2012 in Review

Who says Canadian politics is boring? Despite being in the first majority government since 2004, politics was easy as government shenanigan continued and controversy ruled The Canadian Political Scene. This post will round up 2012 into one bite-sized image with the big scandals and the party progress reports.

Polls Weigh in on Opposition Cooperation and Liberal Leadership

Political parties are strategizing these days and Canadians are weighing in. Despite the party members and their views, the electorate will inevitably get the final say and recent polling numbers paint an interesting story about Liberal-NDP cooperation and prospective Liberal Leadership candidates.

A new Liberal leader is set to be crowned in April and unlike other parties and historic leadership campaigns, the contest is open to virtually anyone this time around, so long as they sign up as a free supporter at Liberal.ca. The result of this race will inevitably have an impact on Canadian politics and the narratives that will be used in the time approaching the 2015 election. The NDP have already positioned themselves under the "strong opposition" narrative and we will soon see how the Liberals plan to make a comeback after being tossed to third place in last year's election campaign.

It would be nice to have the stats of all the Liberal leadership candidates but the bulk of them are still unknown and will face an uphill battle in terms of finding support. Of the better-known candidates, we can already have a glimpse of how the parliamentary picture would be painted with the respective leaders at the helm. Leger Marketing conducted a poll on December 5-6 and asked 1,500 respondents who they would vote for under a number of leadership scenarios. Note that in the next election, Canada will be electing 338 MPs due to changes to the electoral map.

Liberal Leadership

Scenario 1: Martha Hall Findlay wins Leadership

Party	Elected Percent Vote	Trend	Projected Percent Vote	Projected Seats
	39.6%		36%	170
	30.6%		33%	131
	18.9%		12%	14
	6.0%		8%	23
	3.7%		8%	0

Clearly Martha Hall Findlay's leadership would destroy the Liberal party in this poll leaving it just two seats above the official party status as that stands today. It would also lower the Liberal party by another notch to allow the Bloc Quebecois to take third place. It is noteworthy that the NDP and Bloc Quebecois would have the most to gain from her bid as Liberal leader. This result would yield another Conservative majority government, albeit one by only 2 seats, and allow Harper to govern for a potential total of 13 years if he remains the leader.

Scenario 2: Marc Garneau wins Leadership

Party	Elected Percent Vote	Trend	Projected Percent Vote	Projected Seats
	39.6%		35%	165
	30.6%		29%	103
	18.9%		19%	46
	6.0%		8%	24
	3.7%		7%	0

Most people say that Marc Garneau is the real competition to perceived front runner Justin Trudeau and if this is the case, he will have a lot of work to do as these numbers are poised to reproduce the 2011 election result which wouldn't be a good thing for the Liberals. The only real notable change is the gain for the Bloc Quebecois and the opposition standstill in terms of toppling the Conservatives. In this scenario, the Conservatives would form a minority government.

Scenario 3: Justin Trudeau wins Leadership

Party	Elected Percent Vote	Trend	Projected Percent Vote	Projected Seats
	39.6%		31%	129
	18.9%		31%	116
	30.6%		24%	63
	6.0%		7%	8
	3.7%		7%	0

Perceived front runner Justin Trudeau would cause the biggest shift, stealing from both the Conservatives and NDP, he would tie the Harper Conservatives in popular vote and the result would be a Conservative minority government in which the opposition parties can easily overrun the Conservatives. The NDP would have the most to lose in this scenario - apart from the Conservatives and despite the Bloc Quebecois's low seat count, 8 is definitely an improvement over 4.

Liberal-NDP Cooperation

Many strategists are claiming that a Liberal-NDP collaboration of some sort may be the only tactical way to defeat the Conservatives. This idea was a popular one in Nathan Cullen's campaign and now Liberal candidate Joyce Murray appears to be preaching the same tune. However, some similar things can be read from the results: Apart from Trudeau's win, the Liberals and NDP are just sharing a pool of votes and the Conservative base remains fairly in tact and as a tactician, one should note that defeating the Conservatives isn't a game of merging opposition, it is a game of dismantling the Conservative base. This is something the NDP will never be able to do as moderates who joined the Conservatives went there to avoid left-wing policies. The only party then that can do it is the Liberals, given they have a strong enough leader and a platform that is right-wing enough to attract the moderates who left their party in 2006.

This brings us to scenario 4 which leaves an interesting result. A poll by Ekos research from November 20 to December 3 gathered responses from 5,433 people to see what the results would be based on first and second choices.

Scenario 4: The Liberals and NDP cooperate in the next election

The poll found that for first choice: the Conservatives would gather 32%, NDP 26% and Liberals 24% but this wasn't the interesting thing to note.

On the second choice, things became interesting.

The Conservative votes are solid with 43% of people who chose them as their first choice saying they had no second choice.

The Liberals and NDP, however, are very unstable voters and will move around significantly before the next election.

Among Liberal voters, 43% would leave the party to vote NDP and 23% would vote Conservative. Redistributing the Liberal votes in this fashion would give the Conservatives 40% and the NDP 38%.

Among NDP voters, 38% would leave to join the Liberals and 18% would vote Green. This would result in an increase to Conservative votes due to splitting and the result would be Conservatives 38% and Liberals 36%. Another thing to consider is that a bulk of Quebec's NDP support could easily go back to the Bloc Quebecois where it came from - rather than transfer to the Liberals.

These numbers show that no cooperation between the Liberals and NDP would be a good idea to defeat the Conservatives as Canadians who are "blue Liberals" or moderates will go to the Conservatives rather than the NDP and NDP votes would scatter to the Bloc or Liberals meagerly and allow the Conservatives to win either way.

What does this all say?

Polls change regularly and in a few months from now we will see numbers that will say different things but if the trend continues, the Conservatives will hold steady and the opposition will trade points every now and then depending on the mood of the day and certain policy variations. It is clear that an NDP-lite option or a full blown NDP movement will not gather enough support to form a government and this will be a major predicament to the left wing of the Liberal party who would like to adopt more NDP-like policies into their platform. Calls for cooperation and/or merger will also be predominant but the numbers tell us that any attempt would benefit the Conservatives who already have the advantage. Therefore, further discussion of a merger or cooperation of the "left" or "progressives" is a bad route for opposition tacticians who want to eventually form a government as it weakens their cause, weakens their brand and weakens their message.

One thing is certain, the fight for the "left" or "progressive" label between the NDP and Liberals is the cause for Conservative domination in Canadian politics. Clearly, if Canadians want a left-wing progressive party, their best bet is and always has been the NDP that has never surpassed third place except for recently thanks to Quebec. What this means is that the struggling Liberals are actually shooting themselves in the foot with this war and should rightfully back off from this political arena and go where the actual market for votes is: the center and center-right. Now, this does not mean that the Liberals should become a Conservative-lite party because like an NDP-lite party (which they have been leaning towards) the Conservative voters have the best Conservative option, the Conservatives, already established and additionally, in power.

What do these polls mean? It means the Liberals, in particular, need a new strategy because the Conservatives and NDP are very well placed in their respective realms but the Liberals have the most to lose and need to go somewhere, other than a fight with a left-wing movement that never has - and never will - find the overall support to form a government as the majority of Canadians have always shifted between brokerage parties, or those who have traditionally been center-center-right. Of course, this is where the Liberal leadership campaign is going to be interesting as Trudeau may very well win and his strategy, thus far, has seemed to be one that resonates with the moderates who aren't left wing, or NDP, or NDP-lite, they are centrists from the middle class. As long as Trudeau works on this voting segment, he may find, as polls suggest, that while the hard core of the Conservatives (43%) won't budge, there is still a good amount of blue liberals that left for the Conservatives that may very well feel disenfranchised and come back under a Liberal banner which would cause a fairly drastic shift in Canadian politics. 

So what do you think of the polls and what they entail? Follow us and let us know what you think: Facebook, Twitter, Google+.

Gun Control: Marc Garneau proposes ban of assult weapons

Liberal Leadership candidate Marc Garneau said yesterday that there is no reason that assault rifles like the one used in the 20 school children massacre in Connecticut should be legal.

"There is absolutely no reason that anybody can vote to say that that kind of weapon, that can fire off great numbers of rounds like that, is necessary," Garneau told The Canadian Press.

"That kind of weapon, to me, definitely — well, it is (already) a restricted weapon but one should look at not allowing those things."

Gun control is the top of people's minds these days as the most horrific mass shooting has occurred recently in Newtown, claiming the lives of 20 innocent children and 6 educators. Surprisingly, while the American gun lobby has stated that the solution to this problem is to give more people guns, Nanos Polling found that 76% of Americans are in favor of a gun registry and a clear majority would restrict who can access a gun (91% of Americans would ban usage for the mentally ill and felons) and under what circumstances (96% of Americans favor background checks). Additionally, an equal amount of Americans divide the debate on whether individual liberty (46%) or gun restriction (47%) take precedence. 

The .223-calibre Bushmaster is a restricted gun in Canada but citizens can access the rifle on certain conditions:

• 18 years of age
• pass a restricted firearms safety course
• obtain a firearms licence and registration certificate
• licensed for use in target practice or target shooting competitions 
• licensed for use as part of a gun collection

Garneau plans to limit the accessibility of this particular rifle and other similar rifles by "putting them out of circulation, not allowing them to be used." On top of this, a Garneau-lead Liberal Government would implement "very severe" penalties on those who use these weapons to commit crimes. 

Canada's gun registry was scrapped on the basis that it was becoming costly, didn't prevent gun crimes, and could be by-passed. Marc Garneau announced that he would not try to revive the registry - taking the same line as perceived front runner Justin Trudeau whom as well declared that he would leave the registry in its dead state. 

This brings us to an interesting discussion point: how should Canada deal with gun crimes, particularly massacres like those that happened at the Universite de Montreal?

Before the Newtown massacre, there was the Scotland massacre of 16 kindergarten students in 1996. The horrendous act led to a ban on fire arms and the country's gun crimes have since dropped significantly.

Then there is the idea of a gun registry that Canada has tried. It became a divisive topic where we arguably had an extensively bureaucratic system which collected insufficient information and racked up large operating costs. The system also, by nature, had no power or ability to prevent gun crimes. Instead, it gave authorities a leg up on gun crimes with legitimate weapons to find criminals and restrict those who were unfit to own a gun. Could a gun registry designed and implemented differently work better for Canada in the future? Possibly, but surely when Americans discuss their own registry, they won't be taking our old one as an example. 

Then there is the Gun lobby's proposal: more guns. Clearly, their argument is that the shooter and other gun-based crimes could have been prevented by a standoff but surely children will be safe having the possession of guns and surely they'll be even safer in the crossfire of a gun-related conflict. CNN commentator Piers Morgan came out in clear opposition to the gun lobby's claim, rightfully asking: "how many more kids have to die?"

"There are nearly 12,000 murders a year from guns in this country. When are you guys going to focus on that, and stop telling me the answer is more guns? It is not the answer! How many more kids have to die, before you guys say, 'we want less guns, not more?'"
Piers Morgan, CNN

And of course it is always worth looking at the stats. Currently, Canada has the third highest rate of gun crimes in the G8. Just take a good look at Toronto for a spike in gun crimes this year, shortly after the gun registry was abolished.

What path should Canada take on gun crimes? What do you think of Marc Garneau's proposal to ban assault rifles? Follow us and let us know what you think: Facebook, Twitter, Google+.

Poll: Canada's Economy won't get better before it gets worse

It's the holiday season and Canadian financial experts are praying that spending increases to revitalize the fragile Canadian economy. Little do they know, Canadians are still cash strapped, Canada's economy hasn't moved a budge and most Canadians expect 2013 to go down hill. What does this mean? As long as citizens feel a rocky road, they too are closed for business.

The Nanos number 37 is fitting for this time of the year and the Conservative Party better pay attention. There is no quantity or quality of ads that can convince a cash-strapped Canadian that things are going fine. And while we're at it, if a weak economy is an excuse for pension reforms, then a weak economy will also be an excuse for Canadians to close their wallets and focus on debt repayment which is the last thing Canada's brittle economy needs right now.

What makes the number 37 even more fatal to the Conservatives is that it is a larger number that isn't in their favor. In June 2011 and again in November 2012, Canadians were asked about their personal finances. Here is how the stats broke down:

	Worse Off	The Same	Better Off	Not Sure
June 2011	25%	56%	18%	2%
November 2012	37%	39%	21%	3%

A 3% increase in responses stating better off is not something to be happy about when the worse off responses are up 12% or four times as much.

So as the cost of living is expected to skyrocket in 2013 and Canadians brace themselves for the worse, we see a Canadian economy that will struggle and for a government that has put all of its political capital into the domain, the damage will be one to behold.

These poll results will say one thing economically and one thing politically. Economically, Canada's economy will slow down and this will be unrelated to the American fiscal cliff. Politically, the Conservatives will lose even more ground to the opposition parties, particularly those that appeal to the middle class.

So how are your finances going this year? Are you nervous about the outlook for 2013? Follow us and let us know what you think: Facebook, Twitter, Google+.

Harper turns over Alberta Oil to the Communists

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has approved the CNOOC-Nexen takeover deal and Canada is now trapped in a 31 year deal where China will almost always get the final say. The Chinese government does not believe in our free and capitalist society, remaining totalitarian with a communist system that has one of the worst standards for human rights in the world. This was once a concern for Harper whom slammed the door on China but now, out of virtually nowhere, not only is China an important trade partner, it is trusted enough to own, for 31 years, one of Canada's most strategic resources that is in very high demand and low supply around the world. In other words, Canada got royally ripped off with its flat rate $15 billion in one-time revenue.

It is worth reminding Canadians that this deal is significant, not because a Canadian company was bought out, but because a Canadian company was taken over by the Government of China. It is also worth noting that Canadians are divided in almost every party on this issue - just in different ways. Not all Conservatives and not all businessmen are happy with this decision, but there are some Liberals, like the Justin Trudeau camp, that are. The NDP has firmly came out in opposition but while some may oppose the foreign take over, others may oppose the entire oil exploitation project altogether. But then, these are all hypothetical.

There are many reasons for Albertans in particular to take note of what has happened. Notably, this deal affects their province, its governance and its wealth. Having the Chinese government take over the Nexen part of the oil sands and its land goes firmly against what most Albertans stand for. Albertan voting trends show a populace that is centre-right and in favor of preserving their liberties. They are also concerned about their environment and their living standards. This deal puts a known communist regime smack in the middle of their land and there hasn't been any recent memory of a communist movement in Alberta, rather, the contrary has been growing within the provincial Wildrose opposition and in the current Progressive Conservative government.

Albertans and the rest of Canadians will have a say on the deal in 2015 but in terms of legality, it is but too late. Any plans or attempts to reverse this deal will lead to court hearings that have already been agreed upon to a certain standard where Canada loses. We entered a deal where the cards will always be stacked against us and two-thirds of any legal dispute will always be decided by a non-Canadian. It is also worth noting that if the Conservatives get replaced in 2015, any new legislation cannot apply to anything related to this deal. Nexen's land is China's land governed by the communist government of China, not by Albertans, not by the Province of Alberta, not by Canadians and not by the Government of Canada. China will likely do what it has already done to other companies: replace workers with Chinese labor - which get a free pass in the deal - and the hierarchy of the company will be replaced with Chinese government officials.

Canadians lost a lot in this deal, and politically the Conservatives and Liberals have taken the pro side while the NDP took the con.

Harper, however, has taken note of the opposition, with hands tied from earlier secret meetings with Chinese officials, Harper allowed this deal to be exceptional, but in his address this evening, he stated clearly that it wouldn't happen again.

"When we say Canada is open for business, we do not mean that Canada is for sale to foreign governments," Harper said. 

"To be blunt, Canadians have not spent years reducing the ownership of sectors of the economy by our own governments, only to see them bought and controlled by foreign governments instead."

Meanwhile, the opposition is divided, with the NDP coming out strongly in dissapproval and the Liberals calling the takeover the "right move."

NDP Energy critic Peter Julian responded:

"I mean, this has been churning for months, and this has been a badly botched file." 

"We've seen complete confusion from this government, and today they're trying to sugar-coat something that I think will be a rather bitter pill for Canadians, the vast majority of whom feel that this particular acquisition is not in Canada's interests, and who want to see clarity around net benefit and who want to see above all public consultations on these kind of takeovers." 

"While Conservatives admit that under the new rules this transaction is not a net benefit to Canadians, they have approved it anyway." 

"Canadians should be very apprehensive about the long-term economic and environmental consequences. In the past, these kinds of takeovers have resulted in job losses."

Liberal MP John McCallum responded:

"On the broad decision, we think it’s good, but obviously we haven’t seen the details." 

"What conditions are there? Is there any degree of reciprocity? How are we to make sure the Chinese maintain their commitments? Is there a mechanism to make sure that they do? But assuming those conditions are met, I think that is the right decision."

Politically, with Canadians increasingly weary over the prospect of a Chinese takeover and with opposition to the project mounting, the Conservatives and Liberals both are set to lose for choosing to support the takeover.  Despite how much Canada may have lost from this decision, politically, there are no bigger winners right now than the NDP. MP Peter Julian made a strong point about the government's double standard when they accepted this deal despite admitting that it didn't pass the net-benefits test. Even Conservative economic columnists have come out against the deal on the basis that it would be bad for the Canadian economy and that the Chinese have a terrible track record when it comes to meeting their end of commitments and when it comes to creating jobs in the countries whose businesses they take over. 

We can expect ramifications from the United States as both President Barack Obama and his Democrats and Republican challenger Mitt Romney expressed concerns and disdains for the take over. They weren't the only ones:

Former US governor Howard Dean said, “I personally don’t think that’s a good idea for either the Canadian or American assets ... But I think that, of course, each government will make their own decision.” 

Republican Senator John McCain said, “I think it’s also a role for the legislative body to hold hearings, to get witnesses and say, ‘OK, what is this all about?’” 

McCain said he is anxious about “Chinese trade practices” and “remains deeply concerned about cyber security and the continued espionage practices in cyber warfare that the Chinese practice.” 

Source: Global News

What do you think about the deal? Which party came out on top? Follow us and let us know what you think: Facebook, Twitter, Google+.

F-35 Contract is a Bust... Surprised?

Stephen Harper and his Conservatives have fought hard for their coveted F-35 contract, even in spite of inflating costs and warnings from the US congress. Now, without surprise, the Conservatives have been forced to retreat on the purchase of planes that wouldn't even have been equipped to fly! It must be a very painful day to be the Conservative strategist because the party has invested a lot of political capital and a lot of taxpayers' time into this deal. We all know that time is money and Canada's air-force doesn't have forever to wait for new planes and we all know that we can get state of the art planes for a better price than the Conservative offer for the F-35 defects.

On July 17, 2010, Stephen Harper announced he would invest $9 billion into replacing Canada's aging fighter jets and introduced the F-35s, the planes the Americans are currently using. After a bit of research, a small documentary about the planes and it appears the American government wasn't too pleased with their purchase. Among the complaints was inflating costs. Warnings and dissatisfaction south of the border aside  the government carried on.



At this time, opposition was notable as spending for new military equipment was deemed irresponsible in times of economic uncertainty where a government would be dealt with making budget cuts.

Moving ahead, the planes meanwhile started to prove the inflation of cost. The next announcement related to the planes pegged the price at $16 billion which was part of the 2011 election campaign. Meanwhile, the Auditor General Michael Ferguson and Parliamentary Budgetary Officer Kevin Page both estimated costs higher than those, ranging between $25 and $30 billion.

The Conservatives were charged with misleading the House and Canadians. The discrepancy in costs and the secrecy around them led to a non confidence motion in 2011 which for the first time in Canadian history found a government in contempt of Parliament. The resultant election gave the Conservative party a coveted majority and a year later, Defence Minister Peter MacKay finally admitted the government mislead Canadians in April when he announced that there was a $10 billion discrepancy in the price tag.

"Yes, and it was explained to me just that way, that the additional $10 billion was money that you could describe as sunk costs, that is what we're paying our personnel, and the fuel that is currently being expended in CF-18s, jet fuel, maintenance costs, what we are currently spending. So not part of a new acquisition," MacKay said.

“There’s a different interpretation in the all-up costs at arriving at $25-billion,” Mr. MacKay told CTV’s Question Period. “And that information goes back to the year 2010. Those figures are there for all to see.”

Fast forward to now and the cost has soared above the highest of expectations to $40 billion with the reeling Conservative government faced with the prospect of shopping around. One can only be thankful that after two years of pandering and fixing prices that the Conservatives have finally come back to a common sense approach and sources tell CTV that they have decided to bury the F-35 proposal - however one must wonder how badly they'll botch the next proposal to replace Canada's aging CF-18s.

This recent development has dealt a hard blow to Conservative political capital and their image and reputation will take a hit. A procurement process that was riddled with controversy and then shut down, the inflating costs while the government lied them off. The cost became too high to lie off and the Conservatives are now announcing, after 2 years of secrecy, that they want to be transparent.

Conservative MP Michelle Rempel told CTV's Power Play that the Conservatives want to be transparent with the portfolio and “We want to make sure that we get this right and we’re taking it really seriously.” 

This, again, has led to calls for resignation. Liberal Interim Leader Bob Rae told reporters today that MacKay must resign  and he said, "I don't see how the minister of defence could possibly continue in his job. He's basically been a salesman for Lockheed Martin, the manufacturer of the F-35, since he took office."

"The government has misled Canadians consistently ever since the day they indicated this was the plane they were going to buy," Rae said.

"They've never been honest with Canadians about the true cost of the plane, they've never been honest with Canadians about the plan they had going forward and I think step by step every step of the way it's taken either the auditor general, KPMG, or outside forces saying look you're hiding from Canadians the true cost of this enterprise and you're not being honest with Canadians."

Are you surprised at the news of the price and cancellation of the F-35 deal? Follow us and let us know what you think: Facebook, Twitter, Google+.

Senators' Misuse Living Allowance: The Simple Solution

Conservative Senator Patrick Brazeau's Gatineau home 

Newly appointed Conservative Senators are finding their perks rather appealing - so appealing that they are cheating taxpayers to cash in. First Patrick Brazeau abused the system, and now Mike Duffy. We can all agree they should repay their takings and we all agree their expenses will never outweigh their salaries. We can, then, agree the housing allowance perk should be scrapped and the savings be refunded.

There is nothing more infuriating than paying the highest taxes in North America than knowing the money is being wasted. No matter the justification, entitlements to elected officials should be limited, should be bare and should not be on the table of discussion.  While millions of families country-wide struggle to make ends meet, Conservative Senators abuse safety-net programs that are in place that should never have existed in the first place.

Being an MP or appointed Senator may be an honor, but like with many jobs in Canada, a salary is not a bonus, it is what you have to live by. Serving the electorate is as much a job, by definition, as mopping a floor. With a Conservative government preaching the narrative that people on the east coast should move to Alberta to get jobs, before asking for Employment Insurance, the same should be applied to all government officials and the allowance, which pays government officials up to $21,000 per year for secondary housing if their primary residence is at least 100 km away from Ottawa, should be abolished.

This country should have a real conversation about austerity because the Conservatives are doing it all wrong. What the Conservatives have done is cut EI to a point where Canadians are left as undignified workers if they get laid off, raise the retirement age to 67 to make all future Canadians slaves to their work and its tax burden, cut food and public safety and started spending on a stimulus plan which arguably was nothing but ads and signs! 

If the Conservatives want to have a discussion on austerity and serve it to the public, they should do one thing first: take cuts on themselves. Rather than putting on the crown of entitlement and turning the corner when they take advantage of the public purse, the government should prove that it is prudently spending taxpayers' money and prove that it is worthy of the money it receives. The $16 orange juice, the personal flights out of this country, the need for limos to drive MPs the distance of a 5 minute walk, the perks and fancy entitlements, the overblown pensions... The preceding is the first thing on the chopping block. The housing allowance: abolished. The unnecessary bureaucrats and public servants: laid off, and administrative costs cut first. The over-sized PMO and PCO: slimmed to pre-Harper rates. The largest cabinet in history: delete entire departments and merge them with other departments - we were fine with smaller cabinets in the past!

Clearly the Conservatives are fans of the dictatorial feudal style economic management where the main focus of their agenda is:

• Making their population slaves to them so they can collect on benefits
• Pocket entitlements while families struggle to make ends meet
• Tell people on the Atlantic coast to move to the other side of the country to survive while lining their own pockets with housing expenses.

The Conservative message is: Let us eat hardy with $16 orange juice as food safety is cut to a point that meat, tainted with listeria and ecoli get served to the population leading to serious illness and death. The Conservative message is very simple: wait two more years for retirement so they can keep a good chunk of the 23:1 retirement plan that they are all going to enjoy - something that the richest companies don't even have!

It is time for Canadians to wake up and realize that many of the cuts the Conservatives have made - to support spending on themselves, fighter jets that don't have working engines, prisons that weren't necessary as crime rates are at all time lows - don't need to be tolerated and that they should, instead, demand that the Conservatives resort to their small government philosophy where the benign dictatorship gets trimmed to size. Some may argue that the cuts aren't worth making because they wouldn't have the same effect on the economy but then one must ask what is principled about a system where government officials treat themselves to a taxpayer-funded safety net and perks while taxpayers take the hit down on earth.

Even if the resultant cuts of government only come to a few hundred million, at least one can say that these officials are not spoiled and care only about their standard of living and not the reason why they were put there: to serve the Canadian people. Even if the senator's housing allowance declarations totaled $2 million since 2010, it is still more than what any average family will make in the same period. Where in the new EI reforms does it state that Canadian families forced to relocate to find work will be given an allowance to have a second home? - or get full moving and living expenses paid?

So while Duffy asks for living expenses from back in the 1970s - even though only recently being appointed senator by Prime Minister Harper, and while Brazeau may claim that he needs the money to live with his father in an apartment while living with his girlfriend in a nice house across the river from the Hill, what have we Canadians to say about this? We can either grunt and say: politics as usual, politicians are crooks, or whatever else you want to say, or we can stand up, have a voice and denounce this injustice - not only by forcing these senators to pay us back for their theft, but also to demand that this perk be abolished as no Canadian will ever have the privilege to have someone else foot their bill the way these government officials have. Let's get back to reality, taxpayers fund the government and they have a right to get the bang for their buck and anyone that isn't willing to offer that should step aside and let someone else do the job.

So in short, Patrick Brazeau and Mike Duffy should repay their false claims on housing allowance as neither of them actually need it. In short, this program should be abolished and Conservative employment discipline should be applied to government officials. If you want the job, you have to move there, that is that, no arguments, no buts, no whining. In short, if the Conservatives want to have any credibility on the economy, they need to end their entitled and feudal way of thinking and start taking serious cuts on themselves to show Canadians that the cuts that we as a populace will endure are respectable and not just a ploy to put more money into their coffers. We pay high taxes in Canada and the trend is consistent: we don't get the value for our dollar - arguably: not even close.

Is this the way you want your country to be run? Follow us and let us know what you think: Facebook, Twitter, Google+.

Stephen Harper on Integrity: The Duffy Affair

What started as a $90,172 claim of inappropriate expenses seen as an outrage as part of abusive senate behaviour quickly escalated to a scandal with many more questions than answers. Get up to date with the full timeline.
Read more

Conservatives mused evil carbon tax in 2008

The Conservatives have spent the past few elections and inter-election periods demonizing a carbon tax that they themselves have promoted. At a Canada-UK Chamber of Commence meeting on May 29, 2008, Stephen Harper said that his government has applied a $65 per ton price on carbon, which we all know translates to a $65 per ton tax on carbon which is a carbon tax.



On the Prime Minister's official website, Stephen Harper discussed the necessity of a price on carbon, while arguing that it wasn't a carbon tax.

"As we negotiate an international climate change treaty, we believe strongly that these are standards that should also be applied globally. I should mention that while our plan will effectively establish a price on carbon of $65 a tonne, growing to that rate over the next decade, our Government has opted not to apply carbon taxes."

The reality remains that if you charge a price on something as a government, you are in effect, charging a tax - whether you want to call it one or not. Harper continues his argument,

"Carbon taxes will establish certainty about price, but not about outcomes. The central purpose of our plan is to create certainty about emissions reductions, not to raise revenue for the government. Our plan will compel industry not just to pay for their carbon emissions but to actually reduce them. Industry has told us they want and they need certainty. Our framework provides that. Clear targets, realistic timelines, fair across the board application. Now industry knows what they need to do and when they need to do it."

Stating that the plan will "compel industry not just to pay for their carbon emissions but to actually reduce them," Harper essentially means that it is a tax because without enforcement, Harper will get neither revenue or emissions reductions since his premise is that this price on carbon will lead to a "certainty about emissions reductions." Reading between the lines, doesn't this sound like he is trying to hide a carbon tax?

Canadians sent a clear message in 2008, by giving the Conservatives an increased seat count and increased portion of popular vote, that they did not want a carbon tax, which at the time was being promoted by the Liberal Party headed by Stephane Dion. 

It is funny how in this same period of time where the Conservatives have claimed that deficits were new and carbon taxes were bad that Canada had been in deficit earlier that year and Canada had been promoting a $65 per ton carbon tax overseas. 

Now, the Conservatives have targeted their carbon tax rhetoric at the NDP, without realizing that their previous statements were traceable. Funny enough, it is the people that claim to be against a carbon tax and against increases in spending that are responsible for the biggest deficit in history - that was primarily caused by spending from 2006 to 2008 and before even denouncing the carbon tax, were advocating it themselves.

The Conservatives may have the majority of the country fooled, but being blindsided is only temporary as eventually the truth does surface - like the truth about the deficits, and now the truth about carbon taxes. It would be nice to know when we can drag Finance Minister Jim Flaherty and Prime Minister Stephen Harper through committees to find out why a $13 billion surplus disappeared in under 2 years and how they can justify all of their comments on carbon taxes when they promoted it themselves. 

Additionally, I'd like an explanation for Stephen Harper's memo that circulated the Reform Party stating, "most voters are uninformed and apathetic."

The Conservatives love taxes, after establishing the 7% GST under Mulroney in the early 1990s, the Conservatives have effectively created the $65 per ton tax on carbon. What's next? Follow us and let us know what you think: Facebook, Twitter, Google+.