Election 2015

[Retired AF Guy]

This legislation will build on the Government’s tough-on-crime measures to keep our streets and communities safe by ensuring that criminals who are convicted of the most serious murders or those who are convicted of high treason will be imprisoned for the rest of their natural lives with no access to parole. This will include a mandatory sentence of life without parole for first degree murders involving:

    -sexual assault;
    - kidnapping or forcible confinement;
    - terrorism;
    - the killing of police officers or corrections officers; or,
    - any first degree murders that are found to be of a particularly brutal nature.

I know there is some overlap between offences, but I would add mass murders and serial killers.

 

[Kilo_302]

http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/03/04/andrew-coyne-no-need-for-tories-throw-away-the-key-act/


Andrew Coyne is, I think we can agree, no lover of the Liberal Party and certainly not the NDP. This proposed leglistation is political pandering, with little sense or logic behind it. It does however, appeal to emotion and the desire for retribution.

From the article:

This is — does it even need saying? — nonsense. Not every prisoner is paroled after 25 years: only those judged at low risk of re-offending. Those designated as “dangerous offenders” can already be kept locked up for life. Parole, further, does not mean prisoners are simply set loose in the community, or released unconditionally: rather they remain, as a backgrounder by the Parole Board of Canada explains, “subject to the conditions of parole and the supervision of a … parole officer.” For how long? “For the rest of their lives.”

 

[Edward Campbell]

David Akin offers a new "Predictionator:"

He says: "A batch of recent polls means I've got a new "Predictionator" seat count for your entertainment ..."

If that holds then the Liberals could form a coalition with the NDP (Justin Trudeau as Prime Minister, Thomas Mulcair as Deputy Prime Minister and a left of centre programme for four years) but, unless they announced that plan before the vote, say two or three weeks before the vote, they would be accused of subverting the election, but it's what happened in the UK after their last general election.

Another prospect, given these results, is that 31 or 32 or more of the so-called Manley Liberals, the right wing of the Liberal Party - maybe led by Scott Brison who, I suspect, could not stomach the economic programme that the NDP would demand - would cross the floor as members of a New Liberal Party to join a CPC led coalition government. It still opens them (and the CPC) to charges of subverting the election but ...

The advantage of what is, to me, a more natural New Liberal/CPC coalition is that we get closer and closer to a two party system:

    A centre right Liberal-Conservative (Alliance) Party;

    A centre left New Democratic-Liberal (Alliance) Party

    A small Quebec Nationalist Party  )
    A small Social Conservative Party  } None of which are likely to get the 12 seats necessary to achieve real party status
    A small Socialist Party                  )

 

[Kirkhill]

I think a deterrent to the notion of a coalition would be the example of the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats in Britain.  The Conservatives are struggling, in part because they did not control their own agenda, but the Liberal Democrats will be lucky to take as many seats and the Ulster NationalistsUnionists.

Would Thomas Mulcair take that gamble? Trudeau might.

 

[ModlrMike]

I still think folks are underestimating the potential for a resurgent Bloc. The Orange Crush hasn't been the champion of Quebec people there expected.

The other factor in play is that the Liberal's current policy consists of "We're not the other guys." Not exactly the depth the electorate is looking for.

 

[McG]

Maybe Quebec will give the Greens a try?

 

[Edward Campbell]

I agree with Campbell Clark's article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, Prime Minister Harper plans to stoke the flames of our fear of terrorists and ride that fear to an election victory this year:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/tories-find-power-in-the-politics-of-terror/article23353503/

Tories find power in the politics of terror

SUBSCRIBERS ONLY

Campbell Clark
OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail

Published Monday, Mar. 09 2015

When you ask Conservative cabinet ministers about health care, or the public finances, there’s now a common answer: Jihadi terrorists are out to get us.

The latest was Finance Minister Joe Oliver, who shifted from fiscal matters in a speech Friday to tell listeners “there’s a war being conducted by international terrorists, by jihadist terrorists, and we have to be strong.”

Last month, when a tip foiled a Halifax mall shooting plotted by two young people, Justice Minister Peter MacKay opined they were the kind of people who were “susceptible to being motivated” by the Islamic State. Ten days ago, Health Minister Rona Ambrose segued in a speech from health care to Islamic State beheadings. Conservative ministers can now link anything to terrorism via non sequitur.

Get used to it. The Conservatives have an issue that works for them on many levels. Subtlety isn’t required.

This week, the Commons Public Safety committee will start three days of hearings on new anti-terrorism legislation. You’d think the government would want a long debate on terrorism, but Conservatives MPs cut it short. And you can expect them to spend the debate talking about the threat more than the specifics of the bill.

The reason is simple. Politically, what matters most in the terrorism debate is not who has the answer, but who gains from the question. The Conservatives want voters to be asking themselves who is best to deal with terrorism – they think the answer will be Stephen Harper. It’s one of several questions about fear and uncertainty they want voters to ask.

Voters already think Mr. Harper will do a better job dealing with terrorism, said pollster and political strategist Greg Lyle with Innovative Research Group. The more people are concerned about it, the better the Tories do.

But it’s not only that. The concern plays into Mr. Harper’s perceived strengths.

Rather than voting on issues, people use them to judge leaders, Mr. Lyle said – in a sense, issues are a job description for candidates. “If the issue is, who do you think is going to be tough enough to deal with those bastards, the answer is going to be Stephen Harper. It’s not going to be Justin Trudeau.”

That’s also why the Conservatives are talking a lot about crime, their perennial favourite issue, which dovetails neatly with the fear of terrorism. The Conservatives, touting a bill to eliminate parole for convicts sentenced to life, issued a fundraising appeal entitled “Murderers in your Neighbourhood?”

The point, for Conservative strategists, is that if terror moves up the public’s list of concerns, it creates a menu of issues on which Mr. Harper is rated relatively highly – in addition to managing public finances in a tough economy. “With balancing the budget, dealing with the economy, dealing with terrorism, dealing with crime – these are all tough issues that require strong leadership,” Mr. Lyle said. And the Conservatives can take advantage if one of those issues jumps to the top of the news.

It could backfire. Voters can be turned off if they feel a party is trying to manipulate them. An opponent like Mr. Trudeau might contrast fear with hope, which worked for Barack Obama in 2008, when the U.S. was in two wars and an economic crisis.

Even a few Conservatives, such as Alberta MLA Thomas Lukaszuk and Edmonton Centre MP Laurie Hawn, have expressed concern Mr. Harper’s team is going too far with fear – after an ominous Conservative Facebook post used a video by Somali extremists Al Shabab that raised the prospect of an attack in the West Edmonton Mall.

But Mr. Lyle doesn’t think the Conservatives risk a backlash. The two groups Mr. Harper needs to retain power, his Conservative base and swing voters, won’t be turned off.

The base loves it – so the Tories use it to raise money and recruit volunteers. Swing voters aren’t likely to think it too blunt, Mr. Lyle said, because only blunt messages reach them – they tend not to listen to political news until the moment an election choice is thrust upon them. “I don’t see any downside to it,” he said.

So expect the Conservatives to keep changing the subject to jihadis. They think every time they do, voters turn toward them.

I wish that Canadian election could be fought on real, important issues, but I've been alive since this fellow

was PM and in all that time only two have campaigned in elections that were, in the main, decided on issues of real, national importance:

and

 

[a_majoor]

I still think folks are underestimating the potential for a resurgent Bloc. The Orange Crush hasn't been the champion of Quebec people there expected.

The other factor in play is that the Liberal's current policy consists of "We're not the other guys." Not exactly the depth the electorate is looking for.

I thought thier policy was "Nice Hair"  ???

 

[Rifleman62]

It could backfire. Voters can be turned off if they feel a party is trying to manipulate them. An opponent like Mr. Trudeau might contrast fear with hope, which worked for Barack Obama in 2008, when the U.S. was in two wars and an economic crisis.

And look how that turned out. If you think PM Harper is secretive, look at the Obama Administration. Probably the most secretive, obfuscating, ethically corrupt government in US history.

President Obama learns of all events from the media at the same time as US citizens. The Hillary Clinton email scandal is the latest. She set up a private Server and conducted all her business/emails, through several email addresses, as United States Secretary of State on that Server. The WH claim they never received an email from her so were not aware.

 

[a_majoor]

The TFSA is a powerful economic tool for the individual investor, and I think the battle over giving the taxpayer more economic room or less will be one of the other defining issues in this election campaign. We already see how the "Left" is trying to warp the TFSA to their "narrative" (only the rich benefit, "losses" to the government) despite the empirical research which demolish these arguments:

http://business.financialpost.com/2015/03/10/tfsa-criticisms-miss-key-points-the-benefits-of-the-most-popular-savings-tool-ever/

TFSA criticisms miss key points: The benefits of the most popular savings tool ever
Ian C.W. Russell, Special to Financial Post | March 10, 2015 9:01 AM ET
More from Special to Financial Post

How big is the retirement savings gap? Research, notably a recent McKinsey study, has concluded the shortfall in retirement savings, while not endemic, is a problem for some Canadians, especially those approaching retirement. The federal government addressed this in 2008 by introducing a unique savings vehicle, the Tax-Free Savings Account (TFSA). These accounts shelter returns from after-tax income, assisting Canadians in supplementing RRSP savings for retirement and other purposes. They provide flexibility, permitting an annual contribution of up to $5,500, and withdrawal at any time, with the ability to restore balances in subsequent years. The Americans don’t have anything like the TFSA. Even Roth IRA plans, while similar in structure, contain far more restrictions and corresponding hesitation to use Roth accounts to save.

Canadians quickly latched onto TFSAs, with the number of accounts nearly tripling in the past five years to reach 13 million. Financial assets in TFSA accounts increased nearly seven-fold in the same period, from $18 million to $131 million, and average account size has increased from $3,751 in 2009 to $9,118 in 2012. Not surprisingly given its widespread take-up, the Conservatives promised in the 2011 election campaign to double the annual contribution limit.

Now along come two independent studies, the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) and the Broadbent Institute, pouring cold water on one of the most popular savings instrument ever. The Broadbent Institute recommends holding the annual contribution at the current $5500 and the PBO study infers a similar recommendation. Why? First, the studies argue the wealthy benefit proportionately more from TFSAs than any other group. But is this really the case? The PBO study indicates the share of TFSA total benefits to after-tax income is roughly similar between wealthy Canadians and middle-income Canadians, even projected out for the next 25 years (difference in percentage share of TFSA benefit to income within one-half a percentage point). While low-income Canadians, with considerably less income and savings than other Canadians, benefit less from TFSAs than other income groups, this result is not sufficient to justify capping the TFSA annual contribution limit. Middle income and high-income Canadians have taken full advantage of TFSAs, especially to supplement retirement savings. Low-income Canadians have less income to benefit from TFSA saving. Moreover, the Canadian retirement system, consisting of CPP, OAS, GIS and RRSP program, takes special care of low-income Canadians, providing replacement income in retirement to compensate for their earnings, blunting the incentive to use TSFAs for retirement savings.
 
By far, the heavy artillery aimed at TFSAs is the calculation of tax revenue loss from sheltering returns earned on TFSA assets. The PBO estimates the tax revenue loss through to 2020 escalates steadily from $1.3 billion this year to $2.8 billion in 2020, with the federal share up from $860 million to $1.9 billion, and revenue loss of the provinces totaling roughly half these amounts. The estimated tax revenue loss is 25% higher if the contribution limit doubles. Some in the media have picked up on this projected tax revenue loss, lamenting that, unless the TFSA annual contribution limit stays in place, health care is threatened as well as we face the specter of rising tax rates.

But the analysis underpinning the estimates of tax revenue losses from TFSAs in both studies is flawed. It is true that returns on TFSA assets would otherwise be taxed, and these returns and underlying assets will increase steadily over time. However, to get a proper measure of the tax impact of TFSAs, revenue losses must be measured against the tax revenue generated from investments in TFSA accounts. The assets in TFSAs, whether GICs, equities or debt, finance investment and business expansion, boost economic activity — and generate future tax revenue. Further, accumulated TFSA savings will eventually be spent, most through the retirement years of the account holder, but some before. The economic spin-off effects of this spending will in turn generate further tax revenue.

The TFSA isn’t just a popular savings instrument among Canadians, especially for many middle-income Canadians facing retirement. It is also an economic tool, generating economic growth, jobs – and ultimately government revenues. Anyone examining the “costs” of TFSAs must also look at the benefits.

 

[Kilo_302]

I agree with Campbell Clark's article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, Prime Minister Harper plans to stoke the flames of our fear of terrorists and ride that fear to an election victory this year:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/tories-find-power-in-the-politics-of-terror/article23353503/

I wish that Canadian election could be fought on real, important issues, but I've been alive since this fellow

was PM and in all that time only two have campaigned in elections that were, in the main, decided on issues of real, national importance:

and

It's gets worse, with comparisons being made to the Jewish holocaust today in Parliament:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/03/10/holocaust-did-not-begin-in-the-gas-chamber-it-began-with-words-minister-in-defence-of-new-anti-terrorism-bill/

Now usually I would say the first person to bring up Hitler loses the debate, and this case is no exception.  What's almost amusing about this case (if it weren't so tragic and didn't have such serious consequences) is that Steven Blaney's tenuous grasp on history didn't raise any red flags when "holocaust!!" popped into his brain. Can anyone recall a time (say 1933?) when a certain politician used an attack on their parliament to suspend civil liberties and solidify their grip on power? The irony is too much.

But in all seriousness, we need to be asking questions about this legislation (and it looks like we finally are). What happens if a real attack on Canadian soil occurs? What will we be willing to give up then? And with C-51 enacted, what will the consequences for anyone suspected of uttering anything construed as "anti-government" or "anti-Canadian" be? This applies to both the right and the left. I've been to reading groups that would probably put me on a list, and I'm sure many on this site might have posted an opinion at some time or another that could get you into hot water if the right (or wrong) guy is on the case. This doesn't mean of course that people on either end of the spectrum don't love Canada.

The other elephant in the room is, what will become of Muslims after a serious attack with perhaps dozens or hundreds of civilian casualties on Canadian soil? 20 years from now, as civil institutions continue to erode and Canadians are even less engaged in the democratic process, I'm not sure there would be much to stand between the Canadian Muslim community and a government (doesn't have to be the Conservatives at all) that might want to forcibly re-locate or deport them. The framework for the laws that might allow them to do this is in C-51.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>What happens if a real attack on Canadian soil occurs?

The people who overzealously argue for civil rights will have a hard time getting a hearing.  You can't stand against everything and then whine when people in the grip of tragedy decide never to listen to you.

 

[The Bread Guy]

So, does this mean we'll have a budget come down anytime soon?

Private-sector economists who submitted their prebudget forecasts to Ottawa this week say that with the past two months of steady oil prices there is no longer a need to delay the budget.

Private-sector forecasters had until Wednesday to submit their latest figures to the Department of Finance Canada for the coming federal budget and the results cement the view that slower growth and low oil prices are here to stay this year.

The tumbling price of oil was the main variable in the economy when Finance Minister Joe Oliver announced nearly two months ago that he would not introduce a budget before April. Since then, oil prices have levelled off around $50 (U.S.) a barrel and are not forecast to go much higher any time soon.

“I think the consensus is gelling on where the economy is headed this year, so I actually don’t see that much reason for further delay at this point,” said Doug Porter, chief economist for the Bank of Montreal. “While of course everyone’s crystal ball is a little bit murky these days, I think there is a fairly strong consensus on where things are headed in 2015.”

The federal government’s budget numbers are built on an average of forecasts from private-sector economists. The government usually makes adjustments to the numbers to account for future risks.

Normally, the department surveys economists once before delivering a budget in February or March. This year, the economists were surveyed a second time. Surveys are normally submitted a few weeks before the budget.

However, Mr. Oliver has remained coy as to his plans and has not ruled out waiting beyond April ....

 

[JS2218]

So, does this mean we'll have a budget come down anytime soon?

My money's on April 21.

 

[pbi]

A Tory minority, please...

That would probably give us the best set of options:

-a fair/good track CPC record on fiscal management and pro-business outlook, and

-a solid centre/left balance to offset the more neanderthal, US Right-wing style TTPs the Tories have sunk to in the last few years, but without a willy-nilly descent into the Socialist mire; and

-a chance at a half-decent defence policy and maybe some $$$ to go with it;  and

-a much better chance at representing Quebec (yes...that still matters); and

-a counterbalance to the "second-term-itis" affliction characterized (in all incumbent Canadian parties after the first term) by arrogance, disrespect for the electorate, secrecy, flouting of the law; and trough-snuffling entitlement.

One can only hope.

-

 

[Kilo_302]

A Tory minority, please...

That would probably give us the best set of options:

-a fair/good track CPC record on fiscal management and pro-business outlook, and

-a solid centre/left balance to offset the more neanderthal, US Right-wing style TTPs the Tories have sunk to in the last few years, but without a willy-nilly descent into the Socialist mire; and

-a chance at a half-decent defence policy and maybe some $$$ to go with it;  and

-a much better chance at representing Quebec (yes...that still matters); and

-a counterbalance to the "second-term-itis" affliction characterized (in all incumbent Canadian parties after the first term) by arrogance, disrespect for the electorate, secrecy, flouting of the law; and trough-snuffling entitlement.

One can only hope.

-

In what world has the CPC had even a passing track record on fiscal management?

http://www.macleans.ca/economy/economicanalysis/of-the-last-three-federal-governments-which-had-the-best-fiscal-record/

Sure, Harper had the financial crisis to deal with, but austerity as a way of balancing the budget has been proven in Europe as the worst thing you can do.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Meanwhile, over at Rideau Hall ....

Prime Minister Stephen Harper is pleased to announce that Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, has welcomed the continuance in office of His Excellency the Right Honourable David Johnston as Governor General until September 2017.

His Excellency has accepted the Prime Minister’s invitation to remain in office for this extended term, which will cover many of the events celebrating Canada’s 150th anniversary of Confederation ....

 

[Brad Sallows]

>In what world has the CPC had even a passing track record on fiscal management?

Ours.  As the authors of your "evidence" state in the penultimate sentence of their article, "Of course, this analysis takes no account of the political and economic conditions each Prime Minister faced when they were in office."

Any analysis which fails to include important changes in the fiscal and economic landscape in the decade prior to the Liberals' benchmark year of cuts is no analysis at all.  And there is no evidence whatsoever to show that an alternative government would have performed better following the 2008 shakedown.

And to ignore or obscure that much of the recent Conservative spending has been the restoration and resumption of transfers and program spending the Liberals constrained and cut during the mid-90s is asinine.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I can't imagine a Conservative minority.  We will have either a Conservative majority, or a Liberal/NDP coalition majority.

I will not believe any assurances (pre-election promises) that the Liberals and NDP will not form a majority coalition if between them they hold enough seats.  If they have the seats, they will succumb to the obvious temptation.

 

[ModlrMike]

I can't imagine a Conservative minority.  We will have either a Conservative majority, or a Liberal/NDP coalition majority.

Mr Trudeau has ruled out a coalition. Not because he doesn't believe that it's not possible, but simply because Mr Mulcair has staked a claim to the PM chair.

I will not believe any assurances (pre-election promises) that the Liberals and NDP will not form a majority coalition if between them they hold enough seats.  If they have the seats, they will succumb to the obvious temptation.

The only validity a coalition gains is when the electorate knows up front that it's an option, and the party leaders declare it an option. Once the election is over, it seems to me at least, to be a usurpation of the electorate's wishes to form a coalition.

Succumb to temptation? Didn't work out so well for them last time. That being said, I think that the GG could quite rightly refuse to allow them to form the government, based on my prior observation.