Election 2011

[PuckChaser]

And people talk about the Conservatives being cold? How would you like to get fired by a reporter?

Disgraced candidate learned he was fired through media
By QMI Agency 

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/CanadaVotes/News/2011/04/07/17906561.html

Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff was in such a hurry to distance himself from his party’s now-disgraced candidate in Manicouagan, Andre Forbes, that he let the media tell him he was fired.

A reporter from the Quebec City newspaper Le Soleil was the first to reach Forbes, founder of the Association for the Rights of Whites, to tell him his leader had given him the boot over statements perceived as intolerant toward aboriginals.

“If that’s how he perceived (the comments), then that’s his problem,” replied Forbes, who is Metis.

The Manicouagan Liberal riding association was likewise kept in the dark. It learned of Ignatieff’s decision through the Liberal website.

However riding association president Monica Theriault told Le Soleil that she didn’t know about the candidate’s controversial past and “If we’d known about those statements, he wouldn’t have been a candidate for us.”

 

[Journeyman]

Ignatieff:  “The comments are totally unacceptable. I, personally, was disgusted. But.....

....the Liberal Party can't afford any more candidates being fired or defecting....so we'll keep whoever we can get to run for us."

 

[vonGarvin]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I'm going to vote this time the same way I vote every time: by secret ballot. 



But.....


WTF has happened to the Liberal Party of Canada?  And why does it seem that if the Conservative Party of Canada trips, it's made out to be a major collapse, and if the Liberal Party of Canada has a major collapse, it's made out to be a trip?

 

[a_majoor]

it’s a whole life that has to be judged

Well there is a lot to judge out there, from Jack Layton's creative living arrangements in subsidized housing to the "Alberta Firewall" (I think we all have had a full serving of Mr Ignatieff's past via CPC ads).

Past performance is an indicator of what we could expect of a candidate, but I am also willing to suggest there should be some context as well. Did the candidate say this recently? In the heat of the moment? As an answer to a hypothetical? All the time?

How about their record in government? In opposition? Their voting record? How does the voting record match with their rhetoric or platform?

Of course, this election would be far better served by the media asking hard questions and not inserting themselves into the narrative. For myself, I have read the party platforms (such as they exist today), looked at past voting records and the demonstrated results of policies (including any analogous policies enacted by past Liberal governments) and am making my decision accordingly. Candidates are not welcome to knock on my door unless they bring coffee...

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail is more on the leadership issue, which I think may be the most important part of the reason the Tories are staying on top, at or near, majority territory:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/ignatieff-layton-fight-for-distant-second-as-harper-coasts-above-white-noise/article1975208/

Ignatieff, Layton fight for distant second as Harper coasts above ‘white noise’

JOHN IBBITSON, OTTAWA

Globe and Mail Update
Posted on Thursday, April 7, 2011

An election campaign dominated by “white noise” continues to show Stephen Harper comfortably ahead of his political opponents on leadership issues, as Michael Ignatieff and Jack Layton struggle for the dubious distinction of placing a distant second.

The latest Nanos Research Leadership Index – a daily tracking of voter attitudes toward the Conservative, Liberal and NDP leaders conducted for The Globe and Mail and CTV – continues to show Mr. Harper comfortably ahead of his opponents, scoring once again above 100, with Mr. Ignatieff, with a score of 45, essentially tied with Mr. Layton, who’s at 48.

Daily Nanos Leadership Index

The index represents a compendium of questions on voter attitudes toward the leaders on questions of trust, competence and vision.

“The tracking suggests that events reported in the media so far have generally been ‘white noise’ in terms of their impact on the impressions Canadians have of the federal leaders,” pollster Nik Nanos concluded.

“To date none of the leaders themselves have made any major mistakes, resulting in no dramatic changes in perceptions for the first part of the campaign.”

A spate of polls released Thursday from Nanos, EKOS, Leger and Angus Reid all show the Conservatives at or around 10 points ahead the Liberals, leaving the Conservatives on the cusp of a majority government, but with room both to grow or to slide.

Whether these polls reflect that voter attitudes to the two major parties are stable and entrenched, or simply that many voters aren’t yet paying attention to the election, is difficult to discern.

The curious may have to wait until after the leadership debates next Tuesday and Thursday to see whether and how voter intentions might shift.

I appears to me that the leadership debates are more and more crucial for Prince Michael Ignatieff. He will have to try to present himself as a reasonable desirable alternative to Harper in every way, but the need to appear both “reasonable” and “strong” may conflict. Plus, of course, he will be under attack from Layton who is a skilled debater.

I think it is time for the Conservatives to give some more voice – through surrogates - to the idea that Harper is being treated unfairly by a biased media, thereby reducing expectations of his performance in the debates and reminding Canadians that they ought not to believe everything they see on TV, especially not on the news.

 

[larry Strong]

and reminding Canadians that they ought not to believe everything they see on TV, especially not on the news.

You mean like John Q Public would have to get off their collective rear ends and actually do some real live thinking........do people have the ability any more, or has society been spoon fed for too long..........????

 

[OldSolduer]

You mean like John Q Public would have to get off their collective rear ends and actually do some real live thinking........do people have the ability any more, or has society been spoon fed for too long..........????

We had a discussion about this today. Each one of us has been issued with a working, functional brain. Unfortunately, some of us refuse to use it, and let others do the thinking for us.
This is why Charlie Sheen's latest meltdown, or who got voted off on Survivor is far more important than a minor thing like who will govern us.

We really do deserve the government we get.

 

[larry Strong]

We had a discussion about this today. Each one of us has been issued with a working, functional brain. Unfortunately, some of us refuse to use it, and let others do the thinking for us.
This is why Charlie Sheen's latest meltdown, or who got voted off on Survivor is far more important than a minor thing like who will govern us.

We really do deserve the government we get.

Amen

 

[hold_fast]

I hear Prince Ignatiev's wife is Hungarian. Not even a Canadian citizen.

Oh... oh my...


:
Meanwhile, vote Conservative and you'll get more gifts for your riding.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/07/lac-saint-louis-riding-campaign-liberals-conservatives.html
Vote Conservative and you won't have your goodies taken away.
http://www.timescolonist.com/elected+Harper+vows+keep+command+Pacific+fleet+Esquimalt/4578847/story.html

Vote Conservative and the world won't come to an end, the economy won't crumble, and Canada won't fall into multiple pieces led by a separatist coalition!

Sorry. I don't buy it. No party's perfect, but I'll go with a party that doesn't try to bribe or scare me into voting for them.

 

[Dissident]

but I'll go with a party that doesn't try to bribe or scare me into voting for them.

Which one is that?

Cons are saying look at the big bad possible coalition. Here are new jets and ...
Libs are saying look at big bad scary Harper and his hidden agenda. Here are a whole lot of goodies we will give you (you are going to be taxed to death.)
NDP are saying look at big bad scary Harper and his hidden agenda. Here are a whole lot of goodies we will give you (you are going to be taxed to death.)

 

[Edward Campbell]

This, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, is a double edged sword:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/liberals-vow-to-maintain-annual-increase-in-health-care-transfers/article1976243/

Liberals vow to maintain annual increase in health-care transfers

JANE TABER

Globe and Mail Update
Published Friday, Apr. 08, 2011

Michael Ignatieff is promising a Liberal government will maintain the annual 6-per-cent increase to provincial health-care transfers beyond 2014.

In a four-page open letter to Canadians issued Friday – as the Harper Conservatives release their platform – the Liberal Leader said Mr. Harper “has said nothing about investing in health care beyond 2014.”

At a town hall in Hamilton Thursday night, Mr. Ignatieff referred to health care as “the sleeper issue” of the campaign.

And he charged that Mr. Harper's platform of billions of dollars of spending on jets, jails and corporate tax cuts will leave the federal government with little room to negotiate with the provinces for the renegotiation of the 2004 health accord. It expires in 2014.

“The fact is, with these commitments, there will not be adequate funding for health care in Stephen Harper’s Canada,” he said in his letter.

More to come

Health care funding may be a, perhaps even is the big sleeper issue of the election and Prince Michael Ignatieff’s promise is sure to please a great many Canadians who live in a sort of low level dread of the costs/availability of health care for their own, personal crises that may come many years in the future. On the other hand an equally great number (I hope) will ask one simple question: how are we (not just you, Prince Michael, we – you, me and millions and millions of other Canadian taxpayers) going to pay for it?

David Doge, one of the really smart guys out there, has been asking for an “adult conversation,” most recently in this article, also reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/with-harper-and-ignatieff-mum-on-medicare-alarm-sounds-on-spending-disease/article1972949/

With Harper and Ignatieff mum on medicare, alarm sounds on ‘spending disease’

JEREMY TOROBIN

OTTAWA— Globe and Mail Update
Published Wednesday, Apr. 06, 2011

David Dodge is again urging an “adult conversation” about how to confront rising health-care costs, warning that even in an optimistic scenario the quality of care will suffer without some combination of deep cuts to other programs, higher taxes or patients footing more of the bill.

In a new report for the C.D. Howe Institute, the former Bank of Canada governor says historical trends suggest health-care spending could rise to almost 19 per cent of gross domestic product by 2031 from 12 per cent of GDP in 2009. That would push the country’s total annual health-care spending to $10,700 per person, after inflation, from $4,900 a head two years ago.

More troubling, even after using a model that assumes Canada makes extraordinary strides at developing policies and technologies that make the healthcare system more efficient and effective – as well as increasing labour productivity to avoid a sharp slowing of economic growth as the population ages, shrinking the workforce and tax revenues – spending would still rise to more than 15 per cent of GDP over the next two decades.

“The prognosis is not good, even if we are incredibly successful in improving the efficiency and effectiveness of healthcare delivery,” Mr. Dodge, now a senior advisor at Bennett Jones LLP in Ottawa, co-wrote with colleague Richard Dion, a former Bank of Canada economist. “But the spending disease must be managed. It is now up to Canadians to have an adult discussion about how to manage it.”

That “adult discussion,” which Mr. Dodge first called for at a Liberal Party conference in Montreal about a year ago, seems unlikely to take place anytime soon even though the report comes in the middle of an election campaign in which voters have once again identified health care as a top concern.

The new study was scheduled to be unveiled at a Toronto luncheon Wednesday long before the election was called, but it’s questionable whether its timing will nudge Conservative Leader Stephen Harper or Liberal rival Michael Ignatieff to spell out how they would handle talks with cash-strapped provinces looking for new deals on transfers for health care and social programs.

The current national accord on health funding, which sucks up more than 40 per cent of provincial budgets, is set to expire in 2014. Despite the Harper government’s recent assurances that Ottawa’s contribution won’t shrink, it’s unclear if a new Conservative administration could maintain, let alone increase, the 6-per-cent annual federal health transfer and still eliminate its own deficit by 2015-16 or earlier, as it has projected.

The Liberal platform, meanwhile, is a two-year plan and does not address how the party might approach the coming negotiations with the provinces should it win power.

Mr. Dodge, who was deputy minister at the Finance Department during the deficit-slashing mid-1990s, recently warned in an interview with The Globe and Mail that all provinces face a health spending problem because expenditures are “likely to be growing faster – potentially, significantly faster – than revenues will grow from current revenue sources.”

As the population ages and the labour force shrinks in some provinces, so too will their tax base unless governments find potentially unpopular ways to boost productivity.

“Even though rising healthcare costs will not eat up the preponderance of national income increases over the next two decades, there will nonetheless be very difficult choices ahead,” the authors wrote, “especially for Canadian governments who will be held responsible for providing most of these services, and for any offloading of costs onto individuals or employers.’’

Indeed, not only does Canada face higher spending by patients and employers for health services that aren’t insured by the provinces, the authors argue that the country will need to decide on some combination of unpalatable options. Namely, finding other services that can absorb deep cuts to maintain current healthcare standards, raising taxes to finance rising healthcare costs, tolerating poorer-quality care and longer wait times, or Canadians contributing more out of their own pockets, through co-payments or by governments covering fewer services.

“Even under an optimistic scenario,’’ the report says, “private citizens will have to devote an increasing share of additional income to private health insurance, direct out-of-pocket expenses on healthcare services, and long-term care, assuming no change in the private-sector share of total healthcare financing.”

It looks, to me, as if Prince Michael has closed the door on the plea for an “adult conversation” by deciding that public spending will continue to increase, going on and on and on and up and up and up until it squeezes out national defence and education and so on. This is not policy, it is pandering to the fears of the ignorant masses; it is typically Liberal in that.

 

[Rifleman62]

Scott Reid plants the seed (of course he has been at the beer and popcorn so has no substantiation):

http://digital.nationalpost.com/epaper/viewer.aspx

THIS WEEK ON THE ELECTION TRAIL

Every Friday until the election, our trio of experts — Scott Reid, Tasha Kheiriddin and John Moore — will analyze the ongoing campaign.
This week: What, if anything, should the parties be saying about health care?


SCOTT REID

Stephen Harper is planning to cut health-care funding if re-elected. You might think this would qualify as a controversial position worthy of spirited campaign debate. Yet, so far, the top-ranking concern of Canadians can’t even squeeze past Facebook-creeping to score a few minutes mention on the evening news.

Partly that’s because it might not be true. But don’t spike the football just yet, Harper Nation. The available evidence suggests that it probably is true. Certainly, Flaherty’s stalled budget hints that the Conservatives are at least preserving the option of trimming health-care transfers after 2014.

According to the 2004 Health Accord, transfers from the federal government rise annually at a rate of 6%. It’s called the escalator clause. Now look at the March 22nd budget. Nowhere in that big abandoned book will you find a commitment to transfer levels beyond 2014, even though the government boastfully projects budget balance by 2015-16. Why? The federal government wants to maintain its negotiating position. Translated from government-speak, that means they’re gunning for the escalator — perhaps hoping to lower it by a couple percent or even tying it GDP growth.

Experts call this flattening the curve. Hospitals, doctors, nurses and patients call it a cutback.

Of course, it’s possible that Harper will declare that he’ll preserve the escalator at or above its current level. But notably, he’s not actually said that. Even more notably, 13 days deep into this election, he hasn’t yet been asked about it. That’s baffling because, as David Dodge pointed out this week, cost pressures are rising. This debate is needed and trade-offs are inevitable.

Seven years after Paul Martin signed the current deal, wait times are down, public confidence is up and intergovernmental bickering has largely evaporated. Canadians would likely attach priority to maintaining this approach even at the expense of tough expenditure choices elsewhere.

It’s the sleeper issue of this campaign. Layton talks about health care but his focus is on who should lead the re-negotiations, not what is to be achieved. The Liberals are left with a golden opportunity. They can lead this debate, reassert their traditional trust advantage on health care and flush the Conservatives out of the bushes, possibly even exposing a position that could be dangerously discordant with voters.

So stay tuned. Harper blew the 2004 election by, in part, mishandling the hot-potato politics of health care. Who says history can’t repeat itself?

Scott Reid is a principal with the communications firm Feschuk.Reid and has served as a senior advisor to Liberal campaigns and governments for two decades.

TASHA KHEIRIDDIN

Health-care spending now consumes 40%-50% of provincial budgets. A new report co-authored by David Dodge for the C.D. Howe Institute shows that if current rates of increase hold it will soar from 12% of GDP in 2009 to 19% in 2031. At the same time, studies reveal that despite ballooning budgets, wait times have doubled since 2003. While a recent Canadian Institute for Health Information study reported that wait times for certain “priority” procedures have improved, 20% of patients needing those treatments still experience unacceptable delays.

The evidence is plain that a) projected increases in health-care spending are fiscally unsustainable, (unless you tax Canadians into oblivion) and b) throwing more money at wait lists doesn’t make them go away. Clearly something else must change – and that something is the structure of our health care system.

To date, the Tories have evinced a mortal fear of supporting anything but the status quo — but they shouldn’t. This election presents an opportunity to set themselves apart from the rest of the herd, and craft a policy that will not only win votes, but improve the lives of millions of Canadians.

The Tories should not ignore the health-care issue, but tackle it head on. They should call the other parties’ health-care policies what they are: a bald-faced lie. Spending more money will not fix the problem for this generation or any other. You can ride all the escalator clauses you want, but our wait lists will still end up in the basement.

Second, the Tories should propose a solution that tackles the inefficiency of our single-payer monopoly system. This should include amending the Canada Health Act to allow the provinces to experiment with health-care delivery as they see fit. Whether that would involve allowing more private care, contracting out, or delisting would be up to provincial governments — as it should be, since constitutionally, health care is a provincial issue.

Third, the party should gradually replace the bulk of health transfer payments with the transfer of tax points. Since this is the touchiest part of the equation, in our equalization-obsessed nation, it could only be done gradually, and would likely always maintain a certain portion of federal cash, but now with no strings attached.

So bring on the health-care debate, Conservatives. The opposition’s “fixes” would fail, respecting provincial jurisidiction will please in Quebec and the West, and no one could accuse Stephen Harper of dodging the debate. For the Tories, it’s a winning hand — if they’re willing to play it.

Tasha Kheiriddin is a columnist and editorial board member at the

JOHN MOORE

It took a week and a half but they finally got to the substantive issues this week: hockey arenas and long guns. If you listen through the electoral din you’ll actually hear the collective party avoidance of the debate we should be having on health care.

Currently the only reference to the file has been the three major party leaders asking the same question, “Who do you want to be at the table when Ottawa negotiates a new health-care accord with the provinces?” Well as things stand: None of you, thanks.

Canada may not be staring down the entitlement tsunami that will inevitably swamp the United States but we urgently need a rational, math-based discussion about our collective future. Notwithstanding Kim Campbell’s 1993 blow-out, the campaign trail is very much the venue for such a conversation.

It’s a myth that health care is an electrified third rail. Polling shows Canadians are quite open to a mixed system. It’s the parties that run from the issue to avoid agitating noisy ideologues within their respective bases.

For the left, health care is fused with our national DNA, perhaps the first time outside of a Maoist country that a government program rivals the flag in cultural significance. The right bows before the alter of private enterprise decrying the notion that soulless bureaucrats ration health resources, as if in the private system those same resources aren’t rationed by soulless clerks who are sometimes paid bonuses for denying treatment.

Whatever debate we do have in Canada suffers from our proximity to one of the worst examples of public/private mix. Sure, a Harvard study found that Canadians enjoy “better outcomes for less money” but that comes as little comfort to those waiting months for hip replacement and cataract surgery.

Here’s the deal, the left needs to admit that as long as standards are maintained in the general system, there is nothing wrong with for-profit health care. If an ambitious doctor wants to offer thousand-dollar vanity MRIs at night while leasing a government machine, what’s not to like? For its part the right needs to concede that the annual per capita cost of providing decent health care to all Canadians is simply an insurance premium that needs to be funded. It’s nothing short of duplicitous to starve government of revenue by cutting taxes and then declare that health care is an unsustainable and selfish entitlement.

John Moore is host of Moore in the Morning on NewsTalk 1010 AM Toronto. Outside of southern Ontario he can be heard at Newstalk1010.com.

 

[Edward Campbell]

There are changes, for a change, to the projections based on aggregated polls in the report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions(§29) of the Copyright Act from ThreeHundredEight.com:

http://www.threehundredeight.blogspot.com/

CANADIAN POLITICS AND ELECTORAL PROJECTION

April 8, 2011 Projection - Conservative Minority Government

FRIDAY, APRIL 8, 2011

Conservatives back to a minority

Before getting to this morning's projection, a word on my update schedule. Today's update is being done later than usual, and much later than I had hoped I would be able to do when the campaign had started. I was aiming for updates before 8:00 AM, but that was before Nanos's reporting schedule became known. I want to include the most recent polls in my update, which means I am only starting on the projection update after 7:00 AM each morning. On certain days, like today with EKOS reporting shortly after 8:00 AM, that pushes my update back past 9:00 AM. I will try to keep the updates coming as early as possible each day, but it is difficult to keep to a consistent schedule.

But this morning's update may be worth the wait, because we have a few noteworthy changes taking place. Most importantly, the Conservatives have moved back into minority territory, thanks to new polls from the researchers: EKOS, Nanos, and Forum.

The Conservatives remain stable at 38.6% nationally, a level of support they have maintained for days. But they have dropped two seats and are now projected to win 153 - two short of a majority. The Liberals, on the other hand, are up 0.2 points to 27.8% and one seat to 72.

The New Democrats are down 0.1 points to 16.9% but are up one seat to 33, while the Bloc Québécois is down to 9.3% nationally (but still 50 seats) and the Greens to 6.3%.

Aside from a 0.9-point gain in British Columbia, the Conservatives have remained stable throughout the country.

The Liberals, on the other hand, have dropped 0.5 points in British Columbia but have gained that amount in Ontario - a significant jump. They are also up 1.1 points in Atlantic Canada, closing the gap on the Tories.

The NDP is up in Alberta, the Prairies, and Quebec, but down in Ontario and Atlantic Canada. A mixed bag.

The Bloc is down again in Quebec by 0.3 points. They are now projected to have 37.5% support.

The two seat changes have taken place in Manitoba and Ontario. The riding of Elmwood - Transcona has transferred back to the NDP from the Conservatives in the projection, and incumbent Jim Maloway is favoured again. In Ontario, Kingston and the Islands has moved back into the Liberal fold from the Conservatives. New candidate Ted Hsu is projected to win the riding for the Liberals after the retirement of Speaker Peter Milliken.

With the Liberal gain in Ontario, a few ridings are getting close to flipping to their side. We shall see where the weekend takes us, and you can read tomorrow's projection in Le Devoir and Sunday's on The Globe and Mail's website.

One of the things I note is a slow but steady decline in BQ support, but to whose advantage, in the end?

 

[Journeyman]

.....but I'll go with a party that doesn't try to bribe or scare me into voting for them.

So I guess you're not voting (or maybe you're missing the electioneering from all parties)?  :

 

[Scott]

Nevermind, JM. I think I hit the nail on the head in the debates thread: he's just bored because exams are over and has nothing better to do but drive by's.

hold fast: Enough is enough. These steady and quite useless hit and run posts are getting tiresome and detract from the thread(s) at hand.

I am not warning you again

Scott
Staff

 

[GAP]

One of the things I note is a slow but steady decline in BQ support, but to whose advantage, in the end?

On CBC NewWorld last night the speculation was on mostly people wandering away from the Bloc, but the main recipient seems to be NDP....they are projected to contest at least one Bloc seat.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Well, according to this report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail the Conservatives are finally releasing their platform:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-pledge-to-tackle-deficit-a-year-ahead-of-schedule/article1976365/

Tories pledge to tackle deficit a year ahead of schedule

STEVEN CHASE
MISSISSAUGA, ONT.— Globe and Mail Update

Published Friday, Apr. 08, 2011

Stephen Harper is promising to eliminate the federal deficit one year earlier than planned by squeezing $4-billion in additional savings from Ottawa as part of his re-election platform.

The Conservative Leader unveiled the basket of promises at a Mississauga, Ont., convention centre: a list of pledges that includes arming Coast Guard vessels and stationing a rapid-reaction air-force wing for international emergencies in Bagotville, Que.

The platform, which the Tories are hoping will help them clinch a majority government, is packed with tax breaks, money for seniors, the military and even a park for Greater Toronto Area voters.

The Conservatives are promising to run a surplus of at least $2.8-billion in the 2014-15 fiscal year. That's a year ahead of what the Harper government pledged only 17 days ago.

“It's going to feel, I hope, like a smaller government,” Conservative candidate and finance minister Jim Flaherty said of what Ottawa would be like if the Tories win again.

One thing the Conservatives are now pledging not to cut is a 6-per-cent annual increase to health-care transfers to the provinces. Mr. Flaherty said the 6 per cent built into the 2011 budget's fiscal framework for two years beyond a 2013-14 renegotiating date for a transfer deal with provinces represents a commitment.

“Yes, the commitment is there in the fiscal track at 6 per cent going forward.”

The platform represents a deliberate attempt to contrast the Tories as relatively low spenders compared to their main Liberal rivals.

For instance, the Conservatives are also pledging a “one-for-one” rule that would commit them to eliminating an existing government regulation every time they propose a new one.

The Tories are promising a sprinkling of smaller measures including a $2.5-million to install defibrillators in every hockey arena and employment-insurance benefits for parents of murdered or missing children as well as parents of gravely ill children.

They're also promising to establish a $5-million “Office of Religious Freedom” within the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade to monitor religious freedom around the world “as a key objective of Canadian foreign policy.”

The Conservatives are also pledging to create a new national park in the Greater Toronto Area: at Rouge Valley, east of Toronto.

“We're taking action on the priorities of Canadians who work hard and play by the rules,” Mr. Harper said of his platform.

Other significant promises, already announced during the first two weeks of the campaign, include a March 31 pledge to guarantee a $4.2-billion loan for a Newfoundland and Labrador hydroelectric project that angered Quebec.

A day later, the Tories softened the blow for Quebec with a big-ticket promise to give the province as much as $2.2-billion in compensation for harmonizing its sales tax with the federal goods and services levy.

Mr. Harper has also tossed a controversial pledge on the pile, promising if he wins a majority he would scrap a per-vote taxpayer subsidy, one that his rivals have come to depend on heavily.

The Tories have unloaded a raft of tax-break promises for individual Canadians but with the caveat most won't be delivered until the deficit is eliminated. This means this relief would until at least three years under current forecasts.

This applies to one of the central Conservative election promises unveiled so far this campaign: a $2.5-billion tax cut for parents with kids. The pledge, to allow income-sharing between parents for tax purposes, would yield $1,300 in tax savings for 1.8-million families.

The delayed-gratification message is a deliberate attempt to contrast the Tories with the Liberals, who are promising to raise taxes, and roll back Tory corporate tax-cut commitments.

Other promises include:
» Enhanced Guaranteed Income Supplement for low-income seniors.

» Toughening laws on elder abuse by amending the Criminal Code to add vulnerability due to age as an aggravating factor when sentencing those who commit crimes against elderly Canadians.

» A move to 100-per-cent drug testing in prisons from 75 per cent, which would see every federal inmate undergo drug testing at least once a year.

My quick assessment:

+ Arming Coast Guard vessels – So-so idea – in my opinion we should limited the number of “armed” forces – ideally to two: the CF and the police. Maybe we need to rethink who does enforcement and transfer some CG vessels to the RCMP;

+ Stationing a rapid-reaction air-force wing for international emergencies in Bagotville, Que -  OK;

+ Run a surplus of at least $2.8-billion in the 2014-15 fiscal year. That's a year ahead of what the Harper government pledged only 17 days ago – Good!

+ Pledging not to cut is a 6-per-cent annual increase to health-care transfers to the provinces. Mr. Flaherty said the 6 per cent built into the 2011 budget's fiscal framework for two years beyond a 2013-14 renegotiating date for a transfer deal with provinces represents a commitment – Probably politically necessary but not a really good idea;

+ A “one-for-one” rule that would commit them to eliminating an existing government regulation every time they propose a new one – Good and would be better if it was a simple pledge to cut, Cut, CUT away at reams of regulations;

+ $2.5-million to install defibrillators in every hockey arena – A good idea but is it the Feds job?

+ Employment-insurance benefits for parents of murdered or missing children as well as parents of gravely ill children – Relatively harmless political pandering of the worst sort;

+ Establish a $5-million “Office of Religious Freedom” within the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade to monitor religious freedom around the world “as a key objective of Canadian foreign policy” – Nonsense, the sate has no business in the bedrooms of the national and even less in the temples of the world. A monumentally stupid idea;

+ Create a new national park in the Greater Toronto Area: at Rouge Valley, east of Toronto – More fairly harmless political pandering;

+ Guarantee a $4.2-billion loan for a Newfoundland and Labrador hydroelectric project that angered Quebec – Good;

+ Give QC as much as $2.2-billion in compensation for harmonizing its sales tax with the federal goods and services levy – Yet more (this time expensive) but also probably necessary political pandering;

+ Scrap a per-vote taxpayer subsidy, one that his rivals have come to depend on heavily – Excellent! and overdue;

+ Enhanced Guaranteed Income Supplement for low-income seniors – Pandering, again;

+ Toughening laws on elder abuse by amending the Criminal Code to add vulnerability due to age as an aggravating factor when sentencing those who commit crimes against elderly Canadians – Specialized crimes, including “hate” crimes are a bad idea, just enforce the laws we have;

+ 100-per-cent drug testing in prisons from 75 per cent, which would see every federal inmate undergo drug testing at least once a year – Excellent, but even more needs to be done to separate convicts from drugs, even if that means making life more difficult for corrections personnel.

 

[HavokFour]

There seems to be a copy/paste thing making its rounds on Facebook.

Dear Prime Minister I hear you would like to freeze the pay rates for soldiers starting next year. Would you also consider cutting your own pay to save more money for our country? While you're at it, lets reduce all MP's pay too. If the people who risk their lives don't get an increase in pay, why should we continue raising pay for those who take no risks and reap the benefits? RE-POST if you support our troops

Any truth to this? Can't find anything about it on the Net.

 

[OldSolduer]

There seems to be a copy/paste thing making its rounds on Facebook.

Any truth to this? Can't find anything about it on the Net.

I asked the one that posted this where he got his info.....and no reply.

 

[Scott]

I think it's doubtful, one of my 'Merican mates has the same thing posted, remove Prime Minister, insert Barack Obama...yadda, yadda, yadda

HavokFour, next thing you're going to tell us that Bill Gates is shutting down Hotmail unless you forward an email to 17,000 of your friends!

;D