BS: Canada Election

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: GUEST,999
Date: 30 Mar 11 - 01:34 AM

Stockwell Day is in the vernacular stunned as me arse. While he was a cabinet minister, he said that rapists and child molesters should be allowed--nay, PUT--into the general population so that they could be taken care of by their peers. I wrote to the Red Deer Advocate and said words to the effect that as Minister of Justice he was suggesting that our legal system was ineffectual because if I really wanted to have bank robbers, drug dealers and killers (I worked in a maximum security institution during my first year of teaching) effect the punishment our courts didn't provide for those who disobeyed the rules, then we sure as hell wouldn't need a dip-shit like him to over-ride the law. We could get ropes and do it ourselves and save the cost of trials.

Later, I sent a fax and said he was fucking up (not in those exact words) the education system as it related to special needs children. I got back an answer to the effect that teachers were over paid as it was. He was then the Minister of Education.

Death, where is thy sting.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: Ed T
Date: 30 Mar 11 - 11:57 AM

F-35 purchases amid cost fears


f35-costs

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: Ed T
Date: 30 Mar 11 - 12:03 PM

I feel she would contribute to the debate. What's your opinion?

May

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: gnu
Date: 30 Mar 11 - 01:36 PM

From Ed's link... "As well, Canada was plunged into an election last weekend, and if the main opposition Liberals obtain power, they have vowed to cancel the Conservative promise to commit billions of dollars to buy 65 F-35s, and revert back to a competition to select the best plane to replace Canada's CF-18s. If that competition results in another jet being selected, it would further reduce the JSF's international order list."

That ain,t gonna happen.

Re May, why not?

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 30 Mar 11 - 01:44 PM

No real opposition to the Conservatives here in Alberta. Ho hum.

National figures show the Conservatives in the lead; that will be the same on election day, so Harper and another minority government.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: Mooh
Date: 30 Mar 11 - 02:42 PM

Yes, May should be allowed to debate on TV. Her party is running a candidate in every riding and has something like 10% of the vote. It's a national party. Stark contrast to The Bloc.

Peace, Mooh.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 30 Mar 11 - 02:54 PM

65 F-35's at about 75 million each claims Peter Mac Kay       (defense/offense minister).
Experts in the USA now say that the cheapest model of those sold to their own air force will be about 111 million each, and that is only the sticker price and does not include maintenance. By law American companies can not sell arms below the domestic cost so someone is lying through their teeth on this! Peter is no doubt willing to put that in writing, on a napkin I suppose. We have little or no use for this plane and should not even be considering its purchase at any price! Much better to buy some decent search and rescue planes and choppers. A stealth fighter is not worth a pinch of shit to us! No contract has been signed or no tender issued for this high speed piece of junk yet, so Peter and Steevie "STUFF IT WHERE THE SUN WON'T SHINE!"

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 30 Mar 11 - 02:59 PM

Why don't they want May in the debate?
Because she wants to discuss issues that shallow leaders would sooner leave buried under a pile of their own bullshit!

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: Ed T
Date: 30 Mar 11 - 03:21 PM

http://www.vancouversun.com/life/mean+gene+still+little+prominent/4526193/story.html

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: Ed T
Date: 30 Mar 11 - 04:18 PM

Came accross this while looking for something else:


Garth Turner 2009

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 30 Mar 11 - 08:06 PM

Garth Turner is a man I would believe! Harper and his appointed gestapo are a disgrace to democracy! God help us if these bastards ever get a majority!

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: bobad
Date: 30 Mar 11 - 08:13 PM

"God help us if these bastards ever get a majority!"

X2

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: gnu
Date: 30 Mar 11 - 10:22 PM

If they do, kiss your medicare and your pensions goodbye.... and keep yer lips puckered because that's only the beginning.

Oh, and clench yer butt cheeks reeeeeal tight and hang on.

I hope I can emmigrate to Quebec if things get too bad in Canada.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: Beer
Date: 30 Mar 11 - 10:33 PM

Good one Gnu.
ad.
Living in a Province not my home.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 30 Mar 11 - 11:25 PM

Our parliamentary system has a huge flaw in that someone can gain a majority of seats without anything close to a majority of votes. Cretien did it several times. Some countries require a run off with the lower vote getters dropping off of the ballot and nobody elected without a majority of votes cast. The expense would be probably no more that what one of those F*****'n stealth fighters Harper wants would cost!

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: Ed T
Date: 31 Mar 11 - 08:02 AM

Gap narrows

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: gnu
Date: 31 Mar 11 - 08:04 AM

Ed... "Oops! We can't find the page you're looking for."

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: Ed T
Date: 31 Mar 11 - 08:09 AM

Sorry GNU. Here it is:

Globe/CTV/Nanos Poll
Liberals narrow gap to 6 points in campaign's 'first possible shift'
Bill Curry
Ottawa— Globe and Mail Update
Posted on Thursday, March 31, 2011 7:24AM EDT
112 comments Email Print/License Decrease text size
Increase text size 1. What a difference a day makes. The Conservative lead over the Liberals literally shrunk overnight from 10 points to just over six, according to a Nanos Research poll of voting intentions for the Globe and Mail and CTV.

According to a rolling three-day survey than includes calls up until 9 p.m. Wednesday,

Support for Stephen Harper's Tories is up slightly from the survey ending the day before, going from 38.4 per cent to 39.1 per cent of committed voters.

The big change however is support shifting from the NDP to the Liberals. Support for Michael Ignatieff's team jumped from 28.7 per cent to 32.7 per cent, while NDP support dropped to 15.9 per cent from 19.6 per cent.

"The nightly tracking has identified the first possible shift of the campaign," pollster Nik Nanos said.

Support for the Bloc Quebecois is essentially unchanged at 8.7 per cent. And all of the attention over the decision not to allow Elizabeth May into the debate doesn't seem to be helping her party – Green support is at 3.7 per cent, down slightly from 4.1 per cent the day before.

So far, 21.7 per cent of Canadians surveyed said they were undecided.

Wednesday was a better day on the campaign for Mr. Ignatieff than it was for NDP Leader Jack Layton, given that an NDP candidate defected to the Liberals.

Also, the Liberal Leader's proposal to help students with the cost of tuition is being widely discussed online (more on that below).

The survey of 1,200 people covers March 28-30, including 400 surveys each day. Every day during the campaign, Nanos will survey 400 people and report on the average of the most recent three days. The margin of error for the national numbers is plus or minus 3.2 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

Mr. Nanos said with nightly polling, it is important to watch for trends over time to assess the significance of changes in the numbers.

"Most of the Liberal gains were in the Prairies, co-incidental with the tour of Michael Ignatieff and his announcement of his election platform," Mr. Nanos said, noting that Canadians are increasingly saying that issues are an important factor in deciding who to support.

"This suggests that voters are becoming increasingly focused on the platforms and ideas proposed by the federal parties," he said.

2. Twitter picks policy winners and losers. Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff's call for a "Canadian Learning Passport" is getting a lot of buzz online.

For anyone looking for specifics as to why the Liberals just got a bump in the Nanos survey, the world of Twitter may provide a clue.

Thanks to Vancouver-based web developer Trevor May, there's now a way to track the reaction to various campaign promises on the social-media service.

Of eight campaign promises announced so far by the Conservatives, Liberals and New Democrats, the tuition support policy is the most talked about pledge on Twitter. The Conservative proposal for income splitting is the second most discussed.

Mr. May's regularly updated list is available on his website, PoliWwitter.ca, created two years ago to track federal politicians on the social networking site.

Originally Mr. May said he created the site as a helpful way for people to track political tweets from time to time without having to swamp their own personal twitter feeds with politicians.

His site has attracted the attention of Library and Archives Canada. Mr. May said the national archivists have contacting him, wanting his help to archive all of the political tweets during the campaign.

Mr. May, as well as Ottawa digital public affairs strategist Mark Blevis, are also among those at the forefront of efforts to use Twitter as a form of polling to assess public reaction to the federal election campaign.

Through his programming, Mr. May is trying to sort tweets in terms of whether they are positive or negative toward a specific policy. That part still needs more refining, he said.

Nonetheless, grouping Twitter reaction to find opinion trends is developing into a new use for the social media site, he said.

"That's definitely one of its strengths, and something that's maybe not been exploited to its full potential yet," he said. "It really helps to have an election to focus that attention. The volume [of political discussion] just increased exponentially as soon as the election came. There's a lot more useful data to work with."

3. When does Parliament come back? All the talk about hypothetical scenarios for the opening days of Canada's 41st Parliament raised the question as to when this showdown will play out, should the election produce another minority government.

According to the proclamation Parliament issued last week, it will meet again on May 30. The government could change that date. However, there's a limit to how far Parliament's return can be delayed.

When Parliament is dissolved, the government can still spend money using so-called Special Warrants. But once the writs – written orders setting elections in each riding – are returned to the Chief Electoral Officer, Special Warrants can only be used for another 60 days.

Given that it takes about two weeks for writs to be returned after election day, that means Parliament must return and vote new spending by about mid-July.

That would entail involve approving routine supply bills and could involve a new budget as well. Before MPs can vote for spending however, they must first elect a new Speaker and approve a Speech from the Throne. The Throne Speech and government spending are all matters of confidence, meaning the whole matter of who is Prime Minister should be sorted out before Parliament's summer recess –if it isn't clear on Election Day.


Another:

corporate tax cuts and new fighter jets

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: Ed T
Date: 31 Mar 11 - 08:36 AM

Ignatieff


Attack ads


From Quebec

Because of the problem I have had with Globe links, here is a full version:

Henry Mintzberg
Conserving Canada or a Conservative Canada?
HENRY MINTZBERG
Special to Globe and Mail

I cherish this country for what it is, not for what its Prime Minister wants it to be. The past two elections suggest that most Canadians share this sentiment, even if a minority managed to elect the government both times.

What if this minority gets a majority this time? Not much to worry about, say some of the pundits: A swing to the far right can't happen here. Well, it happened in Britain under Margaret Thatcher and in America under George W. Bush. The voters eventually smartened up, but do we have to go through that kind of turmoil here, too?

Clearly a Western plot! I write books about strategy. I define the word as a pattern of actions out of the past more than a plan of intentions into the future. In other words, strategy is revealed by what is done, not by what is claimed will be done. If you need an example, pick an election and compare the promises with the actions that followed. How about the actions that followed our last election?

We have had wave after wave of attack ads, carrying the gutter politics of the Bush-Cheney-Rove gang into Canada. At the Copenhagen conference on global warming, Canada became the laughingstock of the world. Our government has questioned personal choices about abortion but not about guns. The oil companies received huge tax cuts, and there were moves to bring in a Fox News North (to replace the CBC?). The Prime Minister has exhibited contempt for parliamentary procedure while his appointments have been embroiled in one scandal after another. This is a pattern in actions if I ever saw one, and it points to exactly the strategy a Conservative majority would pursue.

Now we are in the thick of an election campaign, with all the usual slurs and promises. "We interrupt this shouting match to bring you today's bribe (with your money) – tax splitting, university fees, anything." The man who should be bringing some dignity to all this is the worst of them. "Coalition, coalition, coalition," he cries, like some name-calling kindergarten kid.

What's wrong with a coalition anyway? It's working in Britain and has worked for years in Germany and many other countries. Indeed, we got medicare in this country because a small group around Tommy Douglas worked with the minority Liberal government at the time. (Will we lose medicare as we know it, too?)

Why this swing to the far right, in Canada of all places? Have we not been the ones most aware of the machinations of the American ideologues? Now we are their clone, while Britain, France and Germany are governed by moderate conservatives, and the U.S. by a liberal.

Two explanations are evident. One is Liberal ineptness, first the outright corruption of the sponsorship scandal and now yet another "leader" incapable of connecting with the public. And the other is the nature of our political process. If a party can concentrate its support at one place in the political spectrum while its opponents divide votes over the rest, into power it can go: Minority rules on the right.

Perhaps 30 per cent of Canadians are hard-core conservatives, with some others prepared to swing that way when sufficiently fed up with the other parties. (Early polls showing stronger support for the Conservatives may be failing to indicate that many voters are undecided between the other parties.) In the past two elections, this was enough to leave about two-thirds of the electorate out in the cold.

To explain how we can change this – that is, reframe the political process in this country – let me offer a primer about the obvious in Canadian politics.

Increase text size We do not elect a president in Canada. Everyone knows that except our Prime Minister. What many people forget is that we do not elect a prime minister, either. In fact, we do not even elect a political party. We elect members of Parliament in our individual ridings. Of course, they usually run under the banner of a particular party, but we know that, in Parliament, they can take a walk and sit elsewhere.

Contrary to Stephen Harper's claims, the winner of the election is not the party that gets the most seats or the most votes, but whichever party or coalition or set of individuals can get the support of the sitting members. Usually these members defer to the party with the most seats, and that party to its leader, who becomes prime minister. But recall recent events in Australia and British Columbia, and an earlier one in Margaret Thatcher's Britain, when the members of the party in power turfed out their leader – their country's prime minister.

Of course, this isn't about to happen in Ottawa. Right now, the one thing George W. Harper has going for him is John Kerry Ignatieff. But need this be yet another contest between two so-called leaders? Have we not had more than enough of this? How about a little grown-up politics for a change, a popular movement to get a government of people and ideas instead of a leader with a dogma?

Imagine treating this election as a plebiscite: a vote for conserving Canada or else for a Conservative Canada. Those who support the latter know where to put their X. So those who support the former had better get their X's together before May 2.

How can they do that? By voting "strategically" – that is, concentrating their voting power riding by riding. On, say, April 18, they consult the polls in their own riding (if they exist, otherwise the results of the last election), and swing their votes to the Liberal, NDP, Green etc. who has been garnering the most support and is, therefore, most likely to pass the Conservative at the post.

Think of it: people power in Canada, putting country ahead of party, beliefs ahead of personalities. Our own little Tahrir Square, right across this vast land. We are at a turning point in this election, facing a choice between two fundamentally different views of this country. Will the majority decide?

Henry Mintzberg is Cleghorn Professor of Management Studies at McGill University.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: Ed T
Date: 31 Mar 11 - 10:29 AM

1997 speech by Stephen Harper

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: Ed T
Date: 31 Mar 11 - 10:44 AM

Kind of long, but an interesting conclusion:


Our Benign Dictatorship

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: gnu
Date: 31 Mar 11 - 02:22 PM

1997 speech, last sentence, Harper... "As long as there are exams, there will always be prayer in schools."

Odd thing to say? We never said prayers in school when I was a lad. Was he home fooled?

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: Ed T
Date: 31 Mar 11 - 02:28 PM

I found this statement odd:

""... the Liberal party gets the votes of most Catholics in the country, including many practising Catholics.""

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: gnu
Date: 31 Mar 11 - 03:04 PM

Yes Ed... I never used to read many of such speeches. Kind of disturbing reading them.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: Ed T
Date: 31 Mar 11 - 03:35 PM

I find reading speeches given by politicians, before the handlers get ahold of them and tell them what to say,a more informative perspective of the person. The internet makes it harder for them to bury 'em, and makes it easier for the average person to access 'em.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 31 Mar 11 - 03:40 PM

Great posts Ed !

Subject: Limited party leader debate.
From: Crowhugger
Date: 31 Mar 11 - 07:54 PM

Ahh, how sweet it would be if Harper could be excluded from the leaders' debate...

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: Ed T
Date: 31 Mar 11 - 08:00 PM

"" how sweet it would be if Harper could be excluded from the leaders' debate...""

But, then we would not have the opportunity to hear bed time stories about the nasty coalition (that was not to be).

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: maple_leaf_boy
Date: 31 Mar 11 - 08:25 PM

The Greens had 6% of the vote. I think Elizabeth May and the Greens
show promise for a party that's young. They have support across the
country, not limited to a specific riding. If we had the option of choosing two candidates, I would choose a Green party candidate and
someone rather than the tories. I like both the Liberal guy and the CHP guy in my riding. I'm torn between those two of who my second choice would be.

One letter to the editor in the paper today stated that the NDP, Bloc
and Greens were useless parties and that we need a Conservative majority. The author said she didn't deserve to be there. I disagree.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: Ed T
Date: 31 Mar 11 - 08:40 PM

May stands up for the environment, and thats admirable. I believe she worked for Environment Canada, and was associated with the Sierra Club at one point. She never seems lost for words.

But, I am not really sure of the Green's position on other issues.
I will have to check that out, as we wont learn of it in the debate.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: Ed T
Date: 31 Mar 11 - 08:54 PM

I came accross this advice.

Elizabeth May article

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: gnu
Date: 01 Apr 11 - 05:58 AM

April Fool's Day. GUESS who is in Moncton today.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: Beer
Date: 01 Apr 11 - 06:52 AM

Joey Smallwood!!

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: gnu
Date: 01 Apr 11 - 07:51 AM

If he was, he'd kick Stevie 1's ass.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: Ed T
Date: 01 Apr 11 - 03:11 PM

Avoid poll fatigue

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: Ed T
Date: 01 Apr 11 - 03:17 PM

Green?

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: Ed T
Date: 01 Apr 11 - 04:06 PM

It's interesting that Quebec now has Nfld power boxed in. It gets at a bargain price and sells it to the USA at a huge profit. They tried to buy NB Power to block this NS-Nfld transmission route. Can one conclude that the James Bay project, and other similar initatives to export power in Canada, received no federal cash?


NS-Nfld hydro plan

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: gnu
Date: 01 Apr 11 - 04:17 PM

Ed... BIG deal here in NB. BIG! Our premier signed the deal but it was scuttled. He lost the election last fall. Quebec has been screwing NF for about 50 years and they tried to do it again, with the help of the Liberal Party of NB. NB'ers stood firm with our NF, NS and PEI brothers and nixed the deal at the polls.

It's NOT "Quebec" that is at fault. It's the greedy rich bastards that control Quebec and all of Canada. As long as the people stand up to them... as long as they can... we have a chance.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: Ed T
Date: 01 Apr 11 - 04:54 PM

Gnu,

Thanks for the neighbourly move NB'ers. I suspect giving big Que power over your power generation and transmission would have been regretted.

It is interesting that Canada's tax dollars financed the Trans Canada pipeline from West to Quebec (and Southern Ontario) to give the West a market, and Ont and Quebec residents access to cheaper (and cleaner) natural gas. Similar benefits were not extended to the East coast.

Now, Quebec (Charest and Duceppe) cry "dont give 'em Canada tax dollars to compete with (our monoply) selling power to the USA", when the Atlantic provinces try and get access to cheaper (and cleaner) power and create a new business.

Emera (AKA, NS Power) already has significant investments in power generation and transmission Maine.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: gnu
Date: 01 Apr 11 - 05:09 PM

Yes Ed. We just gotta be careful now with the private transmission lines. Irving was sniffing around and talking about $1B to $2B in same. I dunno where that is but you can bet your bottom dollar that if they can get a chokehold they will choke our chickens.

Of course, there is always the Kent County solution to that problem. You fuck us, we fuck you.

Lepreau 2 is kinda on hold... the $1.5M "study" on the French building a MOX light water at LePreau was "shelved" by the new premier here when he took office. Let's hope the French stay home and IF a new reactor gets built, it's a CANDU. Personally, in light of the Japan tragedy, I would rather just halt everything until we get Newfy Power. Of course, at this point, ya can't stop the LePreau refurbishment from coming online in late 2012. I just hope the move the spent fuel ops to near the Quebec border. >;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: gnu
Date: 01 Apr 11 - 05:56 PM

Sorry for the thread drift. But, in defense of that, it's a microcosm of what is going on in many fronts on the national scale. If more Canucks would stand up and say "NO!" perhaps we could stop the slide into the abyss that the greedy bastards are trying to shove Canucks into for their own gain.

The remarks made by Harper today in Moncton... read up... seriously.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: bobad
Date: 01 Apr 11 - 07:11 PM

Aren't we always being told that the world's electric energy requirements could never be met by wind and solar generators alone?

The British Institute for Policy Research & Development (IPRD) claims otherwise: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/03/31/all-of-humanity-could-shift-to-solar-wind-energy-in-less-than-25-years-policy-study-group-claims/

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 01 Apr 11 - 10:38 PM

Tidal power should not be forgotten and Nova Scotia and New Brunswick are sitting on a largely untouched goldmine. Hydrogen fuel will become the petrol of the future and tidal driven electrolysis its refinery. Fuel cell technology is already practical except the big oil companies have no interest in hydrogen as long as they can gouge folks at the gas pumps. Screwed again by the global economy!

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: Crowhugger
Date: 01 Apr 11 - 11:21 PM

Unfortunately election issues seem to be quite narrowly scripted, preventing what I would call the real issues to come to the fore.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: Ed T
Date: 02 Apr 11 - 09:55 AM

Tidal power is a definite source, and the complexities of developing sturdy, environmentally friendly, and fficient equipment is evolving in the big-tide areas of the Bay of Fundy.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: Ed T
Date: 02 Apr 11 - 10:02 AM

Liberals doing better?




Hard hitting perspective



Could the Bloc, block Muskrat Falls?

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: Ed T
Date: 02 Apr 11 - 10:13 AM

Cliff hanger?


Ontario-BC hold the key?

team-harper-plays-it-safe-but-is-it-stumbling?

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: Ed T
Date: 02 Apr 11 - 10:22 AM

Harper risks Quebec in high-stakes regional gamble
LES PERREAUX AND STEVEN CHASE

Stephen Harper is embarking on a make-or-break political gamble in this election, risking crucial Quebec seats to woo Newfoundland while promising billions a day later to cushion the blow.

It's not every election campaign in which a federal leader picks a side in a longstanding disagreement between two provinces. What's even more rare is that the Conservative Leader favoured Newfoundland, where his party has no seats, over Quebec, where it has 11.

Within 24 hours, Quebec complained about federal favouritism for a Newfoundland hydro project, laid out a list of demands and heard a promise from the Conservatives for $2.2-billion to settle a bill for tax harmonization.

The same Conservatives who didn't deliver the long-awaited payment in last week's federal budget were suddenly desperate to make good after a rocky first campaign week in Quebec.

"We want to work together; we don't want to fight," Mr. Harper's Quebec lieutenant, Christian Paradis, pleaded as he made the rounds of Quebec media on Friday to announce the promised cash.

One peace offering may not do much to help the Conservative campaign recover in Quebec. Negotiations for the settlement stretched on for 14 months, and Finance Minister Raymond Bachand said he was fed up waiting.

Quebeckers are unlikely to see any special favour in the harmonization payment, given that similar settlements were reached quickly with Ontario and British Columbia while Quebec has waited 20 years.

The promised tax settlement comes post-dated to Sept. 15, and with one other string attached: The re-election of the Conservative government on May 2.

But the promise may get one irritant out of the way as the Conservatives try to compete in more than a dozen seats in play in the province – more than enough to turn a slim minority into a narrow majority.

Most of Quebec isn't exactly a battleground. More than half the province's 75 seats in francophone, nationalist areas seem to be painted in semi-permanent Bloc blue. Another dozen are staunchly federalist and Liberal Red.

For a while, it looked like Mr. Harper had given up on improving on the 10-seat result of 2008, plus the extra seat the party picked up in a by-election. Mr. Harper railed for days against the menace of a supposed coalition with separatists, seeming once again to forget that Quebec nationalists have long been willing to support the Tories.

By Friday, a promise to help Newfoundland had Mr. Harper facing a united front of Liberal Premier Jean Charest and Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe, backed by the entire National Assembly.

Mr. Charest, who traditionally sends a letter to all federal parties outlining demands from Quebec for federal elections, made a rare personal foray into the campaign.

He accused Conservatives of threatening to wreck an electricity market that works well for Quebec's powerhouse Crown utility, Hydro-Québec.

The Conservatives promised to guarantee a loan to finance $4.2 -billion of the $6.2-billion project to run an underwater power line from Newfoundland to New England.

Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Kathy Dunderdale was thrilled, predicting the Conservatives would win back some seats in the province, where four would be an historic high.

Mr. Charest called the promise "stunning."

"They are changing the price of electricity. They're changing the price paid by consumers. It's unacceptable. We have a market that works well. The federal government has never intervened, we can't tolerate them intervening now," Mr. Charest told reporters at Quebec's National Assembly.

"Now, it's an election promise, people will take it into account with everything else, and we'll see what happens with the election."

On the campaign trail in Quebec City, where Conservatives are fighting the Bloc for seats, Mr. Duceppe threw his support behind the Liberal Premier. All Quebec parties, federalist and sovereigntist, from the left and the right, spoke out against federal aid for the project.

"When all those people agree, and Mr. Charest puts it forward, we speak in the name of the National Assembly," Mr. Duceppe said. "Whether Mr. Charest is federalist or not, he's the Premier of Quebec and I'm not ashamed to take up his cause when there is consensus."

It was moments after Mr. Duceppe and Mr. Charest spoke on Friday morning that Mr. Paradis extended the olive branch to meet one of Mr. Charest's demands.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: Ed T
Date: 02 Apr 11 - 10:34 AM

Safe, or stumbling?

Odd poll results


The per-vote subsidy: Political welfare or the great leveller?
CAMPBELL CLARK , GLORIA GALLOWAY AND STEVEN CHASE
OTTAWA, SUDBURY AND DIEPPE, N.B.— From Saturday's Globe and Mail
Published Friday, Apr. 01, 2011

Stephen Harper's campaign pledge to cut the per-vote subsidies that political parties receive has opened a clear debate with his opponents: Are the funds welfare for politicians or a way to counter the pernicious influence of money in politics?

The parties are clearly aligning with their self-interests. The Conservatives' wide lead in private donations means their opponents need the public funding to compete.

On Friday, Mr. Harper promised to revive past attempts to cut off the per-vote subsidy collected by parties if his government is re-elected on May 2, arguing that the money is the reason Canadians have gone to the polls so often in recent years.

"It is partly in my view this per-vote subsidy – this enormous cheque that keeps piling into political parties every month, whether they raise any money or not – that means we're constantly having campaigns," the Conservative Leader said at an event near Moncton.

"The war chests are always full for another campaign. You lose one; immediately in come the cheques and you are ready for another one even if you didn't raise a dime."

Mr. Harper regularly castigates the Liberals, Bloc Québécois, and NDP for attempting to unseat him with a coalition when he tried to cut off the subsidies shortly after the 2008 election. And while the opposition triggered the current campaign with a non-confidence vote, Mr. Harper had a role in causing two previous elections, voting with the Bloc and NDP to defeat Paul Martin's Liberal government in 2005, and calling a vote in 2008.

Mr. Harper's opponents said the subsidy – each party gets $2 per year for every vote they received in the previous election – is a democratic way to put the parties on similar footing. NDP Leader Jack Layton said the Tory plan would put politics back in the hands of the rich.

"The question really is: Do we want to go back to the days where money, and those who can finance campaigns, determine the nature of our democracy?" Mr. Layton told reporters at a campaign stop in Sudbury, Ont.

The per-vote subsidy was introduced in 2004, when the Liberals, reeling from the sponsorship scandal, eliminated most corporate and union donations. Mr. Harper tightened the system further, reducing the maximum donation to $1,100.

The Liberals, who long relied on big corporate donations, now consistently trail the Conservatives' fundraising machine, which has used mail and Internet campaigns to canvass individuals. The Tories raised $17-million in donations in 2009, compared to $9-million for the Liberals and $4-million for the NDP; the Bloc Québécois relies heavily on the subsidy, and raised only $621,000 in donations.

But the per-vote subsidies are only one of several that parties receive – and Mr. Harper has not targeted the others. Candidates and parties receive rebates on a large part of their election spending. And tax credits on donations – 75 per cent of the first $400 donated, 50 per cent of the portion between $400 and $750, and 33 per cent of the on the rest – cost the Treasury $20-million in 2009.

Some, like McMaster University political scientist Henry Jacek, say that the problem with parties supporting their activities with donations alone is that it relies on the wealthy, who tend to give financial support to political parties, not the poor. The subsidies, he said, "level the playing field."

It's clear from various jurisdictions that political donors tend to have disposable income. But it's no longer clear to what extent that's true in Canada because the Canada Revenue Agency has stopped publishing tables indicating the income levels of those who claim donation tax credits, said University of Calgary political finance expert Lisa Young. But common sense indicates that those who will get a big chunk of the money back at tax time, and miss it less in the meantime, will be more likely to donate, she said

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: Ed T
Date: 02 Apr 11 - 10:54 AM

Gary Lunn vs Eliz May

Business perspective

Below is kind of long, but I post it because of difficulities getting online access.)

How can Conservative senators look at themselves in the mirror?
Gerald Caplan Globe and Mail

Stephen Harper ended Parliament in typical style. He had the trained seals he's appointed to the unelected Senate (a body he doesn't believe in) sabotage the clear will of the democratically elected House of Commons with consequences that will cost the lives of "thousands, maybe millions, of poor people" in Africa and elsewhere.

How are Harper and Ignatieff doing after a week on the hustings? The words are those of an outraged James Orbinski, a renowned doctor and Canadian expert in international health. The issue is Bill C-393, passed by a large majority in the House to provide inexpensive Canadian-made generic drugs for people in poor countries dying of easily treatable diseases such as AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis.

The role of the Conservative majority in the Senate was to deliberately stall passage of the bill ensuring it died once the election was called. The instructions came from the Supreme Puppetmaster, Stephen Harper, speaking through one of his most reliable dummies, Industry Minister Tony Clement. The message from Mr. Clement cemented the reputation he warmly earned during the long-form census fiasco. As Dr. Orbinski noted, Mr. Clement's case to the Senate's Conservative majority for not supporting C-393 was based on "distortions, deceptions, lies and scare-mongering." Par for the course, in other words.

Let me readily acknowledge that for my entire life I've believed the Senate, a wholly undemocratic 19th century institution, should be abolished and I have never understood how anyone could accept an appointment to it. But I've always seen how appealing it is. After all, you're suddenly handed on a platter one of the great gigs this country offers – a fancy title, instant status, a minimum $123,000 a year plus expense accounts, air travel, pension and optional attendance. Or a high-profile forum if you choose to use it, as a few admirable senators do.

But to whom are senators responsible, if anyone? How do they decide what positions to support or oppose? They're appointed by the Prime Minister personally and usually carry his party affiliation but they supposedly serve the country, or so it's claimed. Do they show their eternal gratitude to this one man, which would make them simple hacks, or have they a higher duty to the public good? This is a genuine choice, and Bill C-393 gave us the pathetic answer when a majority of senators chose to slavishly follow the party line. All were Conservatives, no fewer than 35 of them appointed by Stephen Harper in violation of every word he ever uttered about the illegitimacy of an appointed Senate. But that was before he became PM.

There's hypocrisy upon hypocrisy piling up here. Last November, for the first time in 70 years, this same Conservative-dominated Senate, without a hearing or debate, killed a climate-change bill that had been passed by a majority of elected MPs in the House of Commons. It was a bill Stephen Harper hated – he's still mostly a global warming denier – and it was at his command that his senators transgressed against democracy, accountability, common sense and the future of our children all at the same time. Marjory LeBreton, Mr. Harper's Senate Leader, airily dismissed the legislation as "a coalition bill," some kind of conspiracy, apparently, of Liberals, socialists and separatists.

Killing C-393 last week was a second example of the extraordinary harm a majority of Conservative senators have been ready aye ready to inflict at the behest of their master. (Some Conservatives stayed away from the chamber, apparently to avoid voting with the majority but not prepared to vote against them, and one, Nancy Ruth, honourably spoke in favor of the bill.) Have no doubt the majority knew exactly what they were doing and what the stakes were.

Canada's Access to Medicines Regime was introduced nearly seven year ago as a proud effort to help people dying of preventable diseases in poor countries. It is Canada's shame that ever since, under pressure from the giant pharmaceutical companies, a succession of Liberal and Conservative governments have sabotaged this project. In the entire period, only two shipments of drugs have been dispatched to Rwanda. Bill C-393 was the latest futile attempt to make CAMR work. Now it too has been sabotaged.

Bill C-393 would have fixed the regime by cutting the red tape that has undermined its very purpose – enabling Canadian generic drug manufacturers to provide inexpensive drugs to poor countries, where brand-name drugs are often unaffordable. In the House, besides all members of Ms. LeBreton's bogeyman coalition, 26 Conservative MPs also supported the bill. It was endorsed enthusiastically by an overwhelming majority of medical and legal experts, humanitarian activists, faith leaders, AIDS and international development organizations across the country and health activists in developing countries.

Dozens of prominent Canadians immersed in international health issues urged passage, as did more than 70,000 other Canadians who took the time to sign a petition or to email and call their MPs and senators. The national advocacy committee of the Grandmothers to Grandmothers Campaign – 10,000 Canadian grannies, committed to working with their African counterparts, who had made this bill their crusade – lobbied vigorously on its behalf; some were in the Senate audience last week, heart-broken when the Conservatives assured its death. None of this mattered to the majority of Conservative senators. Ms. LeBreton, Mr. Harper's Senate Leader, airily dismissed the legislation as a "coalition bill", some kind of conspiracy, apparently, of Liberals, socialists and separatists.

A more perfect definition of Mr. Harper's contempt for Parliament, democracy, the world and evidence-based policies would be hard to find.

The Conservatives who have again sentenced so many Africans to a miserable death should hang their heads in disgrace. They make a mockery of being called "Honourable." There is no honour here. Yet I don't for a moment expect them to feel the slightest embarrassment, shame or, indeed, dishonour. Conservatives don't do remorse (except for wrongs committed by earlier governments against potential ethnic supporters). But they need to know how many of their fellow Canadians are deeply ashamed of them, and while this is one of the many vital issues that won't be part of the election campaign, they should understand how many voters will remember their role not only on voting day but long after.