger ones. A premium is placed on experience, being married is advantageous and age is not penalized much at all. For example, a 49 year old is given the same number of points for age as a 21 year old! Not only is all this is completely at odds with the stated aim of using immigration to mediate some of the stresses of having a low birth rate, a shrinking supply of labour and a graying population, the very kind of skilled worker most likely to fail, viz., older workers is the one most likely to qualify.

Indeed, while everyone agrees that Canada needs to be a better job of recognizing foreign credentials and that most experts say Canada should start giving immigrants points for getting their credentials recognzied ahead of time like Australia does, what has gotten less attention is just how hard it is establish oneself in a particular field without any contacts in that field and work contacts are what many new immigrants lack. As various studies have shown, for immigrants outside of the Western world, work experience counts for virtually nothing as at all. For this reason alone, Canada needs to redo its point system such that it looks to attract younger skilled workers who are not at such a disadvantage contact wise as their peers.

Above all else though Canada need put more of an emphasis on language proficiency. After all, although Jason Kenney may let in hundreds of thousands of unskilled guest workers with little or no English, he is right to say that language proficiency is best predictor of economic success.

It should be noted that by language proficiency I mean ones ability to converse in either French or English. Currently, moderate proficiency across the board in both English and French is amounts to the same thing high proficiency in one! This is akin to thinking an average switch hitter is the equal to all star who bats only right handed.

All that being said, in order to get at appreciation for some of the short comings of the current points system consider this. Under the current formula, a single 26 year old who has just completed a PHD in Canada, and who speaks perfect English, but who lacks relevant work experience and is not proficient in French would likely not qualify. Indeed, assuming no family ties and no relevant work experience, they would score 56 out of 100. In other words, if they were not able to quickly secure a job in one of the relevant fields, they would be heading back to their country of origin in short order. Even, if that same applicant spoke perfect French and English they would still not qualify. They would score 64 out of 100.

By contrast a 49 year old who has never set foot in the country and speaks no French but has a BA, 3 years experience, moderate English skills a spouse with a 1 year diploma, and a cousin in distant Canadian city would score 67! This is absurd.

The Gun Registry: Some Questions and Some Answers

A Conservative poster: "The major question I do have is, if the registry is primarily used to take guns away from people who do not have them, why can't the licensing system be used for these purposes?"

Koby: "By having "law-abiding duck hunters and farmers" register their firearms, authorities can ensure that guns, owned by "duck hunters and farmers" who are no longer fit to own a gun, are properly disposed of. A gun license only indicates that person has the right to own a firearm. It does not tell the cops whether someone actually owns a gun or how many guns they might have. Furthermore, as it allows guns to be traced back to their last legal owner, the registry makes illegal sales and straw purchases more difficult and so helps keep "law-abiding duck hunters and farmers" honest. "Studies have shown that in the US, states with both licensing and registration (versus one or the other) had fewer guns diverted from legal to illegal markets."

A Conservative Poster: "So, what you're saying is;

1) The police are incompetent because they won't be able to find guns when they are called to seize them. "

Koby Look the issue is this. The number of legal gun owners in Canada, is huge (1.85 million) and with any large population certain very accurate predictions can be made about their future behavior. One thing we can know for sure is that a small percentage of "law-abiding duck hunters and farmers" will be convicted of a crime sometime in the future and that a small percentage will develop a mental disorder that will render them unsuitable for gun ownership at least for period of time. Now, even though this number is small in percentage terms, in absolute terms the numbers are quite large, in the 10s of thousands. Enter the gun registry. It makes it easier for authorities to seize the guns of people who should no longer have them. Why? Because the onus is on the gun owner in question to produce any registered weapons. If the police do not have proof that someone owns any unrestricted guns, how can they demand that he produce them?"

A Conservative poster: "the registry will never get all the guns in Canada"

Koby: I agree -- especially in light of what have already happened. Two points though. One, the argument I laid out still holds. After all we are talking about guns that have been legally registered. Two, the problem is with guns that were purchased prior to the registry and not with new guns being purchased. So, as time passes the percentage of unregistered guns will decrease.

read the whole exchange here. http://themaplethree.blogspot.com/2011/04/conservative-mp-john-weston-and-gun.html

English Language Debate: Liberal Strategy was Daft

The strategy the Liberals went with was completely daft. Endlessly repeating the same talking points on the campaign trail is a must and doing so during a debate probably increased the chances of them being repeated in subsequent news cycle. However, doing so probably did not endear Ignatieff to people who actually watched the debate and 3.8 million Canadians watched the debate. It made him appear stilted and scripted. Such a strategy was also unsuited to Ignatieff. Ignatieff is not good at delivering talking points and he is not good at delivering one liners. Ignatieff is a story teller. He is good at using personal antidotes to explain a particular policy or position. The Liberals needed Igantieff to spend more time talking about the Liberal platform and far less time on the attack. I thought the following to be Ignatieff's best moment.

"I met a young man in Winnipeg who was poised between falling into a gang or finishing high school that's the critical moment in crime prevention, if he gets a learning passport, you may save him from falling in a gang, if your serious about crime, get the pivot right so he makes the right choice, you can lock people up forever, but I worked in prisons, I worked with lifers, but the one thing I know is that it makes almost everybody worse, that's what we've learned, you keep slapping people in there forever, your going to end up with more crime problems not less, we need to have an adult strategy and that's what we haven't had from the Harper government."

The problems with the Liberal debate strategy did not stop there. Having Ignatieff endlessly repeat common Liberal talking points all but eliminated the chances of Ignatieff delivering a knockout blow. It is easy to defend what you know is coming. When attacking, the element of surprise is important.

Debate highlights


The key to shutting down an opponent's attack is a quick fact laden response. Silences, pauses, stumbling starts and long drawn out explanations are all deadly. Stephen Harper was particularly successful in fending off attacks and is generally pretty good in this regard albeit not because his responses are substantive but because his delievery is polished. However, the best example of a defensive action on the night was by Duceppe. It was both polished and substantive. Harper mounted a formidable attack on the gun registry and Duceppe torn the talking point to shreds.

Stephen Harper But what farmers and hunters keep asking is why every time there's a crime problem in Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver, there's suddenly more rules slapped on and more registrations slapped onto them in rural Canada. That has not been an effective measure to control crime. Every single elected police officer in the House of Commons has voted against the long gun registry, we need to focus on crime and on gun control that works and cost effective.


Duceppe:I would say that most of the Bloc members are in rural sectors. And the question between rural sectors and the city. Calgary is not a rural sector and you are against that eh? So when I look at the results that say 80% of people elected in Quebec support the gun registry, 62% of people elected in the rest of Canada want to abolish the gun registry. The real division was between Canada and Quebec that day.

Mounting an attack is different. You want to slow things down and you clearly lay out the issue. If you successfully wound your opponent, let him flounder. However, if your opponent is about to finish or is simply trying to run out the clock, do not be afraid to quickly interject. You want to draw out his answer as much as possible. Layton's attack on Ignatieff's attendance record was easily the best executed attack of the night. It was text book.

Layton: I have to pick up on something Mr. Ignatieff said, he said before you have to walk the walk and be a strong leader, and respect parliament, I've got to ask you then, why do you have the worst attendance record of any member of the house of Parliament? If you want to be Prime Minister, you've got to learn how to be a member of the House of Commons first. You know most Canadians, if they don't show up for work, they don't get a promotion.

Ignatieff:Mr. Layton, I don't surrender to anybody in respect for the institution of parliament and my obligation to the people that put me there. So don't give me lessons on respect for democracy (Layton interjecting) don't give me lessons

Layton: Where were you, where were you when I was standing up to Mr. Harper and voting against his policies, and you weren't in the chamber? You missed 70 percent of the votes, I think you need to understand a little more about how our democracy works that's my only point.

Easily the dumbest comment of the night was by Jack Layton. He said to Stephen Harper

"you used to care about the environment".

Grewal Tapes: Conservative Lies of Omission

The Tories hired audio expect Randy Dash in June 2005. Dash concluded that the audio “clips” he was given by the Conservatives were not altered. “Mr. Dash’s analysis of the recordings shows that they are clean and unaltered,” Conservative Jason MP Kenney said in a news release sent out on June 9th. The press release did what it was attended to do. It made it appear to anyone, but the most observant, that what you had here was a battle of audio experts. Some experts held that the tapes were not altered and others that they were. This is what NY Times reporter Clifford Kraus concluded in a June 19th article. However, there never was any disagreement. The Tapes spoken about in June 9th were different then the tapes released on May 31 by agent Grewal and the Conservatives. The Conservatives were amazingly brazen about trying to pass one off as another. Indeed, Randy Dash has been hired by Canwest news services to examine the May 31 tapes and concluded that they had probably been altered (e.g., The Star Phoenix (Saskatoon) Friday, June 3, 2005, Page: A1: News Byline: Grant Robertson, Anne Dawson and Allan Woods) “In reviewing some two hours of discussions between B.C. Conservative Gurmant Grewal and top Liberal officials, Randy Dash, a professor and sound engineer at Ottawa's Algonquin College, said: "it appears that on one of the recordings, an edit could have been done." By the time June 6 rolled around the experts were not mincing their words anymore.

The following from Campbell Clark June 6th article in the Globe and Mail:

Yesterday, Jack Mitchell, a U.S. forensic audio expert who conducted a preliminary review of portions of the originally released recordings, said they had been altered. He said he did not believe the changes occurred in the digital-copying process.

"These tapes have been edited. This is not a maybe. This is not something that's unexplained. This is not, 'Oh, this is odd.' This is a definitive statement. The tapes have been edited," Mr. Mitchell said.

He said he could not say with certainty how the alterations occurred, or conclude definitely that it was done intentionally.

However, Mr. Mitchell said that he not only found instances of possible edits, including sections where it appeared that phrases had been added to the recordings, but also a telltale repeat of a brief snippet of conversation that was repeated exactly.

"The entire thing repeats exactly. It's not the speaker repeating his phrase. This repeats exactly in the same way, with the same rhythm, with the same timing, with the same noise signatures. This is impossible," he said.
Mr. Mitchell said that he is not aware of such a glitch ever being produced in a digital transfer.

"I don't know how it could. I really don't," he said.
Errors in digital transfer can produce crashes that end the recording, or "dropouts" where brief gaps lasting a fraction of a second to a few seconds are created.
"But as far as it actually taking the digital file and sort of combining them and doing its own editing and changing things, I think that's nonsense. I've never seen it, I've never heard of a report of it."

The same repeat -- where Prime Minister Paul Martin's chief of staff, Tim Murphy, says "cup of tea" -- was found last week by Glen Marshall, a former RCMP engineer hired by the Liberal Party to examine the recordings.

Mr. Harper's communications director, Geoff Norquay, and his press secretary, Carolyn Stewart-Olsen, could not be reached yesterday.

Mr. Mitchell operates a forensic audio firm called Computer Audio Engineering in Albuquerque, N.M., which has done work used in court cases for U.S. federal prosecutors, several U.S. police forces, and prosecutors and defence attorneys.
He said he has not seen any reports of any other examination of the recordings, except a written statement issued by Mr. Dosanjh's office that alleges at least six sections of the tape were altered, which was sent to him by The Globe.
Mr. Mitchell reviewed two portions of the recordings where Mr. Dosanjh claimed to have found changes, totalling about eight minutes, to determine if there was evidence they had been altered.

The repeated "cup of tea" section is not on a new version of the recordings issued by the Conservatives last Thursday. Those new versions contain 14 minutes of new audio material -- pieces of conversations that are interspersed throughout the recording in a variety of places, which were missing from the first version that was released to the public.

Mr. Mitchell said he thought it was unlikely that such interspersed material was accidentally cut when it was copied to compact disc, as the Conservatives maintain.
"I've never heard of it. Is this something new taking place out there that I haven't heard of? Well, you know, that's always possible, but I don't think so. It would be all over the place if this happened. There are people out there making audio CDs all the time, and nobody has mentioned anything like this ever happening."

In addition, a section of another conversation reviewed by Mr. Mitchell, in which Mr. Dosanjh asserts that any arrangement made with Mr. Grewal "requires a certain degree of deniability" appears to have been edited in from another conversation, as Mr. Dosanjh had alleged. But Mr. Mitchell said it would take further analysis to determine that with certainty.

"The phrase is suddenly -- the amplitude is higher, the frequency content is different, meaning that essentially there are more bottom frequencies in it. The noise signature is different, and on either side of that phrase, they're the same."

Harper Lied about Robillard and Jennings

In uttering the following Harper flat out lied.

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/187460

Stephen Harper:

“We are putting in place a new selection system so we do not have what we had before – like the member for Westmount-Ville-Marie (Robillard) appointing her former husband as a member of the board”

The problem is that “Robillard's ex-husband, Jacques Lasalle, was appointed to the board in 1990 when Brian Mulroney was prime minister.”

It gets better. As the Toronto Star noted, “he [Harper] repeated the allegation in French, accusing [Liberal MP Marlene] Jennings, too, of making the appointment.” The problem with the latter is that “Jennings' husband, Luciano del Negro, joined the board in 1996, before his wife was first elected to the Commons in 1997.”

Conservative Lies of Omission: the Conference Board of Canada

The Conservatives made a big to do about the Conference board of Canada saying their platform is fully costed in 2006. However, the Conference board of Canada economist who did the analysis said that the platform he examined was not the same platform the Conservatives released. In other words, the Conservatives were trying to pass off the new platform as the one given the ok by Conference board of Canada. Global and Mail: “Economist washes hands of new Tory agenda”

“Paul Darby, deputy chief economist of the Conference Board of Canada, originally concluded that Stephen Harper's Conservative platform “is affordable in each fiscal year from 2005-2006 through 2010-2011.”
The Conservative party promoted that conclusion last week as evidence its election platform had been “independently verified” by the Conference Board, an Ottawa-based think-tank.
But Mr. Darby says the version of the platform he was given to vet didn't include a Conservative health-care guarantee which states patients will be transported to another jurisdiction if they can't get timely care at home.
It also omitted a Tory platform promise to redress the so-called “fiscal imbalance” between Ottawa and the provinces.
Mr. Darby wouldn't comment on whether the timely health-care guarantee would bear a significant cost.
“Talk to Harper,” he said. “It is not in the platform I received from them.”

Stephen Harper Quotes

Baring a debate miracle, we are headed for the Conservative majority. The Liberals need to go on the attack and by far the best way of doing so is force feed Harper his own words. Never mind that these are old quotes. The Conservatives have never worried about the age of Ignatieff quote. I want to see these these quotes on TV on the internet and I want to hear them on the radio.


1) "Canada appears content to become a second-tier socialistic country, boasting ever more loudly about its economy and social services to mask its second-rate status, .... "

2) "Any country with Canada’s insecure smugness and resentment can be dangerous".

3) "In terms of the unemployed, of which we have over a million-and-a-half, I don't feel particularly bad for many of these people."

4) "You’ve got to remember that west of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from eastern Canada: people who live in ghettoes and who are not integrated into western Canadian society"

Conservatives and the Economy

1) It was not that Canada performed particularly well; it was that the other G-8 countries were particularly hard it. Compare us against other OCED countries and the picture is not nearly as Rosy. For example, we rank 18th out 30 in terms of unemployment.

2) The Conservatives do not deserve credit for 10% growth in China and more than anything else that is what has kept the Canadian economy strong relative to the other G8 countries. It has kept the price of commodities up.

3) The opposition parties forced the Conservatives into passing The stimulas package. They were able to do that because Michael Igantieff was at 36% in the Spring 2009. Ever since the Conservatives have spent tens of millions of dollars celebrating "Canada's action plan".

4) The Conservatives have shown a similar degree of chutzpah in celebrating a conservative lending culture in Canada that they had begun to undermine prior to the downturn.

5) The cost of housing gone through the roof since 2006 and the main reason for that is the Conservative government decided pour fuel on an already red hot real estate market. The Conservatives extended the mortgage amortization period from 25 years to 30 years in February 2006, extended it to 35 years in July of 2006 and extended it yet again to 40 years in November 2006 During this period they also reduced the needed down payment on second properties from 20% to 5% and allowed for 0 down on one's primary residence. Ever since the down turn, Jim Flaherty has been scrabbling to undo the damage his past actions have done. Flaherty first reduced amortization period from 40 years to 35 and again mandated a 20% down payment on secondary properties and 5% on primary properties in October 2008 and on March 18th he reduced the maximum amortization period to 30 years. Never once acknowledging that it was he who raised the amortization period to begin with, Jim Flaherty has repeatedly over the course of the last 2 and half years that reducing the amortization and increasing the minimum downplayment was the right thing to do. "In 2008 and again in 2010, our government acted to protect and strengthen the Canadian housing market," The problem is it is too little too late. The best Flaherty and Conservatives can do is prevent further damage. Weather it be Bloomberg, Paul Krugman and, if you read between the lines, Mark Carney many are worried that Canada is headed for a crash that would drive Canada deep into debt. For one thing, since 2006 Canadian mortgage and housing corporations liabilities have gone from 100 billion to 500 hundred billion. If the housing bubble bursts and Canadians start defaulting on their mortgages, the Canadian tax payer will be picking up the tab. The Canadian government guarantees all that debt.

Conservative's Disastrous Guest Worker Policy

The number of guest workers allowed in has exploded since the Conservatives came to power and whereas the typical guest worker was once an American transferred to a branch office in Canada, the fastest growing category of guest worker is now the unskilled type with poor language skills. The Conservatives have not done this directly. They have turned over a greater percentage of the immigration file to the provinces and Western provinces in particular have used the program to undercut labour. The Canadian tax payer has paid through the noise to have cheap labour sent in from other countries for the sole purpose of cutting wages of the Canadian tax payer.

"According to Citizenship and Immigration Canada, there were 57,843 temporary foreign workers in Alberta by the end of 2008, a 55 per cent jump from 2007 and more than four times the number residing here five years ago. By contrast, permanent immigration has been relatively stagnant, with fewer than 25,000 immigrants coming to Alberta last year from outside the country, only a few thousand people higher than in 2004.

Alberta is not the only the province to import workers. In raw numbers, Ontario has the highest number at 91,733. B.C. has about the same number as Alberta. Quebec has many fewer at only 26,085."

http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/640224

Forget Conservative talk about such provincial programs bringing in much needed skilled workers, this was the kind of positions Alberta was hoping to fill through its guest worker programs this summer: Front desk clerk, short order cook, baker, maid, assembly line worker, server, buser, bellhop, valet, and cafeteria worker, laundry attendant, pet groomer, general labourer, and hair dresser. All that is required of such would be immigrants is that they score 4 or 24 on the language assessment. In other words, they can still be functionally illiterate and still get it in.

It takes a great deal of chutzpah to Kenney to talk about wanting to avoid “the kind of ethnic enclaves or parallel communities that exist in some European countries” and then go about encouraging the very thing that led to the creation of these communities in Europe, viz., importing gobs of unskilled guest labour. Canada is lucky in so far as most Canadians see new immigrants as one of us. The Conservative policy will change this though. If the situation is allowed to continue, an increasing number of Canadians will see new immigrants, and most people are not going to make the distinction between guest worker and permanent resident, as someone brought in by employers to undercut wages.

Do not take my word for it. Take Sheila Fraser's word for it. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/auditor-general-sounds-alarm-on-immigration-policy/article1349837/

The report notes that Ottawa does not impose any minimum standards on workers selected by the provinces, and calls for these programs to be reviewed.

Provincial auditors-general in Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador and Prince Edward Island have all warned that the program is failing to track whether workers brought in by a province actually stay there.

The Auditor-General also reviewed the impact of controversial new powers awarded to Canada's immigration minister that were passed as part of the Conservative government's 2008 budget bill.

“We found that the Department [of Citizenship and Immigration] has made a number of key decisions in recent years without properly assessing their costs and benefits, potential risks, and likely impact on programs,” Ms. Fraser said. “Some of these decisions have caused a significant shift in the types of foreign workers being admitted permanently to Canada. There is little evidence that this shift is part of any well-defined strategy to best meet the needs of the Canadian labour market.”

In her first use of these new powers last year, then-immigration minister Diane Finley dropped the list of eligible occupations for the skilled worker program to 38 from 351.

Liberals have no answer for Tory Crime Agenda

Liberals now seem to recognize that they can not lessen the popularity of the Conservative crime agenda by falling in line behind the Conservatives. So what are they doing about it?

Well, at first blush it appears that have tried to put the subject in a different light. The Liberals have reminded the public that "US style mega- prisons" come at a cost and questioned just how Canadian such policies truly are. "Canadians know that spending billions of dollars on US-style mega-prisons to lock up young people will only produce more hardened criminals. It’s a failed American crime policy, and it just doesn’t work."

Such an approach is really a non starter though and that is why I think the Liberals are up to something else. In words of great voting behavior researcher Philip Converse, the vast majority of voters show a lack of “constraint”: That is, they hold incompatible beliefs. Many voters simply do not recognize that tough on crime measures necessitate the building of "mega-prisons". If asked, they will say that they support the former but disagree with the later. In other words, however popular such denunciations of "mega prisons" might be it is not likely such talk will do anything to arrest the popularity of the Conservatives tough on crime agenda.

The Liberals know this of course. Indeed, that probably explains why the Liberals denounce "mega-prisons", but do not promise to scarp the Tory policies that necessitate the building of these "mega prisons". The Liberals seem content to take way whatever the get from talk of "mega prisons" and otherwise take their lumps.

That is a mistake. This is what they should have done

First, the Liberals needed to quit talking about how criminals are sentenced and draw attention law itself. Second, they needed to pick an hot button issue that would draw starve the Tory agenda of any oxygen.

Now settling on a hot button issue you need to find one that have support of sizable chunk of the population. Something that is supported by only 10 to 20% of the population is non starter. Beyond that though what you what you really looking for in a hot button issue is one in which the arguments for one position are way stronger than the other side and the public has the capability of understanding them. After all, hot button issues generate a lot of press. You get all this and you have a perfect storm. Your opponent may start off with most of the public on his side but if his talking points are savaged by the media and an informed public over a long period of time, he is going to hurt in the polls. The more prominent or controversial the issue the worse it gets.

SSM is a good example. The population was spilt on the issue but likely voters were solidly yet against it. However, even though the Liberals had been rocked by the Gomery inquiry findings in the spring of 2005 and slipped below 30% in the polls, with SSM debate dominating the headlines over the next few months the Liberals surged to 38 percent by the time SSM came into law. Meanwhile, Stephen Harper was dressing up like one of the Village People and many pundits were writing him off. It is the process not the polls that really mattered and the Conservatives where on the wrong side of history. Their position was morally and legally bankrupt. The arguments against SSM sucked and the media let them know this.

Legalizing marijuana holds that same promise.

Polls consistently show that the Canadian public supports the legalization of marijuana by a wide margin. So the public is receptive to the idea already. However what really matters is the arguments for legalizing marijuana are far more robust than the arguments keeping it illegal. Indeed, the later are often so bad as to have earned the name "reefer madness". The policy's potential lies in the cost to the Conservatives of having their "reefer madness" talking points savaged by the media and the informed public an for extended period of time.

Jack Layton and Potent Pot

"The potency of today’s marijuana is making NDP Leader Jack Layton think twice about endorsing its legalization.

'Marijuana has changed a lot since my youth, I can tell you that, so I am informed. I’m told it is a heck of a lot stronger,' he said during a campaign stop in Surrey, B.C., where he outlined his anti-gang proposals."

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/971204--party-favours-election-ephemera

I find it hard to take anyone who muses about the supposed dangerous of potent pot seriously. About that "adult conversion" Jack, it is time to put up or shut up.

Potent Pot

Potent pot is more myth than reality.

However, even if one assumes that potent pot is a reality it is certainly nothing to be concerned about. Indeed, saying that potent pot is reason for keeping marijuana illegal is akin to saying that alcohol should be banned because gin has higher alcohol content than beer. It makes no sense. The pharmacological affects of consuming 1 "chemically supercharged" joint, as various US attorneys like to say, versus x number of "dad's joints" would be no different if the amount of THC consumed is the same. As for consumption, just as people do not drink the same volume of gin as beer, the higher the THC level in pot the less people consume. Hence, ironically more potent pot may be a welcome development. After all, one of the most prominent health effect related to marijuana, if not the most, is that it is usually smoked. The more potent the pot, the less people have to smoke to achieve the same high. Lester Grinspoon of Harvard Medical School concurs, so does Mitch Earleywine of the University of Southern California and so does UCLA's Mark Kleiman.

That said, if potency is the concern, then it should be legalized. After all, the only way to regulate the potency of pot is to legalize it. Moreover, so long as the drug is illegal, producers will seek to increase potency. The higher the potency the smaller the package the smaller the package the less likely they will get caught.

Finally, the attempt to scare parents that have grown up on marijuana by distinguishing between potent pot and “your dad's marijuana” is too clever by half. After all, it begs the following question. If today's marijuana is truly different in kind from "dads marijuana", would it be ok to legalize "dad's marijuana", i.e., low potency pot?


The US will Never Let it happen

Proposition 19 failed, but the issue will likely be revisited in 2012 and this time it stands a very good chance of passing. Voter turn for mid term elections is always significantly less than when the presidency is up for grabs. For proposition 19 to have stood any chance of winning Democrats, and the young needed to be energized. They were not and stayed away in droves. Even with everything stacked against them, though, the yes campaign still garnered 46% of vote.

Legal production of marijuana in California will make the legislation of marijuana elsewhere in the US all but inevitable and extension in Canada as well. Obama is not going to go to war with California in order to maintain a federal prohibition. Indeed, it was Obama that set the wheels of legalization in motion by declaring that he would not crack down on medical marijuana. For you see, unlike in Canada, in California, for example, one does not have to be afflicted with a particular aliment to be eligible for medical marijuana. A doctor can proscribe marijuana for whatever they see fit. Needless to say, such a system is ripe for abuse and the Bush administration was right to see medical marijuana program as a potential Trojan horse. But Obama let wooden horse to be wheeled into California and other States anyway. In so doing, Obama has allowed the medical marijuana industry in California and elsewhere to grow to the point there is no saving prohibition from Odysseus. There are more medical marijuana dispensaries in LA than Starbucks.

The Black Market will live on

It is one thing to illegally sell a legally produced product and make a profit, e.g., black market cigarettes. It is quite another thing to illegally produce and sell a product (e.g., moonshine) in market where there is legal competitors. The reason is simple. People want to know that what they buying and consuming. So when given the choice of buying an illegally produced product versus a legally produced product they are going to go with the later. (There is one notable exception and that is when an illegally produced product is successfully passed off as a legal one, e.g., fake brand name goods). That is why no matter how much Canadians drank during the time of American prohibition, I am sure that it never crossed the RCMP’s mind that American moonshine might become a competitor of Molson’s.

The gangs can not walk and chew gum at the same time.

One of the arguments that I have repeatedly come across recently is that should marijuana be legalized then the gangs will move onto other things. I prefer to call this the gangs can not walk and chew gum at the same time argument.

The problem with this argument is that the gangs are already into other things and it is profits from marijuana that are helping them do that. In the context of Canada, marijuana profits and sometimes even marijuana itself are providing the seed capital the gangs need to expand operations into the States, for example, and to diversify operations (e.g., cocaine, heroin, human trafficking and guns). This is one of the main reasons why we need to nip this in the bud.


Gateway Drug

Researchers have rightly noted that people who have try marijuana are statistically more likely try other illicit drugs. This gave raise to the theory that there was something about marijuana that encouraged drug experimentation. Marijuana, it was alleged, is a gateway drug. This, in turn, was given as one more reason to keep the drug illegal.However, the gateway drug theory has until recently fallen on hard times for lack of an intelligible mechanism. The problem was that there was no coherent explanation for why marijuana would lead people to experiment with other drugs. Without this explanation doubt was cast relationship being more than mere correlation.That said, in recent years researchers have breathed new life into the theory, albeit with a sociological twist. According to the new version, it is not marijuana's pharmacological properties that serve as a gateway, but rather marijuana's illegal status. Specifically in the process of illegally procuring marijuana, users are introduced to the criminal elements with access to other illicit drugs and hence it is the forged blackmarket relationship between dealer and buyer that serves as gateway. Ironically the gateway drug theory has been turned on its head and used as reason for legalizing the drug. The Canadian Senate employed the new and improved version of the gateway argument as a reason for legalizing the drug.

In this context it should be noted that when the Dutch partially legalized the sale of marijuana, heroin and cocaine use went down despite an initial increase in marijuana use. Dutch use of hard drugs remains well below the European average.


Schizophrenia Marijuana

Epidemiological studies have consistently failed to show a positive correlation between marijuana use and schizophrenia and there is no causation without correlation. Specifically, should there be a causal link between marijuana and schizophrenia, there should be a positive correlation between marijuana consumption and schizophrenia, but such a correlation is conspicuous by its absence. Despite a massive increase in the number of Australians consuming the drug since the 1960s, Wayne Hall of the University of Queensland found no increase in the number of cases of schizophrenia in Australia. Mitch Earleywine of the University of Southern California similarly found the same with regard to the US population and Oxford's Leslie Iversen found the same regard to the population in the UK. According to Dr. Alan Brown, a professor of psychiatry and epidemiology at Columbia University,

"If anything, the studies seem to show a possible decline in schizophrenia from the '40s and the ‘ 50,"

Much of the evidence linking marijuana to schizophrenia suggests not that it causes schizophrenia but rather that it may cause the earlier onset of symptoms in people who would sooner or later develop schizophrenia. Much to Gordan Brown's dismay, this was the opinion of Dr Iddon.

Dr Iddon, the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on drugs misuse [Britain], said the study did not convince him it was time to return cannabis to class B. "I don't think the causal link has been proved. I think cannabis might - possibly for genetic reasons - trigger psychosis at an earlier age." The MP, who is also a member of the science and technology select committee, said there was a danger of criminalising "hundreds of thousands of young people" if the status of the drug was changed. "If Gordon Brown changes the class of the drug, it won't be evidence-based but for political reasons," he said.

Public Debt: Common Myths

Myth 1: Government spending under Trudeau and Pearson accounts for most of Canada's debt

The notion that the Trudeau and Pearson spent Canada into debt is laughable. Leaving aside the fact that most of Canada's debt accumulated under Brian Mulroney, when Trudeau left office Canada's debt to GDP ratio was slightly less than it was under Diefenbaker and for most of 60s and 70s debt to GDP ratios were well below what they were in 1960. Moreover, it was only Trudeau's last term in office that deficits to GDP reached troubling levels and that had nothing to do with new government spending.

Monetary policy and not government largeness explains Canada's debt crisis in the 1990s.

At the beginning of the 1980s, the US Fed and other Western countries declared a war on inflation. They purposely drove the economy into a deep recession by greatly increasing interest rates. An example should put things into perspective. In April 1980 interest rates stood at already ridiculously high 13%; three months later the US Fed had raised them to 20%. The war was won, but it came at a terrible cost. Sky rocketing interest rates meant that the amount of money used to finance the debt went through the roof, the spike in unemployment greatly reduced government revenues and the unemployment insurance claims put further stress on government coffers.

By the way, the last of those ridiculously high yield bonds had run out by 1993 and by 1992 new bonds were issued at a much lower rate just in time for Paul Martin. Lower interest rates also drove demand and helped lower the Canadian dollar against US dollar.

Myth 2: Canadian government spending is out of control

Using the mid 1990s as a reference pundits such as Andrew Coyne like to point out that government spending has grown by leaps and bounds. Indeed, it has. The problem is government spending in the mid 1990s was lower than it was at any point since the 1950s and given the demands of a modern economy, such low levels of spending were unsustainable. In other words, what we have witnessed in the last 10 years is not a spike in government spending but an inevitable and needed rebound. The amount of government spending in Canada as percentage of GDP is lower than most Western countries and is even lower then what it is in the States.

Furthermore, what is true for other countries in recent years is also true for Canada. What accounts for most of the deficit is a massive decline in revenues and not "Canada's Action plan".

Myth 3: The debt crisis in Europe is a result of government largeness

The acronym PIGS make it seem that Europe's debt crisis is a result of government spending. This is simply not true. Prior to the down turn, Spain, Ireland and UK were in fine fiscal shape. All had gross debt levels that were lower -- in the UK's case much lower, than they are here and Spain and Ireland were running surpluses.

However, Europe was vulnerable in the same way that the US was vulnerable. The Europeans had allowed real estate bubbles to develop. Once real estate bubbles started deflating all over the western world, the UK and Ireland pumped huge sums of money to prop up their banks and furthermore took responsibility for enormous private debts incurred by their banks. As a result, their debt to GDP ratios sky rocked. In the less than a year Ireland's debt to GDP ratio doubled!

At the same time as governments everywhere were busy saving their banker's bacon, government revenues collapsed as unemployment rose and governments were saddled with higher bills for things like unemployment Insurance. This was certainly the case in Spain. A 10% plus jump in unemployment meant the government revenues tanked just as unemployment claims spiked.

Meanwhile, Italy and Greece already had higher debt levels and huge problems especially on the revenue side. Tax evasion is widespread in both countries. This is especially true in Italy's case. The situation is Italy is so bad that the former government proposed that every Italian's income be made public so that people could rat out tax evaders.

The back drop to Europe's debt crisis is questions about the feasibility of the Euro and worries that the true European debt crisis lies in wait.

Debt: While there is nothing to suggest that the timing of the current crisis was consequence of government largeness, a rapidly aging population endangers every major European economy --- at least outside of Scandinavia. Europe's "implicit debt", most notably generous but uncosted public pensions, will become more of a problem as Europe ages. This is especially true for the PIGS. Italy is Europe's oldest country and, if memory serves, Greece has its lowest birth rate. Many Europeans have been loath to embrace immigration for fears that it would erode national identity. Ironically, Europe must now embrace higher immigration if it wants to maintain its current way of life.

The Euro: Greece has been in and out of default for a good portion of the last hundred years. What makes this most recent crisis different is that should it default the future of the Euro would be in called into question. As Paul Krugman et al, have suggested default may be impossible to head off default. The problem is that countries in Greece's position have traditionally devalued their currency in order to get back on their feet again. (To very real extent that is exactly what Canada did in the 1990s.) So long as Greece uses the Euro, that option is not open to them though. In order for Greece business to complete with their German counterparts, for example, there most be real reduction in Greek wages. If Greece was not a Euro member, it could accomplish the same by devaluing its currency. What holds true for Greece also holds true for Ireland, Spain and Portugal.

Myth 4: This is 1995 all over again

No it much more likely that it will be 2007 all over again. Canadian consumer debt, most it related to spike in housing costs, is almost as high as American consumer debt was prior to the crash and in Vancouver it is higher. And again the crisis in Europe and US was brought on by a private debt crisis, associated with various real estate booms and helped along by a spike in oil prices in the summer of 2008, that in turn created a public debt crisis. As for our much lauded banking system, Spain's banks are no less conservative in their lending practices than Canadian banks, but a real estate bubble in Spain inflated and burst nonetheless. And why has the cost of housing gone through the roof since 2006? Well, the Conservative government decided pour fuel on an already red hot real estate market. The Conservatives extended the mortgage amortization period from 25 years to 30 years in February 2006, extended it to 35 years in July of 2006 and extended it yet again to 40 years in November 2006 During this period they also reduced the needed down payment on second properties from 20% to 5% and allowed for 0 down on one's primary residence. Ever since the down turn, Jim Flaherty has been scrabbling to undo the damage his past actions have done. Flaherty first reduced amortization period from 40 years to 35 and again mandated a 20% down payment on secondary properties and 5% on primary properties in October 2008 and on March 18th he reduced the maximum amortization period to 30 years. Never once acknowledging that it was he who raised the amortization period to begin with, Jim Flaherty has repeatedly over the course of the last 2 and half years that reducing the amortization and increasing the minimum downplayment was the right thing to do. "In 2008 and again in 2010, our government acted to protect and strengthen the Canadian housing market," The problem is it is too little too late. The best Flaherty and Conservatives can do is prevent further damage. Weather it be Bloomberg, Paul Krugman and, if you read between the lines, Mark Carney many are worried that Canada is headed for a crash that would drive Canada deep into debt. For one thing, since 2006 Canadian mortgage and housing corporations liabilities have gone from 100 billion to 500 hundred billion. If the housing bubble bursts and Canadians start defaulting on their mortgages, the Canadian tax payer will be picking up the tab. The Canadian government guarantees all that debt.

Major Problems with Influential "Anatomy of a Liberal defeat"

http://www.ces-eec.org/pdf/Anatomy%20of%20a%20Liberal%20Defeat.pdf

The authors imply that Liberal gradually declined as minority and catholic voters everywhere slowly left the party. However, had the authors of the study tied their musings to shifting regional voting patterns they would have come to different conclusions.

In 2004 Liberals share of the popular vote went up almost everywhere. It was up in BC, Alberta, Sask, Manitoba, NB, NS, PEI, NFLD. However, the party took a massive hit in Ontario and Quebec and lost its majority as a result.

Now, what happened in the former was Ontario voters returned to the NDP after an 11 year hiatus. Between 1965 and 1993 the NDP vote in Ontario never diped below 19% and never topped 22%. The party's share of the vote was very predictable. However in 1993 the NDP took only 6% of the the vote and their share of the vote stayed low for the next two elections. They took 10% in 1997 and 8% in 2000. Then in 2004 they went up to 18%. They took 19.5 in 2006 and 18% in 2008. As Ontario has by far and away most visible minorities in absolute terms, an 10% NDP uptake in the Ontario coupled with a 6.8% Liberal downturn in the province could mean that what is passed off as the start of a national trend (i.e., Liberal minority voters leaving the party first for the NDP and then later the Conservatives) was really no more a province returning to traditional voting patterns.

Of course, that is not the only thing wrong with the implication that Liberals lost as minorities everywhere deserted the party. The Liberal share of the national vote went down 6.5% in 2006, but the Liberal share of the minority vote went up slightly.

Equally problematic is the implication that the party lost as Catholics abandoned the party. The problem is this. One can not seriously address the decline in the Liberal share of the Catholic vote without commenting on declining Liberal fortunes in Quebec, but that is what the authors do. As of 2001, 83% of Quebecers referred to themselves as Catholics. The next highest was NB at 54%. Outside of Montreal the number is much higher. Only 74% of Montrealers identified themselves as being Catholic. By comparison Quebec City is around 95%. Anyway, between 2000 and 2006 the Liberal share of the popular vote in Quebec fell 24%. Outside of Montreal the decline was even more dramatic. In Quebec City, for example, the Liberal vote was a third of what it was in 2000.

Lastly, the seismic shift that happened after RCMP commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli's named then-Liberal finance minister Ralph Goodale in a criminal investigation in the middle of the 2005 2006 campaign should have have prompted authors to question people's self reports.

"Reforming" the Senate is a Terrible Idea

Constitutionally senators have all kinds of power and every once in a blue moon the Senate has stalled major pieces of legislation (e.g., free trade and the GST). However the aforementioned instances of stalling are so rare they are the exceptions that prove just how "ineffective" the senate truly is. Moreover, no senate I can think of has pursued a legislative agenda of its own accord; opposing legislation is one thing; purposing legislation is quite another. The reason the senate is not an "effective" body is that senators are not elected and as such lack legitimacy. Furthermore, senators are members of legitimate federal political parties and the parties that they belong to are loath to have their unelected members exercise real authority least their actions undermine the party. Finally, the fact that it is the ruling federal party and not, say, provincial governments that appoint senators defines a clear pecking order, with the Senate answerable to the House.

Harper, of course, wants to reform the Senate. Being unable to reform the Senate in one fell swoop, Harper has proposed electing Senators piece meal. Under the Conservative plan, new senators would be elected and would be limited to serving out a 8 year term. The elephant in the living room is that if the senate's lack of effective powers flows from the senate's lack of legitimacy, then electing senators might provide the senate with a degree of legitimacy it currently does not hold. One problem with proceeding thusly is that current senators are free to serve until the age of 75. As a result, Harper's actions could either transform an unelected political body with no real power into a largely unelected political body with real political power or commit Canadians to the farcical and expensive act of electing people to office who hold no real power. Always content to play the Tin Man and Lion to Conservatives scarecrow, the Liberals remain largely mum on the subject.

Setting aside problems associated with implementation, is the cause of democracy even served by reforming the Senate? Well, the Reformers always held that the regions needed more say and an “equal” “effective” and “elected” senate is the best way of achieving a balance between population centers in Eastern Canada and the rest of us. However, such a conception, and for that matter an "effective" version of the current senate, does not stand up to scrutiny. The problem is fivefold.

First such an argument rests on a false contrast; seats in the House of Commons are supposed to be assigned on basis of population, but in actuality that is not the case. Consider the 905. There are currently 4 plus million living in the 905 and there are currently 32 seats for an average of just over 127,000 people per riding. There are 6 ridings with over a 140,000 people in the 905, Bramalea - Gore - Malton (152,698) Brampton West (170,422) Halton (151,943), Mississauga - Erindale (143,361) Oak Ridges - Markham (169,642) and Vaughan (154,206). By contrast there are 4.5 million people in Sask, Man, NWT, Nuv, Yuk, PEI, NS, NFLD, and NB and there are 62 seats for an average of 72,000 people per riding. Moreover, there is but one riding in the 9, Selkirk Interlake (90,807), with over 90,000 people. Given current growth trends, there will be more people in the 905 than the aforementioned provinces and territories by 2011. Given population growth, Harper would have to give Ontario alone another 70 seats to make things half way equal.

Second, the people living in Canada’s less populated provinces have a mechanism to assure that regional concerns are addressed; it is called provincial jurisdiction and provincial representation. By the very nature of living in a province with a small population, the 135,851 people in PEI have plenty of ways of addressing regional concerns that are not available to, for example, the 136 470 people living in Mississauga - Brampton South.

The third reason is that while one person one vote is bedrock principle of any democracy, one province one senate vote is something else entirely. People, not provinces, deserve equal representation. A province is no more or less than the people that make up that province. Giving the 135,851 in PEI the power to determine everything under provincial jurisdiction, provincial representation and 4 MPs well all the while giving the 170, 422 residents of Brampton West one MP is bad enough as it is. Piling on and giving the 135,851 people in PEI the same number of “effective” senators, as per the American Triple E Senate model, as 12,160,282 Ontarians is beyond stupid and grossly undemocratic. Equally silly is having one "effective" Senator for every 72,997 New Brunswick residents (10 senators in total) versus one Senator for every 685, 581 BC residents (6 senators in total). And that is what the current configuration gives us.

Four, as Benjamin Franklin put it, having two equally matched houses makes as much sense as tying two equally matched horses to either end of a buggy and having them both pull. Having two houses is not only a lobbyists dream, it is a recipe for political gridlock and pork barrel politics. The only thing that would be worse is if one needed 60% of the votes in the senate to overcome a filibuster.

Five, leaving aside the fact that no province has a second chamber, most having abolished them long ago, and that there are numerous examples of unicameral nation states (e.g., New Zealand, Denmark, Finland, Israel, Sweden, Iceland, Liechtenstein, South Korea and Portugal), we already have a de facto unicameral state as it is -- just ask the supporters of a Triple E senate. After all, one can not argue on the one hand that the current senate is undemocratic and so contributes to the "democratic deficit" and on the other hand argue that the senate is “ineffective”. A body that adds nothing to the genuinely "effective" process can not take away anything either.

Conservative MP John Weston and the Gun Registry

John Weston:

"We all support the licensing of people who own firearms and the registration of prohibited or restricted weapons (such as handguns). That's not going to change; this Conservative government is unwavering in that. We know full well that criminals don't register their guns and that's what makes the long gun registry wasteful and ineffective,"

http://www.nsnews.com/news/Chief+Const+Lepine+Save+registry/3539157/story.html

Criminals can not register their guns. Being able to register a gun presupposes that one has a Possession and Acquisition Licence and a criminal record is grounds for being denied a PAL and for a PAL being revoked. However, this does not mean that some criminals do not try to register their guns. "More than 1,500 Canadians were refused licences for their guns from 2006-2009, on the basis of background checks triggered when they went to register the weapons." The most common reason for denying these gun owners a license was that they were a risk to others. "The program revoked another 6,093 licences in the same period as a result of continuous screening, court orders and complaints to its public safety line. http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/gunregistry/article/863178--why-gun-control-is-really-a-gender-issue?bn=1

Semantics aside, Weston's argument does not make much sense. Car thieves can not register their ill gotten goods with ICBC either, but I do see anyone giving this as a reason for not having to register cars. To make matters worse for Weston, it is impossible for him to on the one hand throw his support behind registering "prohibited or restricted weapons (such as handguns)" and on the other hand demand that long guns no longer be registered. After all, the reason he gives for the latter is that criminals do not register their guns. So, he should be calling for the entire registry to be abolished. Weston can not have his cake and eat it too.


Weston:

"This is a big distraction. It has been politicized. There is an unfortunate need for the Liberals to defend their waste of the $2 billion by continually coming up with justifications.

The Conservatives like to hammer the Liberals over the cost of the gun registry and rightly so. That said, the gun registry's 1 billion dollar price tag does not have any baring on whether long guns should be registered. What matters is whether the annual cost (between 1.5 and 4 million dollars) of registering long guns is worth it. Implying that the initial cost over runs justify dumping any part of the gun registry now is akin to saying the gazebo in Tony Clement's riding should be blown up because the Conservatives spent 1.3 Billion on a three day conference . http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/liberal-staffer-accuses-tories-of-trying-to-discredit-auditor-general/article1667099/ It makes no sense.

Now as for the justifications the Liberals have given for continuing to register long guns, other than to point out that the fact that the gun registry is used x number of times each day by the police, the Liberals have said remarkably little about the gun registry over the years. Their refusal to say much more has hurt them. They would have been in much better place had the continually come up with justifications.

Moving on, it is rich of Weston to imply that the Liberals have politicized the issue more than other parties. Not only have the Liberals not continually come up with justifications, they have spent a fraction of the Conservatives have on the issue. The Conservatives have spent money on radio ads and billboards. The Liberals have not. Not much has changed since Weston made these comments. The Conservatives were first ones to raise the issue this election and seem to be the only party wanting to talk about it.



Weston:

"This is a big distraction. It has been politicized. There is an unfortunate need for the Liberals to defend their waste of the $2 billion by continually coming up with justifications.
There's an Angus Reid poll that says 72 per cent of Canadians want the registry scrapped. There was a nationwide survey of rank-and-file police officers that said 92 per cent of them thought the registry was ineffective."

In 2006 Conservative candidate form Ajax Pickering famously said “The facts don’t matter.” I see John Weston is of the same mindset.

The auditor general put the cost of the gun registry at just under 1 billion, no Angus Reid poll ever showed those numbers and and this so called nationwide survey of rank and file police officers was chat room poll and so was no more scientific than Ted White's many "polls". My hat goes off to the North shore News for pointing this out.

"Setting up the registry ran notoriously over budget, reaching nearly $1 billion, according to the federal auditor general."

"In fact, the Aug. 24 Angus Reid poll of 1,005 Canadians reported that 44 per cent favoured scrapping the registry, with 35 per cent opposed and 21 per cent unsure. The police survey was an unscientific online poll conducted by an Edmonton officer on a police chat forum. The forum's operator later disavowed the survey, calling the results "mixed and inconclusive."

http://www.nsnews.com/news/Chief+Const+Lepine+Save+registry/3539157/story.html

By the way, one of the most recent poll showed this.

"Overall, 48 per cent of those surveyed believe it's a bad idea to abolish the registry, with 38 per cent supporting its abolition. (Harris/Decima interviewed just over 1000 Canadians. A sample of this size has a margin of error of 3.1 per cent, 19 times out of 20.)"

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/gunregistry/article/863178--why-gun-control-is-really-a-gender-issue?bn=1

John Weston:

"The answer remains that we don't have any documented cases -- that I know of -- where the registry has performed its avowed purpose," he said. "In each case, if you look closely the registry would not have saved the victim. It's not doing its job. All it's doing is intruding on the liberties of Canadian farmers, duck hunters, and other law-abiding gun owners."

The gun registry is, first and foremost a tool for seizing guns from people who should no longer have them. I doubt even Weston would deny that it makes the seizure of guns easier. This was the thrust of what West Vancouver police chief Lepine said.

"Having a detailed inventory of the 4,029 registered firearms in West Vancouver helps police with court-ordered seizures of weapons from convicted offenders, said Lepine. If legally held weapons are stolen and eventually surface somewhere in the criminal economy, the registry records give officers a place to start in their investigation, he said.

"The next one is public safety. We get calls from mental-health providers saying 'We're concerned about a particular individual.' We'll do that check and go and seize (their firearms) so they don't harm themselves or someone else."

http://www.nsnews.com/news/Chief+Const+Lepine+Save+registry/3539157/story.html

The problem is that Weston refuses to acknowledge that sometimes legally registered weapons need to be seized because the owner has, for example, been convicted of a crime. In this he is not alone; I have yet to hear a Conservative acknowledge that there have been thousands of "Canadian farmers, duck hunters", who acquired a criminal record over the last 12 years and over the next 12 years there will be thousands more.

As for specific examples, Weston must not have looked very hard.

“I think we've probably prevented some major events,” says Dr. Barbara Kane, a psychiatrist in Prince George, B.C. The RCMP has called Kane asking whether she is concerned about certain individuals applying to register a gun. She believes such a call prevented tragedy after a millworker was fired.

“He could easily have gone into one of the mills and done something bad,” she says. “But we were able to get his guns away from him.”

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/gunregistry/article/863178--why-gun-control-is-really-a-gender-issue?bn=1

Simple and Needed Democratic Reforms

Ban on political advertising outside of election time: Spending limits are designed to level the playing field and to lessen corporate influence and in process make campaigns more about issues than money. However, the effectiveness of such measures is undermined if parties are allowed to spend whatever they want outside of election time.

Make it so that political donations are no longer tax deductible: The Conservatives want to eliminate the political subsidy and so force political parties to raise their "own money". As usual, Harper only thinking of what political advantage could be gained and not at all about what is good for the country. Canada should be increasing the public subsidy and reducing the importance of donations -- also publicly subsidized -- by no longer making political contributions tax deductible. There are two reasons for doing so. The first is obvious. Making the political parties more beholden to those with money is a bad idea. Two, the more emphasis placed on fundraising, the less time politicians have to spend dealing with issues and serving the community. The extreme case is what has happened in the US. Bill Clinton lamented that an ever increasing amount of time occupied by fundraising and by the end of second term it occupied most of his time and the time of most senators. That was more than 10 years ago. Things are 100 times worse now. We want our politicians believing that politically it more advantageous for them to spend time representing their ridings than it is giving speeches at serious of $100 dollar a plate fundraising dinners.

Eliminate the distinction between local and national political adverting. This would prevent another in and out scandal from happening.

Mandatory voting: Seniors vote in much greater numbers than young people and so politicians pay them more attention. The lack of attention paid to younger voters leads the youth to pay even less attention to politics and on it goes in a vicious circle. Moreover, anyone who has ever worked on a campaign knows that most of the focus is not spent convincing people to vote this way or that, but rather identifying party supporters and then to pestering them to show up on voting day. Make voting and mandatory and parties would spend more time focusing in on the issues and lot less time tracking down supporters.

Liberal Platform

The Liberal platform did contain any surprises. Virtually everything had already been laid out before the election or in the opening days of the campaign. Sadly, it is a real mixed bag. I quite liked the Liberals learning passport, thought their family plan and pension top up plan mildly interesting, and was amazed that they could come up with a childcare plan that much worse than the poorly thought out plan Paul Martin trotted out. The rest is largely forgettable. I liked the party's commitment to net neutrality and their decision to increase language funding for immigrants, but a commitment to increase the number of family class immigrants is prime facie dumb, and commitment to equity had me momentarily longing for a Conservative majority.



What the Liberals needed to do was to establish themselves as categorically different from the Conservatives and this regard Igantieff's platform is a miserable failure. Take away the empty rhetoric about prisons and planes and the major tenets of the platform are not all that different from what the Conservatives might offer. The one thing that used to separate the Liberals and Conservatives, viz., the Liberal's tepid social liberalism and Tories robust social conservatism are gone. I find this development puzzling. After all, even though the Liberals had been rocked by the Gomery inquiry findings in the spring of 2005 and slipped below 30% in the polls, with SSM debate dominating the headlines over the next few months the Liberals surged to 38 percent by the time SSM came into law. Meanwhile, Stephen Harper was dressing up like one of the village people and many pundits were writing him off.



Since then the Liberals abandoned social liberalism and have pretty much turned all their attention to tweaking the tax code. As a result, the Conservatives do not seem so scary anymore, Canada is no longer "cool" and the Liberals have lost their commanding lead amongst younger voters and urban voters. A commitment to social liberalism was the party's only chance of making a breakthrough in Quebec and forming government, but the party decided stick to tax deductions instead.

Liberals should not be so quick to celebrate a NDP downturn

Virtually every poll shows the Conservatives are up and that they hold a 10 point lead in Ontario. Worse recent polls show the Conservatives are up in Quebec. If this holds, we are headed for the Conservative majority.

Despite all this, Liberal bloggers remain strangely optimistic. I do not share their optimism. Sure, there are some signs that the Liberals have made hay at the NDP's expense, Igantieff is not Dion and there is no Green Shift, but weak a NDP, especially in BC, helps the Conservatives a lot more than it helps shore up Liberal ridings in the 905. The following NDP ridings are in serious danger of going Conservative.

Edmonton Strathcona
Western Artic
Saut Ste Marie
St. John's East
Burnaby Douglas
New Westminster Coquitlam
Welland
Elmwood Transcona

Moreover, a weak NDP all but gives Esquimalt Juan De fuca to the Conservatives. Esquimalt Juan De fuca was a Keith Martin seat and not a Liberal seat.