Harper, Williams Displaying Symptoms of Conservative Foot in Mouth Disease

Unless you've been living under a rock (or possibly in Toronto) you have heard that Danny Williams, premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, does not like Stephen Harper. I'm not sure "Steve" is all too fond of Danny, either.

For those of you emerging from under the rock (no Newfoundland puns intended) the storyline goes something like this:

Newfoundland finds lots of oil. Newfoundland makes plans to develop oil. Suddenly their economic outlook brightens.
Ontario and Quebec take economic hits in manufacturing. Western provinces are booming as usual.
The Maritime provinces remain in their constant precarious state (the culture of defeat, according to Harper).
Earlier this year, Harper decides to revamp the equalization payment formula to reflect the changes noted above. Danny doesn't like it.

I can understand how Williams feels. After years of barely keeping her head out of the water, Newfoundland and Labrador was set for a substantial financial windfall. Time to pay off some of that crippling debt, do a little infrastructure work, and hey, maybe even have a little fun. I feel the same way when I look at the opening line of my income tax statement.

Of course, I can see the other side of the coin as well. The old debate about have/have not provinces has been kicked, beaten, flogged, buried, exhumed, beaten some more, and re-buried more times than I can count. More importantly, federal transfer payments aren't really an issue in this election. Well, except to Danny Williams.

Part of me finds this personal vendetta amusing, but overall I think it's damaging, particularly to the Conservative party. Danny Williams may be a conservative provincially but he was, until he started this mess, a frontrunner to follow Harper as leader of the federal Conservatives. Maritimers like him, and a great number of former Maritimers now living in western Canada like him as well. Standing up to Harper brought him positive attention on a national scale in March. He knows how to make money, he knows how to speak, and he knows how to make enemies.

This current ABC campaign is anything but positive. Not only does it foster the deep rifts separating Canada's diverse regions, it has the potential to cause rifts among Conservative supporters.

The only reason Stephen Harper was able to form a minority government (outside of the best Liberal attempts to bury themselves in scandal) was the joining of the Canadian Alliance and PC parties. If the NDP, Liberals, and Greens were one party, they would hold a majority. The numbers are simple. What Williams is doing might separate that successful union.

Who knows? Maybe that is exactly what Williams intends to do. Perhaps he wants the Reform Party to head west on a wagon train and take the reins of the PC movement into his own hands.

All I can hope is that he knows what he is doing, because he is standing on very thin ice.

Environmental Economics with Jack Layton

When it comes to public speaking, Jack Layton is by far the greatest orator among the major party leaders. Listening to him as he cagily avoided answering Anna Maria Tremonti’s questions this morning I was impressed with his skills but wary (and weary) of his rhetoric on the environment and the economy.

The New Democrats are enjoying recent polls reporting that 62% of Canadians would like to see the NDP as the Official Opposition. Can the NDP move from political conscience to political power? Layton thinks so. (I’m slightly more skeptical.)

Because the Liberals are promoting a carbon tax, the NDP oppose it. Layton is promoting the cap and trade system of punishing corporate polluters, setting definitive targets and enforcing legislation. As a side note, he mentioned that four provinces, 11 states, and several European nations have committed to a cap and trade system, but avoided saying he was following US environmental policy. No mention of the eight EU nations that also have carbon tax systems or BC's carbon tax plan (brought in by a Liberal government).

The New Democrats have been upstaged by both the Liberals and the Greens in environmental policy, so they are downplaying this issue and turning it into a matter of economics. It’s a sad day when the NDP would rather agree with the Conservatives than their comrades on their own side of the political spectrum. Layton makes a big show about opposing Stephen Harper, but is ready to plop on his cap and cardigan in this case.

But I digress. The revenues from this proposed cap and trade system ($2.5 billion in the first year) would then be invested in public transportation, green home renovations and a green manufacturing shift.

Investing cap and trade revenues in public transportation is a noble and worthwhile goal. Canada’s public transit is an absolute disgrace. I like this part.

Layton has been quoted as saying he would stop oil sands development. On CBC radio this morning, he quantified that statement, saying that he would not approve any further development without solving the environmental and health concerns that are currently a huge problem. In other words, he isn’t going to stop the development, just trip it up in red tape. The NDP would also immediately stop tax subsidies for large oil companies.

Okay, so Layton wants to punish big polluters (aka oil companies), stop their subsidies, and slow oil sand development. Fact of the matter is, the oil sands are providing income for not only Albertans but many, many other Canadians. You would be hard pressed to find a resident of BC, Saskatchewan or the Maritimes who hasn’t got a relative in Fort McMurray right now. Stop this development and those people end up back at home without work, drawing unemployment and welfare, depressed and addicted to drugs. If you think I’m exaggerating, I urge you to visit rural New Brunswick.

Pull subsidies from oil companies, roll back their corporate tax cuts, then introduce carbon penalties? That sounds like a great way to drive a company into the ground or send it to friendlier territory. You might as well wave big “get the heck out of my country” flags and flip them a Trudeau salute. You cannot treat a company, any company, in such a manner, and expect them to gratefully stay within your borders and employ your citizens. Business does not work that way.

Yesterday Layton stood at an auto manufacturing plant and announced $8 billion in proposed spending ($2 billion a year) to boost and restructure the manufacturing industry. He promised balanced budgets every year, should he gain power and the creation of a jobs commissioner to address employment and retraining of manufacturing employees. He also discussed keeping Canadian raw materials in Canada (such as oil and softwood lumber) to create manufacturing jobs.

Unless Canada violates its trade agreements, it is not feasible to restructure and grow the flagging manufacturing industry by processing raw materials at home. Jobs commissioner? Leave it to the NDP to spend more of our tax dollars on government salaries.

Where will this $8 billion dollars come from to aid the manufacturing industry? Cap and trade penalties? Unlikely. Increased corporate taxes? Excellent. So the NDP will take money from profitable businesses through taxes, sink it into unprofitable businesses and bureaucrat salaries, and hope it will right our economic wrongs. Sounds like a great plan to me. Excuse me if I don’t run out and order an NDP lawn sign.

Shifting to green manufacturing and green products is a good idea. Helping Canadians retrofit their homes to be more energy efficient is also a good step. A government cannot, however, spend money making products that are not in demand. You can make all the solar panels you want, but until Canadians have a good reason to buy them, they won’t.Especially when they are forced to pay more for the same products than our neighbours to the south. But wait, they won't be buying much of anything without income.

First you create the demand, then you increase product production to meet the demand. Simple economics.

That brings up the issue of NAFTA, which Layton doesn’t like. He didn’t go so far as to say he wanted to throw it out the window, but he did say it needs serious restructuring. On this, he and Barack Obama agree.

We all have a conscience. Aren’t you glad it doesn’t run our country?

Jack Layton: Get Canadian Troops Out Now

Jack Layton has gone to war, but he wants Canadians out.

Afghanistan. Layton is on the campaign warpath, stating he is against the war and wants Canadian troops out. How fast? Immediately. Speaking on CBC Radio this morning he said that it would be his first announcement as Prime Minister. When asked for a time frame, he stated that the pull out would happen as soon as it was safe to do so. He would then work with NATO and the UN to produce a new strategy in Afghanistan, addressing civilian safety, the drug trade, and corruption. He believes that Canada needs to restore its peacekeeping and peacemaking reputation.

So that’s what Jack Layton said. This is what I think of it.

An immediate and hasty withdrawal of Canadian troops would most likely throw the country into civil war (if neighbouring countries don't move in to take over first). The drug cartels and insurgents would most likely seize power. Withdrawal would place a huge burden on our allies left behind, weakening our good relations with those nations and most certainly increase their casualties.

Pulling out when we are so deeply involved without a plan in place or consulting our allies is absolutely ludicrous. Like it or not, our government made a military commitment, and it would be horrifying to begin pulling out without having a strategy in place. Note that, during this morning’s interview, Layton said troops would begin withdrawal immediately, no if, ands, or buts. No talks with NATO or the UN would change that. He would discuss options with those organizations, but the troops would be coming home.

How does it improve our country’s reputation as a promoter of peace to force a deeply troubled region into further chaos? Quite simply, it doesn’t. Yes, our soldiers are dying, and it’s horrible. My cousin is serving in Afghanistan right now, and I worry daily for her safety. I support our military personnel because they are doing all they can with the mission they have been given. Do I support the mission they have been given? No. But calling troops home now is completely irresponsible.

It is utterly disrespectful to the members of our military who have been tirelessly working in Afghanistan to simply withdraw. Hey, thanks for all your hard work and sacrifice, but we’re throwing it out the window. We’ll leave the mess for someone else to clean up.

Does the Afghan mission need to be rethought? Yes. Do we need to change Canada’s role in military operations there? Yes. But we cannot leave now.

Canada got itself into this mess, and it needs to see itself out.

Battle of the Bulls

The Green Party will not be allowed to participate in the televised leader's debates.

I think this is a telling letdown by the media and the mainstream politicians, not because I'm a Green supporter (I have voted for every party at some point except the Bloc) but because of the lack of credible reasons behind it.

Stephen Harper says that Elizabeth May is just another Liberal, and his followers claim that the debate is for leaders, not for environment ministers. The Green Party is a one issue party.

Funny, all this time I thought the Bloc Quebecois was a one issue party as well. And they certainly don't field candidates in every province, let alone in every federal riding.

What was the excuse last election? Oh yes, the Greens weren't an official party. Now they are.

They didn't have a sitting MP. Now, they do. Granted, he wasn't elected, but he's there.

The Reform Party and the Bloc were not official parties when they first participated in the televised debates.

In fact, I think every argument used against them in the previous election has been nullified. Except, of course, that no one wants Elizabeth May there.

As for being a one issue party, please see yesterday's posts concerning transparency about party policy. You can read every word of the Green's policy, and while it is based on environmental and health practices, it basically covers everything without stooping to the use of pooping puffins and other mudslinging techniques.

On another note, concerning the similarities between Liberals and Greens, I was told confidently by the Honourable Jim Abbott, MP for Kootenay-Columbia, in 2006 that should I care to compare and contrast Green and Conservative environmental policy I would be hard pressed to discern a difference. Hmmm. I would love to do so, Mr. Abbott, were your party's plans as easily accessible. All I see on the Conservative website is boasting about what has been done, not what will be done.

In typical classy politician style, the media consortium asserted that, had May been allowed to participate, three of the other leaders would have refused to show. It amuses me to no end that grown men and women revert to behaving like spoiled children in order to get their way.

What are Jack Layton and Stephen Harper thinking? I would certainly like to know. Layton certainly might be thinking that giving the Greens more exposure would mean less support for him. He's probably right. He doesn't like the fact that May supports Dion, but then again Mr. Layton doesn't like it when anyone works together to govern effectively. Heaven forbid two parties work together in a minority government to make things happen, or agree to a common cause so to better face the enemy. That never happens in the real world.

But Harper? Would it not make sense for him to encourage further splintering of the right to bolster his own showing? Call me crazy, but allowing the Greens to woo voters from the Liberals and NDP would increase the Conservative chances of a majority government.

Instead, the would-be prime ministers look like overgrown school boys who stubbornly refuse to let the new kid into the games at recess. Come on, gentleman. (How dearly I wanted to put that word in quotation marks.) Play nice with the newcomer. If indeed May represents a one issue party, should you not be able to pick her apart with your oratorical prowess and knowledge of all the important issues, reducing her to her proper place on national TV?

Making such an issue of the whole debacle only provides the Greens with free media coverage and more political firepower. I'd say that it resembles shooting oneself in the foot, but that wouldn't be prudent, given Mr. Harper's latest announcement on gun control. But who was listening to that announcement? Not me. I was reading about pooping puffins.

Clarity and Transparency for...?

Well folks, it's not even nine thirty in the morning, and I've already had my exercise for the day. Exercise in futility, that is.

After listening to the local CBC morning host speak to various campaign organizers this morning, I decided that most Canadians don't have two sweet clues about individual party policy. My brilliant idea was to provide a simple breakdown of each party's particular policy on key issues, with a new post each day on a new issue.

Fairly simple, right? That's what I thought. Zip onto each party website, download and read their party policies, and sum it up without all the political gobblygook so the four people who read my blog can make an informed choice. That way, we should end up with four Canadians who at least know why they voted in the way they did.

The first website I searched was the Green Party of Canada, mainly because I was rather disgusted by the representative who had just spoken on the radio. The Greens have a link from their main page directly to a policy page. From there, they have further divided their policy documents into key issues, which can be viewed online or downloaded for convenience. Simple. Effective. This is what they stand for, this is what they want to do.

Next, I searched the Conservatives. Crafty as they are, the top Google search brings up the French version of their site, not English (hmm, wonder where they are campaigning?) and the alternate language button was hard to discern, but I found it. After reading about how cool Stephen Harper is, all the horrible things the Liberals did in the past fifteen years, how awkward Stephane Dion is (they have cartoon like pictures of him along the bottom, quite amusing), how incompetent the NDP are, and how the Bloc are destroying the country, I was still no closer to finding any policy documents. I gave myself a five minute search limit and hadn't found anything by the end of my time. If I couldn't find what I wanted in five minutes, the average click and go Net user isn't going to bother. So, I don't know what the Conservatives are planning, beyond a continuation of what we've seen this minority government do.

After that came the NDP, because Jack Layton sends me amusing emails telling me about how he's fighting big banks to reduce my credit card interest. The NDP are also conducting a leader-driven campaign-the site is all about Jack. Policy documents weren't anywhere easily found here, either. There was an abundance of information about the horrors of the Conservative government's recent decisions, Liberal bumbling, and how Jack Layton has been single-handedly saving Canadians from the Conservative horde. From what I understood, the NDP are going to do the opposite of whatever the Conservatives say they are going to do.

On the Liberal site, you can request a lawn sign. They like their lawn signs. There is also a large section on Dion and honesty (which talks about all the promises broken by the Conservatives). There is a small amount of general policy on the economy, the proposed green tax shift, and...that's it.

The Bloc Quebecois site, of course, is in French, so the English speaking parts of Canada may miss out on their policy. Which is sad, considering it isn't half bad. The only sticky part is that it is focused only on Quebec, and oh yeah, they want to separate from the country. In terms of finding policy documents, though, the Bloc have links directly from their index page to the key issues, again downloadable by PDF.

So I apologize that I couldn't give you an immediate, lazy researcher's overview of the Canadian election. I'll dig a little deeper, but if you want my opinion, the parties that seem to know what they want to do (other than slag their competition) are the Bloc and the Greens.

Let the games begin.