Election 2015

[Edward Campbell]

Two points from a story in the National Post, posted elsewhere on Army.ca, in which Sen Duffy's lawyers threaten to call Prime Minister Harper to testify, should it come to a criminal trial, and John Ivison predicts Prime Minister Harper will campaign on abolition rather than reform:

    1. The first point ~ threatening to try to embarrass the PM ~ suggests that Sen Duffy's lawyers believe that a) he is guilty of willful, criminal fraud, and b) there is a good chance he might go to jail; and

    2. On the second point, John Ivison is probably right abolition is easier to explain (on the campaign trail) than reform, Canadians are more likely to want abolition, but the Supremes will not allow it and reform will be the order of the day, post 2015.

I have suggested, elsewhere again, a way to achieve meaningful senate reform without reopening the Constitution. My plan requires the national political centre to bully the provinces, perhaps too much, but it would produce an elected, effective Senate that fills the proper role of the "second chambre" in a bicameral legislature ~ which I believe is required in a federal state.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Two points from a story in the National Post, posted elsewhere on Army.ca, in which Sen Duffy's lawyers threaten to call Prime Minister Harper to testify, should it come to a criminal trial, and John Ivison predicts Prime Minister Harper will campaign on abolition rather than reform:

    1. The first point ~ threatening to try to embarrass the PM ~ suggests that Sen Duffy's lawyers believe that a) he is guilty of willful, criminal fraud, and b) there is a good chance he might go to jail; and

    2. On the second point, John Ivison is probably right abolition is easier to explain (on the campaign trail) than reform, Canadians are more likely to want abolition, but the Supremes will not allow it and reform will be the order of the day,
        post 2015.

I have suggested, elsewhere again, a way to achieve meaningful senate reform without reopening the Constitution. My plan requires the national political centre to bully the provinces, perhaps too much, but it would produce an elected, effective Senate that fills the proper role of the "second chambre" in a bicameral legislature ~ which I believe is required in a federal state.

Minister (and likely leadership candidate) Jason Kenney suggested Friday that outright abolition is unlikely. "Whether people agree with it or not, the Fathers of Confederation decided that Canada, like every other democratic federation, would have an upper house that in principle could represent the interests of the regions," Kenney said ... "That is our constitutional structure, but we want to ensure that it is a modern and accountable Senate. That's why we want a democratic Senate with term limits and accountability to the public."

But that doesn't mean that the CPC wil not or cannot campaign on abolition, it just means they understand the limits of the Constitution and they understand that the SCC understands that, too.

 

[Edward Campbell]

And Brian Gable, the Globe and Mail's editorial cartoonist, explains why promoting abolition is good politics:

Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/damage-claim/article13538502/#dashboard/alerts
Reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail

 

[The Bread Guy]

.... John Ivison is probably right abolition is easier to explain (on the campaign trail) than reform, Canadians are more likely to want abolition, but the Supremes will not allow it and reform will be the order of the day, post 2015.

Agreed that in campaign mode "get rid of" is easier to explain/message than "change it".

But that doesn't mean that the CPC wil not or cannot campaign on abolition, it just means they understand the limits of the Constitution and they understand that the SCC understands that, too.

Just like they say "never give an order you can't enforce", wouldn't campaigning on abolition (knowing the Constitutional hurdles) taint the platform, then?

 

[Edward Campbell]

Agreed that in campaign mode "get rid of" is easier to explain/message than "change it".
Just like they say "never give an order you can't enforce", wouldn't campaigning on abolition (knowing the Constitutional hurdles) taint the platform, then?

Sure, it will ... but will Canadians either notice or care?

 

[The Bread Guy]

Sure, it will ... but will Canadians either notice or care?

True dat ..... 

 

[ModlrMike]

They can deflect blame (unfairly) onto the SCC and subsequently champion reform.

 

[Edward Campbell]

John Ibbitson wonders if the Senate scandal could derail Prime Minister Harper's plans for 2015 in this article which is reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/senate-could-derail-harpers-best-laid-plans/article13835602/#dashboard/alerts

Senate could derail Harper’s best laid plans

SUBSCRIBERS ONLY

John Ibbitson
The Globe and Mail

Published Monday, Aug. 19 2013

The good news for Stephen Harper is that the electoral map continues to tilt in his favour, thanks to a political landscape that could see the Liberals take more votes but win fewer seats than the Conservatives in the next election.

The bad news is, that landscape could soon change.

If voters place jobs and growth at the top of their political agenda, the Conservatives are still likely to win in 2015.

But if the scandal over Senate expenses becomes their top concern, the imbroglio could bring down the Prime Minister.

“If he’s not careful, the Senate scandal could be for Stephen Harper what the Adscam scandal was for Paul Martin,” warns Darrell Bricker, head of the polling firm Ipsos Reid Public Affairs.

“Incumbent governments are expected to be in charge. If something goes off the rails when you’re in charge, you can’t escape it.”

Although polls have been few and far between recently, “for the Conservatives, things have been pretty stable,” at around 30-per-cent support since last winter, observes Eric Grenier, whose threehundredeight.com assesses and weights political polling data.

After a spike of popularity in the spring, when he became leader, Justin Trudeau’s numbers have drifted down; the Liberals now hover in the low-to-mid thirties, while the NDP under Thomas Mulcair are in the low-to-mid twenties.

That’s important: The NDP’s old ceiling of 20-per-cent support is now their floor, which is bad for the Liberals and good for the Conservatives.

This means that, first the first time since who-knows-when, the Conservative vote is more efficient than the Liberal vote, Mr. Grenier and Mr. Bricker believe.

The Liberals now completely dominate Atlantic Canada because of Conservative moves to tighten employment insurance.

The problem is, “that’s not much of a base,” says Mr. Bricker. Atlantic Canada will have only nine per cent of the 338 seats in the House of Commons in the next election.

(For the record, Mr. Bricker and I collaborated on a book on Canadian politics published earlier this year.)

The Conservatives dominate in the prairie provinces, rural Ontario and the interior of British Columbia. The Tory base is more than twice as large as the Liberal base, in terms of seats.

The Liberals hope to make major gains in Quebec, where NDP support is flagging. But much of the NDP vote appears to be moving to a resurgent Bloc Québécois, although “I think that’s definitely parking,” says Mr. Grenier.

Regardless, in the next election Quebec will likely be an NDP/Liberal/Bloc fight. But again, the Liberal vote is inefficient, concentrating heavily in the West Island of Montreal.

In Greater Toronto and Greater Vancouver, where the election will probably be decided, the NDP threatens to siphon Liberal support. And suburban voters place a heavy emphasis on economic issues, where the Conservatives continue to score well.

Put it all together, and the Conservative advantage on the economy, a strong NDP, and Liberal dominance in areas with relatively few seats could create a situation in which the Liberals lose the next election even if they win the popular vote.

“Unless the Liberals have a four-to-five-point lead, they are not assured of winning the most seats,” Mr. Grenier believes.

All of that, however, fails to take into account the Senate scandal.

Pierre Trudeau’s obsession with constitutional reform; Brian Mulroney’s obsession over Meech Lake and Charlottetown; the sponsorship scandal – all were fatal to the governments of the day.

If the spending scandal continues to grow, it could force voters’ minds off the economy and onto the question of Senate reform. No matter how he handles that question, Mr. Harper will be punished by the voters for it, Mr. Bricker believes, “because there’s really nobody else to punish.”

Even if the Tory base stays loyal, the Senate scandal has led to “a noticeable increase in the percentage of voters who are now inaccessible to them,” pollster Nik Nanos, of Nanos Research, believes.

These are the voters who might be persuaded to vote Conservative, or might not.

“The challenge for the Conservatives is that they need those voters to be accessible in order to form a majority government,” said Mr. Nanos. “ As more voters take the Conservatives off the political menu, it becomes more difficult for the Tories to win a majority.”

The Senate, in other words, is a political wild card. Who holds that card and how it gets played could determine who is prime minister two years from now.

The solution, I think, might be:

    1. Continue, as he is doing now, to hammer his core mesage ~ Conservatives are the only ones who can be rtusted with the country.  The NDP is full of "dangerous ideas"
        and all the Liberals have is "vacuous thinking;" and

    2. At the same time campaign on abolition of the Senate, until such time as the Supremes say "No!" then move on to a plan for reform ~ challenge and bully both the provinces and the opposition parties.

 

[Infanteer]

The Senate expense scandal definitely seems to be a boon to the Conservatives in almost a tin-foil hat kind of way.  They campaigned hard on Senate reform and found tires spinning in the mud - the scandal may be the winch that pulls them forward to their original objective.

 

[The Bread Guy]

The first "promise made, promise kept" announcement (didn't appear on the PM's or DND/CF's web pages), from the stephenharper.ca page (what appears to be a party-hosted page):

This year’s operation NANOOK 13 marked a special milestone for our government: the expansion of the Canadian Rangers.

In 2007, PM Harper committed to expanding the Canadian Rangers from 4,000 Rangers in 165 patrols to 5,000. As of August 2013, there are more than 5,000 Rangers in 178 patrols – a 25 percent increase since 2007. In addition to the 5,000 rangers, there are also close to 4,200 Junior Canadian Rangers in 135 patrols across Canada. Much like their senior counterparts, the Junior Rangers Program helps to achieve nation-building goals and improves the quality of life of young people.

The Prime Minister’s commitment to modernize the Rangers has also been fulfilled with the advancement of their technological capabilities, including the use of electronic tracking and digital imagery equipment. Furthermore, the Rangers’ Lee Enfield Rifles will be replaced with new ruggedized 7.62mm bolt action rifle.

Our government is proud to have played an important role in the expansion and modernization of the Rangers who protect Canada’s North. Operating under the motto “Vigilans,” (The Watchers), the Canadian Rangers provide self sufficient mobile forces in support of the military’s sovereignty and domestic operations in the north’s sparse and rugged terrain ....

 

[Edward Campbell]

Michael Adams of Environics  suggests that the "youth vote" is essential for Justin Trudeau's Liberals but not as reliable as they hope in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/the-youth-vote-is-key-for-todays-trudeaus/article13937370/#dashboard/follows/

The youth vote is key for today’s Trudeaus

MICHAEL ADAMS
Contributed to The Globe and Mail

Published Monday, Aug. 26 2013

Justin Trudeau, leader of a Liberal Party that many recent polls have found nudging ahead of the Conservatives, is fond of describing his growing army of young volunteers across the country. This hints at a bold claim: that young people aren’t really disengaged; they have simply been waiting for the right leader – and Mr. Trudeau is it.

Maybe.

Environics Research Group’s social-values research seeks to measure the orientations that underlie Canadians’ attitudes on issues of the day: to probe beyond party preferences and current affairs to examine deeply held convictions about concepts like authority and fairness. Our values surveys find young people to be strong on the “rejection of authority” value and weak on the “duty” value. In short, Millennials are less willing than older Canadians to defer to institutions, parties or leaders. No coincidence, then, that only about a quarter (24 per cent) of Canadians between 18 and 29 say they identify with a political party. By contrast, the proportion among those 60 or older is four in 10 (41 per cent).

To the extent that young Canadians find a leader compelling, it’s likely to be because of a sense of affinity or even emotional connection, rather than hail-to-the-chief allegiance. Young people score high on a number of values associated with social and emotional connection, such as “social intimacy,” “introspection” and “empathy.” These values, combined with a relative aversion to duty and authority, suggest that Millennials’ attachment to leaders may be less a matter of dutiful deference and more a matter of simply liking, trusting or relating to another person.

The alchemy of personal connection – whether through mass media, social media or even real-life contact – can be powerful, but it can also be fleeting. As a result, young people’s attachment to leaders may be intense but changeable. Idealistic young people who are really turned on by a public figure may be motivated to use their social and online influence to shore up that person’s support; 18- to 29-year-olds are slightly more likely than other cohorts to say they have persuaded others how to vote.

But leaders may or may not be able to keep the love alive over the months leading up to election day, let alone in the course of years in government. Indeed, even candidates who seem to hold strong appeal for young people can have trouble getting them out to mark a ballot.

In the 2011 federal election, 39 per cent of 18- to 24-year-olds and 45 per cent of 25- to 34-year-olds turned out to vote – rates well below the national average of 61 per cent. And these numbers are by no means anomalous; youth voting is in long-term decline.

Low youth turnout is not equally damaging to all political parties. According to our most recent vote-intention survey, just 16 per cent of Canadians between 18 and 29 would support the Conservative Party if an election were held today, while 34 per cent would support the New Democrats and 32 per cent the Liberals. When young people stay home, Conservatives suffer least. Mr. Trudeau has brought the Liberals into the overall lead in many polls, but in order to convert this support into seats, he must get young people to vote. If not, his party risks meeting the same fate as the B.C. NDP, which showed a steady lead in the polls before getting thumped on election day. One part of the disconnect was that youth “support” evanesced.

One clear area of divergence between the young and others is the extent to which young people view voting as a duty or a personal choice. Most Canadians (57 per cent) see it as their duty to vote. But those between 18 and 29 disagree: A minority (44 per cent) see voting as a duty, as compared to 49 per cent of 30- to 44-year-olds, 58 per cent of 45- to 59-year-olds, and 60 per cent of those 60 and older.

It won’t be easy getting young people to the polls, but harnessing the electoral power of the most diverse, socially liberal and world-connected generation in our history is a vital task for centre-left politicians. Part of the recipe will surely be channelling the frustration of the majority in areas such as the environment, justice, inequality, defence and foreign policy. But harnessing public dissatisfaction with a government is not enough; a plurality of voters must be persuaded to choose one of the opposition parties.

Targeted appeals in areas of special concern to the young will help win over the engaged, but for a generation that tends not to parse the news too closely, a grab-bag of specific policy ideas won’t work. More promising may be rekindling the sensibility (though not necessarily the policies) of happy Jack Layton.

Right now, it looks like Mr. Trudeau may be the leader to represent the values of openness, empathy and idealism as we head toward Canada’s 150th birthday in 2017. As the party approaches, Mr. Trudeau must warmly invite everyone, including boomers and elders – and hope like mad the cool kids show up, too, perhaps bringing a joint for everyone to share.

Michael Adams is president of the Environics Institute.

The poling data I have seen suggests that younger voters dislike Prime Minister Harper and they like Justin Trudeau ~ bad news for Thomas Mulcair, but in some contests (and we must remember there will be 338 individual contests) some of Mr Mulcair's young candidates will be attractive to young voters. But other data suggests, as Michael Adams verifies, that "getting young people to the polls" is easier said than done. My peers, senior citizens, are both reliable voters and, generally, not attracted to M. Trudeau's (few) positions on issues. The potential voters M. Trudeau wants and needs are almost the reverse of seniors when it comes to likely-hood to vote, and I suspect that when you talk about the issues that Mr. Adams says matter to them ~ "the environment, justice, inequality, defence and foreign policy," they will be equally or even more attracted to the NDP than to the Liberals.

M. Trudeau is, certainly, more attractive to young Canadians but Mr. Mulcair has a platform that is, likely, more attractive to them; the result: Conservatives "up through the middle."

 

[Edward Campbell]

I agree with John Ibbitson's column, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, that this fictional memo is the "master plan" for the new look PMO and Conservative Central Office:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/if-harper-sent-a-memo-to-his-new-staff-it-could-be-like-this/article13994161/#dashboard/follows/

If Harper sent a memo to his new staff, it could be like this\

SUBSCRIBERS ONLY

John Ibbitson
The Globe and Mail

Published Wednesday, Aug. 28 2013

This is not a memorandum from Stephen Harper to his staff. But we think it could be.

MEMORANDUM

To: The new arrivals

From: The Prime Minister

Re: Your assignments

The reorganization of the Prime Minister’s Office and Conservative Party headquarters is now largely complete, which is why we leaked the information to the press Tuesday. This seems like a good time to welcome everyone to their new roles and to lay out the challenge facing our party and our government, as I see it.

The Canadian election cycle is becoming more and more American. The Liberals and the NDP are already crafting their pre-election strategies, more than two years before the actual vote. We, of course, are doing the same.

But there is a difference. For the first time since we first came to power, we are behind in the polls – consistently, week after week; month after month. If an election were held tomorrow, we’d lose it.

I believe there is a reason for this. I believe we’ve grown soft. The changes I have approved are designed to toughen us up.

The Conservative Party is, or should be, an insurgency. We are outsiders–rooted in Western conservative values and Western alienation, sustained by Tim Horton suburbanites, and dedicated to forever dispatching to the margins those liberal elites in Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal who governed this country from Confederation until we got here.

But the comforts of majority rule have dulled our edge, have made us comfortable. And we have paid the price.

We must become an insurgency again. The personnel changes I have approved are intended to return us to guerrilla form, and to put us into permanent campaign mode.

Above and beyond all else, these personnel changes are intended to put experienced, deeply loyal and fervently partisan advisors into key roles.

In 2011, Barack Obama dispatched his campaign team to Chicago, far from the fevered swamps of Washington, where they could think clearly as they planned his re-election strategy. I’m doing the opposite by bringing Jenni Byrne, who ran our 2011 campaign and who will likely do the same in 2015, into the PMO as deputy chief of staff. She will assist Ray Novak. You know that Ray started out carrying my luggage and is now my chief of staff. That is how much I value loyalty – and the ability to get the job done, no matter what the job may be.

Fred DeLorey has moved from party press secretary to head of political operations. He’s that good and that driven. And Alykhan Velshi takes over issues management in the PMO. Alykhan has bounced around a bit since he worked for Jason Kenney at Citizenship and Immigration, but we all know they don’t come more politically savvy than Alykhan, and no one is more skilled at wooing and winning the immigrant vote.

Your job is to put a Prime Minister’s Office distracted by Senate embarrassments, rebellious backbenchers, robocalls and bungled files – yes, I do mean the F-35 contract – back on its feet.

It is axiomatic in politics that any day you spend responding to the other guy is a lost day, and we have lost many, many days this year. I want that to end.

I want you to think of us as a minority government, barely clinging to power, surrounded by socialists and liberals and people who do not drink what we drink or eat what we eat or think what we think. I want you to imagine that our government could be defeated tomorrow. If we were, how would we win the election? Your job is to answer that question.

I want an agenda that can become a platform and a communications plan that we can take to the people–or at least our people – without having to rely on the media, who are besotted with Justin Trudeau.

I want to cauterize the Senate expenses scandal. Is there anything we can do, other than kicking it to the auditor general, calling in the police and waiting for the Supreme Court to rule on our elected-Senate bill? Suggestions welcomed.

I want some trade deals signed and pipelines approved. And I want the Liberal Party under Trudeau rebranded, just as we rebranded it under Michael Ignatieff and Stephane Dion. I don’t expect that campaign to be pretty. I do expect it to be effective.

We still have the loyalty of 30 per cent of the population. If we can bring another four per cent back to us, we win the next election. Make it 8 per cent, and we get another majority government.

We know who and where those persuadables are – aspirational middle class voters living outside Toronto and Vancouver. From this moment on, they are all we care about. Persuade them. Forget about everyone else, everywhere else.

Congratulations on your new assignments. The washrooms are down the hall. Now get to work.

Well, as it happens, I do have a few suggestions. Prime Minister Harper should say, at his first staff meeting:

    First: we are no longer "outsiders–rooted in Western conservative values and Western alienation, sustained by Tim Horton suburbanites," we are Tim Horton suburbanites sustained by Western conservatives;

    Second: each of "Senate embarrassments, rebellious backbenchers, robocalls and bungled files – yes, I do mean the F-35 contract" are each separate and distinct problems which require separate and distinct solutions -

          a. The Senate cannot be abolished, the Supremes are not going to allow that, but we can talk it up even as we draft a comprehensive, even radical reform proposal that will leave the Liberals and Dippers in our dust,

          b. I'm going to try to meet our backbenchers half way. The Throne Speech in October will lay out a handful of promises that will be matters of confidence - every Conservative MP will vote for them,
              regardless of what his constituents or his conscience tells him or I will drum them out of the party. But most items, including ALL social items will not be confidence issues and I will allows members to
              speak against the government, all the time reaffirming that the views they are expressing are their own, or those of some voters in Wildflower-Dung Hill, and not the views of the government or the CPC,

          c. we will continue to stonewall on the robocalls issue until we cannot - then we will elect a scapegoat and toss him (or her) to the wolves, and

          d. we will deal with bungled files in two ways ~

              (1) we will punt the F-35 decision farther and farther down the road ~ special committees are wonderful things, aren't they? ~ and

              (2) we will reip big ticket procurement, almost all of which is military or coast guard ships, and put it into a new department which is beholden to neither DND, nor PWGSC nor Industry Canada; and

    Third: to get those trade deals signed and pipelines built I am going to bully the hell out of the provinces. If they try to play ball with me I will ram the fiscal bat up their arses and I, not they, have the constitutional power to do it!

 

[Rifleman62]

Isn't this the same, except you state the method and the instrument?

ERC: 

Third: to get those trade deals signed and pipelines built I am going to bully the hell out of the provinces. If they try to play ball with me I will ram the fiscal bat up their arses and I, not they, have the constitutional power to do it!

Rifleman62:

Canadian Politics / Re: Canada's New (Conservative) Foreign Policy
« on: August 27, 2013, 17:39:50 »
We know which way President Obama will go, especially but very unlikely the Dems hold the Senate and gain the Congress: NO Keystone.

Quebec, the Indians the environmentalists (many US funded, but that's another story) are not in favour of Keystone or the East - West. As a matter of fact they are pretty well against everything.

With this majority, or the next majority which will give the Conservatives more time I suggest war time measures to ensure these vital measures to the economy of Canada proceed.

State that the pipelines are a national imperative, complete the safety/environmental studies and set the standards, build including expropriating the land. If a Canadian Pipeline Force (CPF) has to be created as guards, crowd control, emergency response for explosions/fire/leaks so be it. Take a cut from the revenues to fund the CPF.

Build a few more modern multi billion dollar refineries strategically located across Canada while your at it.

Nationalize Trans Canada pipelines if you have to, but I doubt it will have to be done.

Sell Canadian crude at market, especially to the US. Full bore. Not soft power but slick power.

 

[a_majoor]

An oil plan like that might be a good issue if framed properly. Current estimates are that our inability to sell "at market" costs the Canadian economy something like $2 billion/day. That amount of revenue is enough to pay off the national debt in one year (and the federal unfunded iabilities the next year), if the monies were collected directly by the Federal government.

More realistically, every billion in new private investment should result in 20,000 new full time jobs, so finding ways to bring in billions in new revenues will result in lots of money being available for private investment and job creation. This will take a lot of the wind from the sails of the NDP (job creation) and the Liberals (blathering about "middle class values" without proposing any program to actually do anything for the middle class).

 

[ballz]

An oil plan like that might be a good issue if framed properly. Current estimates are that our inability to sell "at market" costs the Canadian economy something like $2 billion/day. That amount of revenue is enough to pay off the national debt in one year (and the federal unfunded iabilities the next year), if the monies were collected directly by the Federal government.

I believe the figure you are trying to quote is $2 billion per MONTH, which at $24 billion per year is not enough to cover the deficit. When those numbers are quoted as "costing Canadians," what it really means is it is costing Canadian *companies.* How much of that would eventually become tax revenue, I'm not sure, but certainly not enough from $24 billion to cover the forecasted $17 billion federal deficit this year.

Interestingly enough, I wanted to Google the estimates just to make sure we were talking about the same thing and whatnot. Anyway, I came across this article which says this claim is *bogus* and makes a decent argument to support it http://business.financialpost.com/2013/06/03/canada-oil-price-discount/?__lsa=42fb-cd39

The undisputable quote in the article, however, is not really about the discounted price of Canadian oil:

B.C. Energy economist Robyn Allan, who recently wrote a report on the pricing of Canadian oil, said “the discount has been used by the federal and provincial governments to shadow out the fact that by shipping raw bitumen to U.S. refineries, Canada is also shipping jobs.”

I think this is pure gold. In Canada, we extract resources from our lands and send the jobs elsewhere for a small price (the price of the resource). Why do we not do the "add value" part here, at home, and then sell it elsewhere for a premium?

 

[a_majoor]

I'll have to go back to the clippings file, but I'm fairly sure the figure was per day.  Even if I'm wrong and it was per month, that is still a large amount of revenue to be foregone. The arguments for that amount of money powering private investment and creating new jobs still stands.

I do agree that *we* should be moving higher up the value added food chain, but there are many reasons that we are not. The tax and regulatory environment that discourages new investment is probably the number one reason for not building new anything, but there are also second and third order effects of other boneheaded ideas our political class come up with. How many new industries will come to Ontario when the cost of electricity is skyrocketing due to "green" energy policies, for example?

 

[ModlrMike]

We must also recognize that external forces are actively working against the extraction and export of Canadian oil. Instead of wringing our hands, we need to sort out other options and get on with it.

 

[ballz]

Even if I'm wrong and it was per month, that is still a large amount of revenue to be foregone. The arguments for that amount of money powering private investment and creating new jobs still stands.

Agreed, just wanted to be accurate with the number. The federal corporate tax alone on that $24 billion dollars per year would be 3.6 billion collected in federal tax revenue. That's 21% of the federal deficit right there. Then, of course, we agree on the spin-offs that would be a result of the oil companies taking that remaining 21.4 billion and trying to invest/expand, a lot of that would end up being tax revenue as well. Hard for a laymen like myself to calculate, but I'm sure it would be lucrative.

However, if the article is correct... we could both be in dreamland

 

[Edward Campbell]

It is interesting that, just moments ago, Jason Kenny tweeted his congratulations to Brian Loughnane, Federal Director of the Liberal Party of Australia, for a well planned and executed campaign. Kenny tweets, and the link suggests, that Mr Loughnane is a "great friend" of the Conservative Party of Canada.

I wonder: will we see him in Canada in 2014/15 to help plan the 2015 campaign?

 

[Edward Campbell]

Don't underestimate the LPC's capacity to reinvent itself in whatever part of the political spectrum it can find room to grow. Stephen Harper has made the CPC a centrist party ...

Two articles in today's papers bear on this:

    1. In the Ottawa Citizen Andrew Cohen asks "Is Canada creating a new political realignment, which looks an awful lot like the old one? Is it returning to a three-party system in which the Conservatives and the Liberals hold power, alternating with
        each other, while the New Democrats languish on the margins?"

    2. In the National Post John Ivison speculates on the Throne Speech and suggests that it "will contain details of a “consumers first” agenda," taking, in my opinion, direct aim at the middle class ground that Justin Trudeau is trying to plow.

Andrew Cohen doubts that M. Trudeau can unseat Prime Minister Harper in 2015 but he is fairly certain that he will reduce the NDP to third party status. But, as I have said before supplanting the NDP is not simple; it all depends on QC and it will be difficult to craft a national campaign that must, first and foremost, appeal to French speaking Quebecers while still holding on to Liberal strongholds in multi-ethnic Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver.


Edit: format