BS: Canada Election

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 02 Apr 11 - 11:09 AM

I feel a growing sense of urgency that Harper must be stopped at all cost! On his tour he is roping himself off from media reporters and allowing them only four questions per session. One desire of a dictator is to control the press. Hopefully the press will have the balls to stand up to his bully tactics!

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: GUEST,999
Date: 02 Apr 11 - 12:40 PM

The press hasn't had balls for years, Sandy. The reporters kowtow to editors who in turn do the same to the owners. A worthwhile read is

NEWSPAPER OWNERSHIP IN CANADA:
AN OVERVIEW OF THE DAVEY COMMITTEE AND
KENT COMMISSION STUDIES

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: gnu
Date: 02 Apr 11 - 12:42 PM

Have you read about the billions of $$$ he is promising to everyone for an asskiss? Over $6B just to Q and NF alone! And Charest (not the only one) is pissed about the $4B for NF hydroelectric... and he's got a point, even though I like, but am VERY leary of, the deal.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: GUEST,999
Date: 02 Apr 11 - 12:45 PM

I can't see Charest surviving politically in the next election.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: bobad
Date: 02 Apr 11 - 01:00 PM

A good example of lack of press neutrality is Mike Duffy. He was obviously biased towards the Cons when a reporter/interviewer and was richly (read with tax payers dollars) rewarded with a senate seat.

From Wiki

"In 2008, a panel of the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council ruled that Duffy had violated broadcasting codes and ethics during the 2008 federal election. The panel concluded that Duffy's decision to air 'false starts' of an interview with then-Liberal leader Stephane Dion "was not fair, balanced, or even handed" and that during the same broadcast, Duffy "significantly misrepresented the view of one of the three members of his Panel...Liberal MP Geoff Regan"

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 02 Apr 11 - 01:08 PM

In reality the promise to Newfoundland is not for any money but only a federal loan guarantee so that they can get a lower interest rate. Quebec's problem is that they have held Newfoundland's hydro power hostage because it must be shipped through Quebec for export. Quebec buys Newfoundland power dirt cheap and re-sells it to the Yanks at a huge profit. The proposed grid from Labrador to Newfoundland to Nova Scotia and on to New Brunswick creates an alternate route to the USA. That is why Quebec Hydro tried to buy out NB Power, to block that route. I'm not defending Harper but Quebec's position on this really sucks!

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: GUEST,999
Date: 02 Apr 11 - 01:22 PM

Sandy,

Quebec would LOVE to have Labrador.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: Ed T
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 09:35 AM

Sunday stuff:

ignatieff


Mercer

Song content

Trust issues

five-question-policy

woman-crashes-conservative-press-conference


Three seas

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: gnu
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 10:33 AM

Sandy... a loan guarantee. Thanks. Gotta stop reading blogs.

999... you mean New Quebec? When I worked in Wabush, if you wanted to buy a fishing license in Quebec and your address was in Wabush, Labrador it cost $50 - if you said Wabush, New Quebec it cost $10.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: Ed T
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 04:49 PM

mix of social spending, tax credits without raising taxes

harper-rejects-criticism-that-tory-campaign-has-fallen-flat


the gap

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

Quebec has always wanted to claim Labrador but they have no case. In fact Lower Canada (Quebec) was much, much smaller at the time of Confederation than it is now. Also the old French territory of Acadia included everything south of the St. Lawrence River so Nova Scotia could claim a large part of Quebec using the same criteria. Acadia also pre-dates Quebec as a French colony so Quebec has no claim just because the king of France laid claim to Labrador. It never was part of Quebec and Quebec was only a part of New France. There were also, at least seasonal fishing settlements in Newfoundland before Champlain's settlements. There were also Norse Viking settlements over six centuries earlier. Ain't history strange? Perhaps Skarpi could run to lead us all!. I'll vote for that!

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: gnu
Date: 04 Apr 11 - 04:37 PM

Well, Skarpi is looking to move away from his homeland but I dunno if he would wanna take on the job. Good pay but the people ya gotta work with are assholes.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: Ed T
Date: 04 Apr 11 - 07:08 PM

Another poll

fraud?

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: gnu
Date: 04 Apr 11 - 07:14 PM

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

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: maple_leaf_boy
Date: 04 Apr 11 - 07:39 PM

On CPAC , I saw Ignatieff's question time in Halifax, then Harper's
rally in Guelph, then Ignatieff in Nfld. I liked what I heard from
Iggy. To me, Harper sounded like a kook, except his bit on protecting
hunter/farmer rights by ditching the long-gun registry.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: ollaimh
Date: 05 Apr 11 - 01:55 AM

you've been drinking too much beer , beer. i nowhere said i suport separtism. that's the kind of bigoted thinking that has gotten harper so far. that some democratically elected members of parliament are not legitimate and some are. that's pure right wing bigotry, they are all democraticallt elected and demonizing any for wat are essentially ethnic differences is both divisive and un ethical.

the bloc mps are the same as any others, those who dem0nize them are enemies of democracy. they say they can chose who others should elect. this is common on the right. the us over threw democratically elected people , or tried to all over the world, if they were not us suporters. democracy is an all or nothing thing. if you don't respect some elected members or governments and consodr them to be less legitimate then you are not democratic you are some form of anti democratic fascist, neo con or other totalitarian.

in fact harper tried to form a coalition with the bloc to unseat martin, duceppe showed the letter, and he was propped up by the bloc on many many votes. its the height of hypocracy to attack them as not legimitate. either you believe in democracy or you don;t, there are no harf measures

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Apr 11 - 07:37 AM

Sorry Gnu, Here is an update of the Poll story from yesterday:

The Globe and Mail

The Liberals appear to have enjoyed a platform bump, as a daily tracking polls shows them nibbling into the Conservatives' commanding lead.

Tuesday morning's edition of the three-day rolling Nanos Research tracking poll conducted for The Globe and Mail and CTV shows the Liberals up about 2 percentage points to 30.2 per cent, now less that 10 points behind the Conservatives at 39.8 per cent. The NDP is at 16.5 per cent.

Outside the West, the Conservatives and Liberals are now statistically tied, with Michael Ignatieff's team winning back ground in the province with the most seats – Ontario.

Part of the Liberal bump likely came from Sunday's release of the party's platform, as Monday's survey interviews show the second day of responses since the release. The question is whether time bears out that gain.

"It could be a bump or a blip," pollster Nik Nanos said.

Stephen Harper's Conservatives held a 14-point lead in the previous tracking poll, which tallies running results of the previous three days. Still, with the Tories still holding a significant advantage across the country, the shift in numbers shows different regional races.

The Conservatives hold a commanding lead in the West – 54.1 per cent of the vote in the Prairie provinces and 48.4 per cent in British Columbia – but big leads west of Ontario don't necessarily translate into a lot more seats for a party that already dominates in the region.

"When we get outside the West, it's actually quite competitive between the Conservatives and the Liberals," Mr. Nanos said.

In Ontario, the daily tracking poll shows what's in effect a statistical tie, with the Liberals at 41.1 per cent, and the Conservatives at 39.6. The NDP is at 14.7 per cent in the province.

Mr. Nanos said there may be a link between the Mr. Harper's recent days of campaigning to abolish the long-gun registry to win votes in rural Ontario. His previous rise in Ontario came from gains in suburban and urban ridings, and that may be slipping a little because of the campaign against the registry, Mr. Nanos suggested.

In Quebec, the Bloc Québécois continue to hold a strong lead, with 35.8-per-cent support, and the Conservatives leading a three-way struggle for second place. They have 22-per-cent support, the Liberals 17.6, and the NDP 16.9.

The three-day tracking poll uses a rolling sample of 400 people a day, for a combined survey of 1,200 Canadians. This sample was conducted April 2 to April 4.

Each day, samples from four days ago are dropped from the results, and the latest day's are added, to get a three-day rolling result.

Nanos Research says the sample is accurate to within 2.8 percentage points, 19 times out of 20. Regional results have higher margins of error because of the smaller sample size – Ontario samples have a 5.6 percentage-point margin of error and Quebec samples have a 6.6-percentage point margin.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: gnu
Date: 05 Apr 11 - 10:48 AM

Thanks Ed.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Apr 11 - 05:22 PM

Ottawa's fighter-jet estimate 'all hogwash,' U.S. watchdog warns
CAMPBELL CLARK
OTTAWA— Globe and Mail Update
Posted on Tuesday, April 5, 2011 10:14AM EDT
1110 comments Email Print/License Decrease text size
Increase text size The plan to buy F-35 Joint Strike Fighters will cost billions more than the $29-billion estimated by Canada's budget watchdog, a U.S. defence spending analyst says.

"It's going to be significantly more. It's not going to be $1-billion more, it's going to be significantly more," said Winslow Wheeler, a defence-spending watchdog with the Washington-based Center for Defense Information.

Does Canada need next-generation stealth fighter jets? The $29-billion estimate from Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page put a startling price tag on the cost of a fleet of 65 stealth jets, though the government insists they will cost about half that amount.

But Mr. Wheeler, a former staffer with the U.S. Government Accounting Office and with both Republican and Democratic senators, said even Mr. Page's estimate – though reasonable now – doesn't take into account key elements that will make the costs rise: problems with the complex planes that will be inevitably be discovered during testing and the slashing of the number of planes to be produced by the United States and its allies.

The Liberals say they'll put the deal on hold, and hold a competition to determine what planes Canada needs. But the Conservatives, and the Defence Department, insist the F-35 is the only "fifth-generation" fighter, complete with stealth technology and next-generation communications available. It will be needed, the government argues, to defend against Russian interlopers and to take on missions like the one the current CF-18 fleet is now doing over Libya.

Ottawa says the planes will cost about $9-billion to buy, and another $6-billion for service over the first 20 years of their life span. That $9-billion cost estimate to buy the fleet includes a package of equipment and modifications to get the planes flying, but pegs the price of each plane at $75-million.

But Mr. Wheeler argues that price tag, once cited as the "non-recurring fly-away" in the United States, has been abandoned by the planes' proponents. It usually doesn't include engines and avionics to get the planes flying, and it includes adjustments to 2002 dollars, plus an ample expectation that the cost of each plane will get markedly cheaper as the manufacturer, Lockheed Martin, learns how to build them more efficiently.

"To get to that number, they use several crude, disingenuous tricks. And they sprinkle a little fairy dust, in terms of 'learning curve' and other magical potions, to pretend it's got some science behind it," he said. "It's all hogwash."

"Ultimately," Mr. Wheeler predicted, "the cost of this airplane is going to be about $200-million per airplane."

In the United States, where the per-unit costs of the F-35 has been cited as $115-million, some defence estimates put it as high as $155-million per plane. But even that doesn't take into account problems that will see it rise even further.

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper says Canada is buying the cheapest, "A" version of the plane – but Mr. Wheeler argues that will only save at most 10 per cent. And the cost of supporting the airplane will be more than buying them, and will also rise.

The biggest problems with the cost estimates is that they don't include allowances for problems looming on the horizon.

The F-35 has only gone through about 10 per cent of developmental tests, so it's still unclear what problems will have to be fixed even though several have been found so far. And the plane is so complex the costs are likely to baloon. For example, the plane's older brother, the F-22, is experiencing pricy problems with its stealth coatings.

"The [F-35] is only about 10 per cent through its developmental flight tests. Those are the easy tests. Those are the laboratory tests. Those tests will be finished in 2016," Mr. Wheeler said. "That's when the operational tests are [to be done]."

And the number of F-35s that will eventually be built will be far less than current official projections, he argued, further increasing the cost per plane.

Several countries, like Denmark and Norway, are still debating whether to buy the planes. Britain is cutting its planned buy, and Turkey has put its plan to purchase 100 F-35s on hold because of a dispute sparked because the U.S. refuses to allow the sale of the software "source code" that allows buyers to modify the systems.

Washington has cut its own plans to buy 2,700 planes to 2,500, and can be expected to reduce it further, Mr. Wheeler said.. The U.S. Defense Department has put the development of one variant of the planes, the "B" version, on probation and a deficit commission suggested dramatically reducing the purchase of other variants.

No one can know the costs of an airplane that's still not developed, but Mr. Wheeler argued the best way to buy a fighter is "a competitive fly-off" of real airplanes. "And make a decision based on real evidence rather than paper studies," he said.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Apr 11 - 05:29 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Apr 11 - 05:33 PM

Gnu
Here is the other story I posted yesterday, that couldnt be assessed:

The Bruce Carson affair: Notes on a scandal that won't stick
JOHN IBBITSON
OTTAWA— Globe and Mail
Whatever else he might be, Bruce Carson is no Jaime Watt, which is why Stephen Harper's reaction to his former aide's alleged transgressions is so different from Mike Harris's.

The Conservative Leader declared Monday he was as shocked as everyone else to learn that Mr. Carson – who is being investigated for possibly trying to steer contracts to his fiancée – had previously been convicted of multiple counts of fraud.

Journalists long in the tooth will recall a similar affair 16 years ago.

Jaime Watt was the communications guru behind the election campaign that vaulted the Ontario Conservatives from third place to first in the landmark 1995 provincial election. He would have had a senior position in the Harris government, had the Toronto Star not revealed that the young whiz kid had once been convicted of fraud over a failed business.

Mr. Watt quit before anyone had a chance to fire him. He went on to chair Navigator, the high-powered strategic communications firm that has rescued more than a few tarnished images. (Mr. Carson could use their services.)

The Conservatives continued to employ Mr. Watt on a contract basis, and when Howard Hampton criticized the government for employing a "convicted felon," Mr. Harris took the NDP leader to the woodshed.

Mr. Harper could have been equally loyal to his former aide. Instead, he disowned him.

The Conservative Leader is not known for loyalty above all. Ask Helena Guergis, the former cabinet minister he fired for, as it turned out, doing nothing wrong at all.

But mostly Mr. Carson has been disowned because, after his years in government, he didn't advise others on how best, say, to land a government contract. Instead, he might have tried to land those contracts on behalf of his girlfriend. Mr. Watt would be the first person to tell him that was a very bad idea.

The interesting thing about all of this is that the Nanos Research daily poll shows that all the controversy and alarums of the past month – from contempt-of-Parliament motions to the Carson affair and beyond – have done nothing to budge support for the Conservatives.

Instead, jobs and the economy track ever higher as the issue that matters most of voters.

Go figure.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Apr 11 - 05:42 PM

Lawrence Martin, Tuesday's Globe and Mail

The Tories are desperate to deep-six the detainees file

On the face it, things couldn't have gone better for the Liberal Party. The Conservatives entered the election campaign on a wave of bad news: top party officials charged with willfully exceeding spending limits, contempt of Parliament rulings by the House Speaker, the Bev Oda odours, the Bruce Carson affair.

Then, Stephen Harper put in an opening campaign week that even his customary supporters rated as dismal. He got tied up in hypocritical knots over his coalition allegations. He backed away from facing Michael Ignatieff in a one-on-one debate. He played to his control-freak image by cordoning off reporters. He said he didn't want an election but then, in yet another contradiction, turned around and awarded Quebec its HST compensation, a prize that could have avoided this trip to the polls. By contrast, Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff turned in what was, by broad consensus, an impressive performance in his first campaign tests.

Despite it all, the Conservatives either rose or held steady in the polls. Nothing, it appears, can stop their run to a big victory. In this campaign, they face only a couple of more big hurdles. One is the televised debates, in which Mr. Harper need only maintain his cool. The other is the scheduled release of potentially explosive documents related to the Afghan detainees affair.

The issue, we recall, turns on whether Canadian officials knowingly handed over prisoners for torture by Afghan authorities, a potential violation of the Geneva Conventions. Mr. Harper's government steadfastly refused to provide documents on the matter, but were ordered to do so a year ago by Speaker Peter Milliken. A special committee was then appointed to make sure any released materials wouldn't compromise national security.

Bryon Wilfert, a Liberal member of the committee, said Monday that a swath of documents are to be made public by mid-campaign. But he suspects Team Harper might pull a fast one, such as a court appeal to delay a process that has already been long delayed.

In fact, the Conservatives have just done this very thing in a bid to thwart another avenue of disclosure. The Military Police Complaints Commission has been preparing a report on the detainees controversy. But last week, as reported by The Canadian Press, the government quietly went to the Federal Court to try and impose limits on what the military watchdog can say.

The Conservatives have a habit of running from accountability by running to the courts. On this file, they surely want to do a lot of sprinting. The detainees story offers an extraordinary portrait of the governing morality.

It led to former defence minister Gordon O'Connor's demotion after he had to apologize for misleading the House. It led to Mr. Harper and ministers, as well as Chief of Defence Staff Walter Natynczyk, having to issue embarrassing corrections of previous claims. It led to the Prime Minister's dumping of Peter Tinsley, the head of the Military Police Complaints Commission, who was hot on the trail of the file. And it led to other outrages, such as the government denial of documents to the commission on the basis of national security – even though commission members had national security clearance.

There was more. The detainees imbroglio saw the government attempt to discredit a respected diplomat, Richard Colvin, for having the courage to come forward and challenge its story. It prompted Mr. Harper to try and deny Parliament its historic right of access to documents. It was a catalyst in the Prime Minister's decision to prorogue Parliament 15 months ago, which touched off a national protest. It led to the Speaker's historic ruling condemning Mr. Harper's government.

For a record of Conservative woe, it's hard to find anything that can compare. The last thing Mr. Harper's operatives need – even if the documents contain no startling new revelations – is for all the evidence of obstructionism, secrecy and dereliction to come flooding back.

They have done everything possible in the past to deep-six this file. They will do anything now.

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

Was Elliott involved in the security clearance for Carson?

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: ollaimh
Date: 06 Apr 11 - 12:57 PM

again i repeat that the liberals are opposed to a carbon tax, and if people are confusung cap and trade for a carbon tax, the last bush adminstrationn had a more severe cap and trade proposal.

calling iggy too americqan is totally idiotic. harper has been funded from the beginning by american comtrolled oil interests and has followed the bush american line slavishly. ignatieff did show too much support for the war on terror but so did harper--harper wanted to send canadian troops into iraq. ignatirff didn't.

but again the underlying idea of the right remains that some people--gthose they disagree with--shouldn't be represented in parliament. its demonizing the french in this country and thinly vieled racism.not unlke the trudeau giving the finger to the west. it never happened--a total media spin that was thinly veiled racism. actually trudeau gave the fine
ger to some thigs in salmon arm who threw garbage on his young children, i lived in the area at the time and the local newspapers reported it truthfully as a shame on salmon arm, but the national media madxe it the finger for the west. this continuing demonizing of french canadians does more to promot separation that any other factor. people who read the french media, as i do, get a totally different picture, but a picture with a lot more intelligent critique and a lot of laughter at the spin that passes for politics and news in english canada. they also actually report the budget as it is--the largest two deficits in canadian history,   the tories are going doen the mulroney road and we will have the same debt wall i 2015--the estimated surpluss date--and the liberals will be requred to clean it up.

the tories have increased spending by thirty per cent and reduced tax income by close to that amount--thats the reason for the deficit ant not the recession. if we had stayed the course we would have had a few billion dollar deficits not fifty billion dillar deficits, and the english media report this looming disaster as good fiscal management. we have reached a time when the news people are spin doctors and not reporters.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 06 Apr 11 - 01:58 PM

Albertans watch from the sidelines.

The province is solidly conservative, the other parties make token comments but agree that they have no chance.

A tiny handful of "others" represent a few inner city Edmonton ridings and a maverick riding or two, but their influence is essentially nil, either provincially (67 to 17 all others) or nationally (conservative but for one lonely NDP from dark and drear inner Edmonton).

On election night, we will watch the results only to see if Harper can garner an unassailable majority.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: gnu
Date: 06 Apr 11 - 03:09 PM

Well, my gut feeling is that the Liberals will win big. I have absolutely NO basis for that feeling. Anything can happen, of course. I guess I am biased by what I hear about town... Harper can't get shit done and he's spending money like a drunken sailor on things that are not tangible to the average peeps... peeps can't afford him. Simple stuff.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: Ed T
Date: 06 Apr 11 - 03:55 PM

Ontario perspective

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/going+reward+contempt+Parliament/4565800/story.html

Political senators


Corporate tax cuts don't spur growth, analysis reveals as election pledges fly
KAREN HOWLETT
Globe and Mail
Canadian companies have added tens of billions of dollars to their stockpiles of cash at a time when tax cuts are supposed to be encouraging them to plow more money into their businesses.

Corporate tax cuts are becoming a major issue in the federal election campaign. The Conservatives, arguing that they are the best custodians of an economy that remains fragile after the recession, say tax cuts are crucial to stimulate job creation and make Canada more competitive on the global stage.

But an analysis of Statistics Canada figures by The Globe and Mail reveals that the rate of investment in machinery and equipment has declined in lockstep with falling corporate tax rates over the past decade. At the same time, the analysis shows, businesses have added $83-billion to their cash reserves since the onset of the recession in 2008.

The issue has emerged as highly divisive, with the Liberals questioning the effectiveness of the no-strings-attached tax cuts as a job creation tool. They are pledging to roll corporate taxes back to 2010 levels to free up billions of dollars for spending on family-focused social programs, including day care and tuition.

Jim Flaherty, the Harper government's Finance Minister, acknowledged in a telephone interview that corporate tax cuts are a tough sell when companies are still hoarding cash. But over the long term, he said, his "comfort zone" comes from the fact that business leaders and economists have widely endorsed tax cuts as a job creation tool.

"Most importantly," he said, "it's a confidence builder in Canada, and it's a way of branding Canada."

Opposing corporate tax cuts is a relatively new position for the Liberals, who dropped the rate while in office in 2000. Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff's policy also leaves his party at odds with their provincial cousins in Ontario.

But in an interview on Tuesday, Finance Minister Dwight Duncan said he supports Mr. Ignatieff's policy even though he himself is under siege by opposition members for presiding over corporate tax cuts.

"The feds could have actually taken their foot off the gas pedal in terms of corporate tax cuts because of what we've done," Mr. Duncan said.

Both the Tories and the Liberals are wading into a debate that has sharply divided economists. Business groups and conservative think tanks advocate lower taxes as a way to create jobs. Labour economists counter that lower taxes benefit only corporations and do little for the broader economy.

But the reality is there are no easy answers when it comes to measuring the impact tax rates have on job creation. Economic growth in Canada can be attributed to a lot more than just corporate tax rates. Such things as commodity prices and the value of the Canadian dollar also play a role.

The issue boils down to this: At a time when Ottawa and many provinces are awash in deficit, should governments invest scarce resources in making life more affordable for families by enhancing social programs or in giving corporations additional tax cuts?

Successive federal governments have chosen the latter path in recent years in a bid to make Canada more competitive and attractive to international investors. In 2000, the combined federal-provincial tax rate was just over 42 per cent, ranking Canada near the top among industrialized nations. The combined rate has since fallen to 28 per cent, placing the country in the middle of the pack, and Conservative Leader Stephen Harper's goal is to reduce it to 25 per cent by fiscal 2013.

Businesses were widely expected to use the extra money from successive rounds of tax cuts to build factories and offices and buy new machinery and equipment. At one time, they did just that. From 1960 until the early 1990s, corporations invested almost every penny of their after-tax cash flow back into the business.

But the tax cuts appear to have reversed decades of tradition. Investment in equipment and machinery has fallen to 5.5 per cent in 2010 as a share of Canada's total economic output from 6.8 per cent in 2005 and 7.7 per cent in 2000, The Globe analysis shows.

The McGuinty government doled out $4-billion in tax breaks over three years to businesses in its 2009 budget as part of a package of reforms to help kick start an economy hit hard by the global economic recession.

Ontario represents just under 40 per cent of the national economy, so its cuts went a long way toward lowering the overall Canadian rate, Mr. Duncan said.

New Democrat Leader Andrea Horwath says the Ontario government should make things more affordable for families instead of handing tax breaks to corporations. "The focus … should be on making life easier for families, not harder," she said.


Jeffrey Simpson
Where in the world is Canada's foreign policy debate?
Jeffrey Simpson | From Wednesday's Globe and Mail

Predictably, the world has disappeared from the federal election campaign, despite the fact that Canadian military forces are involved in two confused and failing overseas missions.

In Afghanistan, we are years removed from the illusion of the famous Canadian general who said we were there to shoot some "scumbags," meaning the Taliban. After years of fighting and dying in Kandahar, Canadians have withdrawn to safer places, having left the province neither peaceful nor politically settled.

In Libya, we and other members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization rushed to prevent what was feared to be a looming slaughter of the innocents, only to be revealed as innocents ourselves. We do not understand our erstwhile friends in Libya. We do not know what precisely we seek by way of a new government. We have involved ourselves in a civil war whose dimensions we do not know, with weaponry that is useful but not sufficient to be decisive. We have no discernible exit strategy. Once again, we have entered a Muslim country without appreciating its complexities.

As Bismarck once said, try never to enter a war with an explanation that isn't the same at the end as at the beginning. In both Afghanistan and Libya, what we are ostensibly fighting for now is a long way from the initial explanations for combat.

In Afghanistan, we have gone from shooting "scumbags" and keeping the Taliban out of government to trying to create the military conditions that will allow some part of the Taliban into a government whose daily corruption and generalized incompetence have turned important elements of the population against it. The Afghan mission is not going well after all these years, witness to which are recent reports from the Council on Foreign Relations and the International Crisis Group, analysis by sharp observers Ahmed Rashid and Christopher de Bellaigue in The New York Review of Books, and a stream of news reporting.

In part, there is no debate about foreign affairs because Canadians are much less interested in the world than we believe ourselves to be. Remember that foreign policy was also absent from the last campaign's debates, unmentioned by both the parties and the news media.

Another reason for the lack of debate is that no differences exist between the Conservatives and the Liberals on these two wars. The Liberals were first to demand a "no fly" zone over Libya with Canadian participation. They signed on early to continuing the Afghan mission with Canadian soldiers in a training capacity, leader Michael Ignatieff having been a long-time believer in the Afghan mission. Only the New Democrats have asked questions and staked out different positions, but even his party spends almost all of its time talking about domestic issues, because they are the ones that interest voters.

The worst Canadian foreign-policy setback in decades – a humiliating failure to win a seat on the United Nations Security Council – has scarcely been mentioned. That embarrassing flop was entirely the consequence of the Harper government's maladroit foreign policy across the range of issues of interest to UN members – that is, the world. Yet Canadians seemed to shrug off the defeat at the time, cocooned in an outdated self-image of moral superiority, and have all but forgotten the failure.

The government is freezing foreign aid. It is slowing down the increase in the defence budget. It is about to make major naval purchases. It proposes to buy a new fighter jet, the F-35, whose expense has already been shown to be higher than the government suggests by the Government Accountability Office of the U.S. government and the Parliamentary Budget Office.

There are negotiations for a new perimeter agreement with the United States. We supposedly have a pro-Latin American engagement policy, but an internal document from Foreign Affairs reveals it to be hollow in substance, while we impose visas on people from every country in Latin America, including our supposed friends in Mexico.

We have the industrialized world's worst record in combatting the greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change, an international issue if ever there was one that is changing Canada's geography before our eyes.

There is plenty to talk about in a country hugely dependent on foreign trade and international stability, but apparently not during election campaigns.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 06 Apr 11 - 04:55 PM

Harper's lies about the purchase price of the F-35's are starting to fly back in his face. What in Hell do we need stealth jets for anyway? They are an attack, not defense weapon. Just pissing billions down the drain without any idea of the bottom line price. The goons that he has in his entourage who are kicking folks out of his gatherings speak well to his bully mentality!

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: Ed T
Date: 06 Apr 11 - 08:21 PM

Tory majority looks 'elusive': EKOS

http://ipolitics.ca/2011/04/06/draft-conservatives-bleed-support-in-ontario/

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: gnu
Date: 07 Apr 11 - 02:18 PM

If all these assholes are so keen on environmental issues why are there millions of signs and posters littering our roadways?

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: Ed T
Date: 07 Apr 11 - 03:06 PM

truth-in-politics-

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: GUEST,999
Date: 07 Apr 11 - 03:19 PM

Has anyone asked any of the parties about radiation levels getting to Canada from Japan? It now seems to be the best-kept secret in government, and I wonder why!

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: Beer
Date: 07 Apr 11 - 03:36 PM

Good article Ed.

Here is a few short copied and pasted notes from Wikipedia on "Honest Bob"

"Robert Lorne Stanfield, PC, QC (April 11, 1914 – December 16, 2003) was the 17th Premier of Nova Scotia and leader of the federal Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. He is sometimes referred to as "the greatest prime minister Canada never had", and earned the nickname "Honest Bob". As one of Canada's most distinguished and respected statesmen, he was one of several people granted the style "Right Honourable" who were not so entitled by virtue of an office held.

In the federal election of 1974, Stanfield ran on a policy of wage and price controls to help inhibit the rapid inflation of the era. Trudeau mocked the idea, saying that one couldn't say, "Zap! You're frozen!" to the economy. Trudeau later wrote in his memoirs that Stanfield's platform allowed him to be sniped at from all directions. The Progressive Conservatives did well in the Atlantic provinces, and in the West, but Liberal support in Ontario and Quebec ensured a majority Liberal government, mostly at the expense of Lewis's NDP rather than Stanfield's Tories. Trudeau would implement the controls in 1975, drawing widespread criticism for the abrupt reversal."

ad.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: GUEST,999
Date: 07 Apr 11 - 03:49 PM

I just e-mailed the folks at Public Safety

"I wish to know where I might see daily postings regarding radiation levels reaching Canada from Japan."

As usual, the automated response was that they'd do their best to reply within 48 hours--but they might take longer. When I hear back I'll post it to this thread.

[e-mail]

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: Ed T
Date: 07 Apr 11 - 07:59 PM

999,
I suspect these are the folks with the information:

The Radiation Protection Bureau's

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: GUEST,999
Date: 07 Apr 11 - 08:03 PM

Ed T: thank you very much. I had no idea where to look.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: gnu
Date: 07 Apr 11 - 08:12 PM

My post re Stanfield went gone? It was good. Oh well... Bob was a good and great man... but Trudeau had the charm... and so went history.

Re Ed's last link... THE LYIN BASTARDS!!!! >;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: Ed T
Date: 07 Apr 11 - 08:16 PM

999
I suspect Federal Heal are ythe folks in the know

Canadian Radiological Monitoring Network

The Radiation Protection Bureau's

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: Ed T
Date: 07 Apr 11 - 08:25 PM

radioisotope iodine-131 is the one to look for. My understanding that there is no other source of this in the atmosphere, other than the stuff released by the Japanese plants.


Coast radiation levels miniscule

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: Ed T
Date: 08 Apr 11 - 12:12 PM

Rae bristles at personal attacks against Ignatieff's wife
Globe and Mail JANE TABER


It's getting nasty out there – and Bob Rae doesn't like it.

The Toronto Centre Liberal MP and foreign-affairs critic condemned an attack on Zsuszanna Zsohar's citizenship Thursday, calling it "deeply offensive."

Ms. Zsohar is the Hungarian-born wife of Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff; she is a landed immigrant and has applied for Canadian citizenship. Since she has not received it, she will not be able to vote for her husband in the May 2 election.

Ignatieff sings O Canada And this became a story on the campaign trail Thursday, ramped up by a tweet from National Citizen's Coalition president and CEO Peter Coleman – "Ignatieff's wife is not even a Cdn citizen? Yikes!!! optics of that are sure not very good," he wrote.

Sun Media first reported the story, writing that it "had learned" that Ms. Zsohar is not yet a citizen. The story said that it was confirmed by the Liberal Party.

Ms. Zsohar would not comment on the issue.

But Mr. Rae did: "This is one issue that takes us down a road where I don't think we want to go," he said. "The notion of any question of optics around Zsuszanna … is absurd and deeply offensive."

Mr. Rae said, too, that Canada welcomes "immigrants to this country. … We live in an open country."

Ms. Zsohar is travelling with her husband throughout the campaign. He has referred to her as his "quality control,", asking her for advice, for example, about what he should purchase during a stop at a local co-op/hardware store in Compton, Que. this week. He bought a power screwdriver, work gloves and a vest.

Mr. Rae, meanwhile, is a long-time friend of the Liberal Leader. The two ran against each other for the leadership in 2006, which caused a rift that has since healed.

In fact, the two men embraced at a rally in Montreal Wednesday night. In the last caucus meeting before the election, Mr. Rae told his colleagues to remain united behind Mr. Ignatieff.

The questioning of Ms. Zsohar's citizenship plays into the attack ads by the Conservatives on Mr. Ignatieff's patriotism – that he is "just visiting" after being out of the country for 30 years.

Mr. Rae said he finds the reference in those ads "the most unworthy part of the Conservative attack on Michael."

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: Ed T
Date: 08 Apr 11 - 12:19 PM

Ignatieff is getting a lot more attention and 'better coverage'

Poll

Harper's former adviser Carson had ties to money launderer
GREG McARTHUR and CAMPBELL CLARK
From Friday's Globe and Mail

A former adviser to the Prime Minister, now under scrutiny by the RCMP, bought a downtown Ottawa condominium with a former prostitute who was convicted of numerous offences in the United States, including money laundering, public records show.

Bruce Carson began his relationship with Barbara Lynn Khan in 2006, around the time he began advising Stephen Harper in his capacity as Prime Minister, according to a source who knows Ms. Khan.

The aide, the escort and the Tories Mr. Carson was a senior adviser to Mr. Harper, working on sensitive issues ranging from Afghanistan to the federal budget to climate change.

But in recent weeks questions have multiplied about how a man with five criminal convictions, who once went bankrupt and suffered years of debt problems, could have been welcomed into the centre of government power.

Now, after Mr. Harper called in the RCMP to investigate allegations of improper lobbying by Mr. Carson, The Globe has learned that he was in a relationship with a former U.S. felon while serving in the Prime Minister's Office.

It was Mr. Carson's relationship with another sex worker that first landed him under the glare of the RCMP. More than two weeks ago, the PMO contacted the Mounties after they discovered the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network was investigating alleged lobbying Mr. Carson performed on behalf of a company with ties to Michelle McPherson, a former prostitute who also owns a house with the 66-year-old policy adviser.

It's not clear whether officials were made aware of Mr. Carson's relationship with Ms. Khan when he was approved to work in Mr. Harper's office in 2006, or any time during his tenure.

Several sources who have been interviewed for security clearances, both for themselves and others, noted this week that CSIS agents had pressed about such issues, and asked if there was anything in the subject's past that might make them vulnerable to blackmail. Neither Mr. Carson nor his lawyer could be reached for comment.

Reached Thursday night, Ms. Khan said her relationship with Mr. Carson was long over, but she did not specify when it ended. Ms. Khan and Mr. Carson purchased their condominium in November, 2009, some eight months after he left the Prime Minister's Office to head up the Canada School of Energy and the Environment.

Ms. Khan said that the condominium at 500 Laurier Avenue West – a building where at least three members of Parliament stay when the House of Commons is sitting – isn't exactly what it looks like "on paper."

She added, before hanging up: "I don't think I should talk about Bruce, I'm sorry."

The 43-year-old Ms. Khan, who was born Barbara Lynn Welter, was raised north of Toronto in the town of Holland Landing. She attended high school in the nearby town of Bradford and worked as a clerk in a convenience store.

But by the late 1990s, Ms. Khan and her husband, Saleemudeen Khan, had settled in Salisbury, N.C., population 27,000. From there, the couple, as well as others, launched a wide-scale prostitution service, soliciting men in pornographic magazines and dispatching sex workers across the state, according to a 2004 indictment.

To paying customers in cities such as Charlotte and Raleigh, Ms. Khan was known as "Essa," one of seven people that operated the service, which charged as much as $3,000 per night. The prostitution ring, which went by names such as Intimate Encounters and Sugar Shack, provided prostitutes to men in houses and hotel rooms until it was brought down by a local sheriff's office and federal authorities in the early 2000s.

Ms. Khan was convicted in 2003 of maintaining a bawdy house, as well as aiding and abetting prostitution. A year later, she was convicted of the more serious federal offence of money laundering. After being sentenced to 12 months and given credit for the time she had already served in jail, she was deported back to her native Canada around 2005. Her husband, Mr. Khan, was extradited from Gatineau, Que. to face charges in the United States. In a 2004 judgment concerning Mr. Khan's bail, Judge Jean-Pierre Plouffe described the tactics of the prostitution ring: "fear and intimidation were used with customers who failed to pay or were deemed to have been too rough with the prostitutes. In that regard, the group would commit home invasions and steal goods therein."

It's not clear how Ms. Khan met Mr. Carson. Speaking on the condition of anonymity, one person close to Ms. Khan said she struck up her relationship with Mr. Carson in 2006. The source close to Ms. Khan said there was some discussion about a possible wedding in Mexico with Mr. Carson. In an interview with the Ottawa Citizen, Mr. Carson's other call-girl associate, Ms. McPherson, also mentioned that she planned on marrying Mr. Carson.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: 3refs
Date: 08 Apr 11 - 04:22 PM

Whether
Conservative, Liberal
or
NDP, I think
you'll get
a kick out of
this!


A little boy goes to his dad and asks, 'What is Politics?'

Dad says, 'Well son, let me try to explain it this way:

I am the head of the family, so call me The Prime Minister.

Your mother is the administrator of the money, so we call her the Government.

We are here to take careof your needs, so we will call you the People.

The nanny, we will consider her the Working Class.

And your baby brother, we will call him the Future.

Now think about that and see if it makes sense.'

So the little boy goes off to bed thinking about what Dad has said.

Later that night, he hears his baby brother crying, so he gets up to check on him.

He finds that the baby has severely soiled his nappy.

So the little boy goes to his parent's room and finds his mother asleep.

Not wanting to wake her, he goes to the nanny's room. Finding the door locked, he peeks in the keyhole and sees his father in bed with the nanny..

He gives up and goes back to bed.

The next morning, the little boy say's to his father, 'Dad, I think I understand the concept of politics now. '

The father says, 'Good, son, tell me in your own words what you think politics is all about.'

The little boy replies, 'The Prime Minister is screwing the Working Class while the Government is sound asleep. The People are being ignored and the Future is in deep shit.'

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: Ed T
Date: 08 Apr 11 - 05:47 PM

Musicians get involved

jet-costs-

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: Ed T
Date: 08 Apr 11 - 05:54 PM

what-changed-in-the-last-17-days

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: gnu
Date: 08 Apr 11 - 06:09 PM

Project a surplus my ass... up my ass. I am already feelin somethin up my ass. And I don't need any surplus.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Apr 11 - 07:18 PM

Don't let this election stuff mess up your mind, because it won't do you one bit of good. Don't let it put you at loggerheads with other people either. Remember: they rule by dividing and conquering the general public, and we pay their salaries after they've done it.

Why? Well, because no one else will do it, I suppose. ;-) And somebody has to.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: Ed T
Date: 08 Apr 11 - 07:38 PM

Honest politician?

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: Donuel
Date: 08 Apr 11 - 08:49 PM

Viva l'bloc

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: Ed T
Date: 08 Apr 11 - 09:12 PM

Excuse my French. But, could it not be Le Bloc (for les hommes) or La Bloc, for La femme? Why L'Bloc??

Subject: RE: BS: Canada Election
From: gnu
Date: 09 Apr 11 - 03:51 AM

Me I dunno... I don't speak Spanish.