Election 2015

[Edward Campbell]

Andrew Coyne, writing in the Ottawa Citizen, takes stock of the campaigns to date in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from that newspaper:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/national/andrew+coyne+liberal+message+might+make+much+sense+least+message/11385537/story.html

Liberal message might not make much sense, but at least it’s a message

ANDREW COYNE  09.23.2015

We have reached the stage of the campaign where the parties, having run out of things to say and candidates to sack, face a stark choice: repeat yourself, or make it up as you go along.

The Liberals, for example, have discovered it is an important national objective to show Justin Trudeau in a T-shirt. For most of the past week, they have been offering some version of this routine, day after day finding some excuse for the leader to show some skin. There’s Justin climbing the Grouse Grind in Vancouver. Justin boxing in Montreal. Justin, preposterously, canoeing the Bow River in Calgary — you know, just stealing away from the campaign to get a little R&R, tracked by a flotilla of cameras, some airborne.

As for the Conservatives, naturally they are above such stunts. These are serious times, after all, and they call for serious measures. Measures like the one Stephen Harper announced the other day, as it was described in a party press release, to the effect that “a re-elected Conservative government would aim to create 1.3 million net new jobs by 2020.”

Yes, yes, and what sort of policies did he suggest would help us achieve that objective? No, that was the measure: the only thing the Conservative leader had to announce was that he had set this “ambitious goal.” Or, as it might also be described, a fond hope. The prime minister hopes employment will rise by 1.3 million over the next five years. And I hope it will not rain.

And then there is the NDP. The party announced with great fanfare just before last week’s economic debate that it had “fully costed” its platform. This mundane bit of paperwork is always trotted out by the parties, adorably, as if it were some sort of extraordinary exercise in transparency. It is as if a shopkeeper, seeking to attract more customers into his store, were to exclaim, “Look! Now with price tags!”

In the NDP’s case, the purpose of “costing” would appear to be, in its entirety, that the figures in each column added up to the number at the bottom. The party’s assumptions, notably with regard to oil prices, were conspicuously out of date. Line items worth billions of dollars were broken down no further than an airy “Help Where It Is Needed Most.” Billions more appeared to have been left out altogether.

So it drags on, the curious joylessness of the Tory campaign — More of the Same, You Miserable Curs — matched only by the chiming vacuousness of the opposition parties’: Ready for Change versus Real Change (or is it the other way around?). Mind you, when it comes to running a vacuous, incoherent campaign, let it be said, the Liberals are beating the hell out of the NDP.

Under Tom Mulcair, the party has gone to great lengths to present itself as the responsible alternative to the Conservatives, with Mulcair as the safe and experienced choice for prime minister. To find the money to balance the budget, they’d raise taxes, and phase in spending increase over many years. When the subject of the F-35 came up, Mulcair took the only responsible stance: we’d have a fair and open competition, neither ruling out any of the competitors in advance nor ruling them in.

By contrast, Trudeau appears unconstrained by such concerns, or indeed by much else: consistency, coherence, basic physics. It isn’t just on the deficit that the Grits have adopted a position of radical internal contradiction, one minute slamming the Conservatives for running years of deficits, the next boasting they’d add several more to the string. They’re also for free trade, while attacking the Conservatives for … freeing trade (a press release denounced Harper for his “unwillingness to protect vital auto sector jobs in Southern Ontario” in talks on the Trans-Pacfic Partnership). They’re for an open competition to pick a new fighter jet, but also for excluding the F-35 from consideration.

It’s too simple to say that they have outflanked the NDP to the left, though it is fascinating to see how the party sells its tax policy. I might have expected them to say, “We’ll cut taxes for the middle class, and pay for it with a tax increase on the very rich.” But, in fact, party rhetoric inverts this. It’s the tax increase on the rich that’s front and centre; the middle-class tax cut has become almost an afterthought. The voters it is trying to reach, it seems, are less interested in “what’s in it for me” than in seeing to it that someone else gets whacked.

And it’s working. Until Sept. 15, every poll but one put the NDP ahead of the Liberals. Since then, every poll but one has the Liberals ahead of the NDP. The Liberal message might not make a whole lot of sense, but at least it’s a message. Whereas the NDP seems to have responsibled itself into a near-stupor.

The party is running a swell campaign for a two-party race, in which the challenger’s task is to creep up as close to the doddering old governing party as possible, promising little but smiling a lot, until the poor thing collapses of its own accumulated weight. It seems not to have anticipated the possibility of a three-way race, in which it might find itself outbid for the “change” voter.

Watching the leaders’ debate, I thought Trudeau looked terrible: shouting, interrupting, reeling off talking points, plainly out of his depth. No doubt he turned off a lot of voters — those who’d already written him off. But the type of voter the two parties are fighting over may be less interested in which leader is more knowledgeable about the economy than which one’s more irate about it. Who knew Angry Tom would be outscowled by Sunny Justin?

National Post

All true enough, in my opinion ... so, when, if ever, will Canadians decide that one or the other of the three is "good enough" or, maybe, just "the best of a bad lot?" My guess is during the last week of the campaign, after the Thanksgiving long weekend, if they even bother to decide at all.

    (It all rather reminds me of the Rhinoceros Party campaign promise, back in the 1980 campaign (after Joe Clark's short lived PC minority government) to have elections every six months, because they're so much fun.)

 

[Edward Campbell]

And, in an article in the Toronto Sun David Akin says that, given the promises by both M Mulcair and M Trudeau that "there isn't a snowball's chance in hell," and there are "no circumstances in which I [Justin Trudeau] would support Stephen Harper to continue being prime minister,” "it’s a majority or bust for Stephen Harper."

David Akin goes on to say:

    "Their first opportunity will likely come in late November on a confidence vote over the Speech from the Throne, the speech that sets out the broad legislative agenda and objectives of any government.

      Now, if a government loses a confidence vote mere weeks after a general election, it would be up to Governor General David Johnston to force a new election or simply let someone else have a crack at winning “the confidence of the House.”

      Johnston is the right G-G for this conundrum as he is widely regarded as a constitutional expert in his own right.

      But if Johnston calls on Mulcair or Trudeau to try to form a government, how would either man do it? Would it be through a formal coalition where, perhaps, one was the other’s deputy prime minister? Would it be an agreement not to bring down
      this new government for a certain period of time? What would the terms be?

      Mulcair’s and Trudeau’s declarations this week have turned these questions away from the realm of the hypothetical and into the realm of the real. And yet, voters who seek enlightenment on these issues get only obfuscation from both New Democrats
      and Liberals."

 

[Edward Campbell]

Although this is local, Ottawa news, it should be of interest because:

    1. It shows that the Liberals have made some substantial gains in ridings previously held by the Conservatives;

    2. With the exception of Ottawa Centre (where I live and vote) the NDP is not much of a factor in Ottawa; and

    3. LGen (Ret'd) Andrew Leslie (LPC) has a commanding lead over incumbent, albeit undistinguished CPC MP Royal Galipeau in Orléans.

Further to this, the Ottawa Citizen reports that a MAINSTREET poll shows Ontario as a CPC vs LPC battleground with the NDP in a (distant) third position:

         

The questions, my questions, anyway, are:

    1. Can the CPC and LPC maintain this sort of thing until after Thanksgiving? and,

    2. Can either the CPC or the LPC "break out" in Ontario?

It seems to me that a CPC "break out" in Ontario is the only way for Stephen Harper to get the majority that David Akin suggests he needs.

 

[Edward Campbell]

For those who wonder why defence and foreign policy are not campaign issues, Jeffrey Simpson says, in this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail  that it's because we, Canadians, are a smug, self satisfied, inward looking bunch of freeloaders, and we like it that way, and, therefore, we're not about to discuss the policies that give us our unearned sense of moral superiority:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/were-a-country-comforted-by-untruths/article26504246/

We’re a country comforted by untruths

SUBSCRIBERS ONLY

Jeffrey Simpson
The Globe and Mail

Published Thursday, Sep. 24, 2015

Countries sometimes tell lies to themselves about their history and their present. So it is with Canada.

For decades, Canadians told themselves they had the world’s best health-care system, when by any international measure they did not. This reality of Canada’s underperforming system is finally well-known and widely accepted. But the lie was repeated so often by politicians and health policy “experts” that people believed it, partly because the lie was so comforting.

In foreign affairs, Canadians also believe the lie that they are not just respected around the world, but that they play a role beyond the country’s size and wealth.

In fact, as opposed to mythology, Canada has been punching far below its weight for a long time, under Liberal and Conservative governments. Nothing suggests this situation will change regardless of who wins the election because – and here is an uncomfortable truth – Canadians are actually not much interested or involved in the world, at least in comparison with their self-image.

The fact that the parties say next to nothing about the world in their search for votes illustrates the parochialism of the voters, in a world where all politics is local but many issues are global.

When Canada’s party leaders debate foreign policy on Monday night at an event sponsored by the Toronto-based Munk Debates, chances are that facts will be overwhelmed by rhetoric.

So, here are some facts recently presented with searing clarity in a report for the Canadian International Council by Robert Greenhill and Meg McQuillan. (Mr. Greenhill used to lead the World Economic Forum and the Canadian International Development Agency. Ms. McQuillan is a fellow at Global Canada.)

For all its self-congratulatory talk, Canada’s per-capita defence and foreign-assistance spending, when combined to define “global engagement,” is the lowest among the G7 countries and the lowest among a group of comparable countries (Australia, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden).

Canada has become, according to the Greenhill-McQuillan study, a “free rider” in the advanced industrial world – “free rider” being defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as “a person who, or organization which, benefits (or seeks to benefit) in some way from the effort of others, without making a similar contribution.”

The authors left out diplomacy and international environment. Had these elements been defined as part of “global engagement,” Canada would have fallen even further into last place. The Foreign Affairs department has been hollowed out by the current government. Canada’s climate-change record is the worst in the industrialized world, along with Australia’s.

Canada as “free rider” accelerated under the Chrétien government that cut the defence and aid budgets. An uptick occurred in the Paul Martin years and at the beginning of the Harper government. But that uptick soon gave way to lower per-capita spending on defence and aid. In the rush to produce a balanced budget, the Harper government froze foreign aid and cut defence spending. The cuts reflected the very low priority Canadians give to aid and defence.

Canada has talked loudly and carried a small stick. Compared to our peer group’s average 1.9-per-cent share of GDP for aid and defence, Canada’s share is 1.2 per cent. To reach the average of our peer-country group’s spending would cost Canada another $13-billion. If Canada were to reach the level of global engagement of Britain and France, we would need to spend about $30-billion.

Governments play tricks. The Harper government’s new spending on aid for maternal health and the United Nations’s Every Woman Every Child initiative drove up annual funding for health by $146-million, but spending on education dropped $166-million, and for government and civil society initiatives by $180-million.

Humanitarian and development assistance to the Middle East grew by $295-million, but it fell by $288-million to Africa and Asia, and $285-million to the Americas. Speaking of the Middle East, Canada is participating in the military campaign against the Islamic State, just as we bombed Libya, with no new fighter jets on the horizon and with cuts imposed on the Defence Department.

Bottom line: There are no domestic votes in an inward-looking country that is comforted by untruths about itself as a serious global player, yet each year spends less and less in and on the world.

I don't often agree with Mr Simpson, just as a stopped clock is right twice a day, so he, too, must be right from time to time ... this is one of those times.

 

[Lumber]

If anyone can find a copy of the poll I'd love to see it. So far, I can only find a few articles from news agencies in Toronto reporting on this, which surprises me, because it's the biggest move in the election to date:

http://www.thestar.com/news/federal-election/2015/09/24/conservatives-swing-into-lead-close-in-on-majority-government-new-poll-suggests.html

Conservatives swing into lead, close in on majority government, new poll suggests.

MONTREAL—Stephen Harper’s Conservative party has taken a commanding lead in the federal election race, a new poll suggests.

With less than a month to go in the campaign, and heading into the first of three leaders debates, the Tories have moved ahead of their rivals with the support of 35.4 per cent of voters, according to the Ekos poll conducted for Montreal’s La Presse newspaper.

Justin Trudeau and the Liberals have 26.3 per cent support and the NDP has the backing of 24.5 per cent of respondents. The poll questioned 2,343 people between Sept. 17 and Sept. 22 and is considered accurate to within two percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

The results would seem to smash the notion of a three-way horserace that has been recorded in polls conducted through the first eight weeks of the election campaign.

“If (the Conservatives) keep those numbers up they’re very close to a majority — if not there already,” said pollster Frank Graves. “The numbers are about as good as we had for the final weekend of polling (in the 2011 election) when they achieved their majority.”

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here is a link to the original, it says:

    "Si les élections avaient lieu aujourd'hui, les conservateurs de Stephen Harper obtiendraient 35,4% des suffrages, ce qui pourrait être suffisant pour former au moins un gouvernement minoritaire. C'est surtout le NPD qui semble écoper
    de cette remontée du Parti conservateur: il voit ses appuis chuter de 5,4 points à l'échelle nationale, pour s'établir à 24,5%. Ce faisant, les troupes de Thomas Mulcair culbutent au troisième rang dans les intentions de vote, derrière le Parti libéral,
    qui récolte 26,3% des appuis, en baisse de 1,1 point de pourcentage. En tout, Ekos a interrogé 2343 Canadiens dans le cadre de ce sondage réalisé du 17 au 22 septembre. La marge d'erreur est de plus ou moins 2%, 19 fois sur 20."

Which means:

CPC:  35.4% ↑<6%
LPC:  26.3% ↓ 1.1%
NDP: 24.5% ↓5.4%

 

[Lumber]

Strange that you can't find the poll on the Ekos website.

 

[Edward Campbell]

This makes tonight's French language debate even more important. If, as the MAINSTREET poll (previous page) suggests, the NDP is third, well behind the CPC and LPC, in Ontario, then it must hold on to its Quebec base. The expectations from the national media commentariat are that all the other leaders will gang up on M Mulcair and this will benefit, mainly, the LPC.

I can imagine that, IF the Ekos poll results are both valid and durable, until Oct 19, that I might have to update my old old guesstimate, which was based on the notion that M Mulcair could not sustain NDP popularity in Quebec, to look like rather this:

Conservatives:        169  seats
Liberals:                    90±
NDP:                          63±
Other QC Party:      15±
Greens & Others:      1±
TOTAL                    338

 

[Lumber]

I'd almost be happy with a conservative majority just so I can watch all the Harper-haters/ABC crowd go nuts. They'd be crying foul and rigged election for years. It'd make for good reading.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I'm of two minds: First, I don't like minority government because good public policy must, always, be compromised for the sake of power brokering; and, Second, the CPC is old, tired, and out of ideas and it needs (deserves) a "time out" to rethink it's policies and leadership, but I wouldn't trust either M Mulcair or M Trudeau with a majority.

 

[ModlrMike]

There's still the option of the Bloc supporting them. Of all four parties, the Bloc would probably be in the most dire financial position and need the most time to restock the coffers. If the Torries do form a minority, their hope would be to last 12 to 18 months before the next election. If Mr Harper makes his exit at the four month point, then I think that the earliest possible election is 12 months.

 

[ModlrMike]

I'd almost be happy with a conservative majority just so I can watch all the Harper-haters/ABC crowd go nuts. They'd be crying foul and rigged election for years. It'd make for good reading.

Too true. What struck me about the last episode was the "it's not partisan but we're only contesting Conservative wins" claim. Notwithstanding that there were an equal number of tight races won by the other parties, some with an even thinner margin of victory that the six Conservative wins.

 

[Edward Campbell]

The Globe and Mail reports on a new Léger poll under the headline: "NDP losing momentum in Quebec in new Léger poll."

The Globe and Mail says the latest Quebec number are:

BQ:  20% ⇧ 2%
CPC: 18% ⇧ 5%
LPC:  22% ⇧ 2%
NDP: 38% ⇩ 8%

Remember, there are 25 days to go ...

 

[suffolkowner]

I want to see a conservative minority government just to see how the legislative session plays out.
With regard to party finances do you not think the first thing a Liberal-New Democrat government (no matter how short lived) would do is reinstate the vote subsidy

 

[Edward Campbell]

Oh, and about that "middle class" notion ... here is an OECD chart showing the Gini coefficient:

Canada is, as you can see, in the middle of a pack of comparable nations, wedged, at about 0.3, in between somewhat more equal Germany and somewhat less equal New Zealavd ... we're are much more equal than America (0.4) and much less equal than Denmark (0.25), for whatever that's worth.

 

[Edward Campbell]

In this report, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, Bill Curry suggests that the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan might not come to fruition if there is either a Liberal or NDP government in Ottawa:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/ontario-downplaying-introduction-of-orpp-tied-to-lower-ei-premiums/article26505766/

Why a federal Liberal or NDP win could put Ontario pension plan at risk

SUBSCRIBERS ONLY

Bill Curry
OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail

Last updated Thursday, Sep. 24, 2015

Ontario is playing down the significance of timing its new pension plan to coincide with scheduled reductions in Employment Insurance premiums amid a heated federal election debate over the benefits and risks of payroll taxes.

The province has argued that 2017 is a good time to start a new pension plan because the federal government announced plans to dramatically reduce EI premiums that year, meaning Ontario workers and employers would see the new pension premiums offset in part by lower EI deductions.

But the national campaign is complicating those plans as the federal Liberals say they will not cut premiums by as much as the Conservatives, while the NDP announced this week that they won’t cut premiums at all so that they can promise more generous EI benefits.

Observers say it is possible the Ontario pension plan may never see the light of day should either the Liberals or NDP form government given that both parties are promising to meet with the provinces to negotiate a national expansion of the existing Canada Pension Plan.

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper has campaigned hard against the positions of Ontario and his federal rivals, warning that higher payroll taxes will cost jobs.

Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne has long said the proposed Ontario Retirement Pension Plan was a second-best option to a national expansion of CPP, which did not proceed primarily because of opposition from the federal Conservative government. But provincial planning is now well under way.

Mitzie Hunter, Ontario’s minister responsible for the new pension plan, is minimizing the significance of the federal Liberal and NDP positions on EI premiums.

“We’re moving forward with the ORPP because the current federal government has refused to discuss the possibility of working towards CPP enhancement, not because EI premiums are going down,” she said in a statement, noting that the province will be phasing in the plan over several years and small business won’t be affected until 2019.

“Reduction in EI premiums would help businesses adjust to the ORPP. That said, it’s not the only measure we’re taking,” she said.

Ms. Hunter was vague as to what a Liberal or NDP federal government would mean for the ORPP.

“We’ve been clear that we need a change in government in Ottawa,” she said. “One reason for that is so that we can work together on retirement income security for Canadians."

The Harper government announced on the eve of the federal election campaign that it would not allow Revenue Canada to co-operate with the province in collecting premiums for a new pension plan, meaning the ORPP would run into much higher costs if the Conservatives are re-elected.

Both the Liberals and NDP are promising to work with the provinces to expand CPP and both parties told The Globe and Mail they hope Ontario will change course and work with other provinces and a new government on a national CPP expansion.

The Conservatives have announced plans to lower premiums in 2017 from the current $1.88 per $100 of insurable earnings to $1.49. Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau has said he would only lower premiums to $1.65 in order to fund more generous benefits. NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair announced his plan this week, saying he would freeze premiums at the current rate and put all of the revenue back into EI benefits and job training.

Dan Kelly, President of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business that opposes the ORPP, said he is concerned that businesses will lose the cushion of lower EI premiums.

“Essentially this would be a double payroll tax hike if that were to happen,” he said. “If the EI reduction isn’t taking place or is much smaller than anticipated, that’s just going to make that sting a lot greater.”

Mr. Kelly is of the view that Ontario would put its plans on hold should either the Liberals or the NDP form government. But not all business advocates agree.

Allan O’Dette, President and CEO of the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, said he sees the province moving full speed ahead. Mr. O’Dette wrote an open letter to the Premier Wednesday asking for more detail on the program, including an estimate of how it would impact growth in the province.

“I don’t think the federal election is having any impact on this file,” he said. “I think they’re moving ahead regardless of what happens on the federal scene.”

Susan Eng of the seniors advocacy group CARP said even if the Liberals or NDP form government, Ontario will likely wait to see if a deal on national CPP expansion can be reached with the provinces.

“They won’t automatically drop the ORPP just because one or the other wins the election,” she predicted.

I'm tempted to say "Advantage: Liberals" because I think M Trudeau can hint that he and Premier Wynne can reach some kind of friendly agreement that would negate the perceived (by premier Wynne) need for the unpopular programme.

 

[Edward Campbell]

And here, in a report by Jennifer Ditchburn of the Canadian Press which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, we get a peek inside the NDP campaign machine:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/former-obama-strategist-aiding-ndp-says-only-mulcair-can-beat-harper/article26515465/

Former Obama strategist aiding NDP, says only Mulcair can beat Harper

JENNIFER DITCHBURN
OTTAWA — The Canadian Press

Published Thursday, Sep. 24, 2015

A top organizer for both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton is actively working with the NDP — and predicts Canadians will conclude that Leader Tom Mulcair is the only person who can defeat Stephen Harper.

Jeremy Bird was President Obama’s national field director in 2012, helping to identify and motivate individual voters at the grassroots level. More recently, he was one of the figures inside the political action committee promoting Clinton as a presidential candidate.

He’s now well acquainted with Canadian politics, and speaks with ease about regional support levels, vote splits and party records.

“A lot of what you see from the Conservative policies of the Harper government are a lot like the rhetoric we’re hearing from the Republican Party primaries — economic policies to help the rich get richer at the expense of the middle class, a budget that’s only balanced on the back of working class families ... denials of climate change,” Bird said in an interview from Washington, D.C.

“Fortunately we share democratic values with the NDP, and I think climate change is just one example of that.”

Bird spoke to NDP party members at a 2013 NDP convention, and in the intervening years his Chicago-based firm 270 Strategies has advised the party on improving their contact with potential voters.

Bird, who has come up to Canada a few times since the election began, discounts Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau as a credible threat to Harper’s hold on power.

“It’s a riding by riding election in which the candidates have to make their case at the riding level,” said Bird.

“Their strength in Quebec gives them a massive advantage in terms of being the real alternative that can put together enough seats to form government that is not led by Stephen Harper.”

The Obama for America campaign became legendary for being able to use data to identify supporters and also other voters who might be persuadable. Digital messages and those delivered in person were tailored to the specific individual — called micro-targeting. Armies of volunteers fanned out across districts to make sure ballots were cast.

But the Conservative Party is good at that sort of campaign too. They’ve had success at stitching together the right numbers of voters in particular ridings with the right messages, using a well-fed party database.

Bird dismisses this Conservative prowess, saying the tactics are ineffective if the party’s record falls flat with voters.

His firm has been helping the New Democrats learn how to pinpoint battleground ridings, and then harness the energy of local volunteers and organizers — including offering them training. Ensuring that a voter’s online interactions with the party are meaningful is also key, said Bird.

“What it’s really going to come down to is operations on the ground, neighbours talking to neighbours, people talking to people in their riding.”

The Conservatives made headlines earlier this month when it was revealed they had been using the services of Australian campaign consultant Lynton Crosby, credited with helping secure victories for John Howard as well as for British Prime Minister David Cameron.

“The election in Canada is going to be won based on the strength of the three leaders and their ability to appeal to the majority of Canadians and the strength of their party,” said Bird.

“It’s not going to be decided based on any outside consultants, whether they be from Australia, England, the United States, etc.”

I wonder how he feels about the (apparently) falling NDP fortunes in la bell province?

 

[ModlrMike]

So where's the caterwauling now that the NDP has hired a TFW?

 

[Brad Sallows]

Mulcair and Trudeau having stated their refusal to work with Harper, there are only two conceivable outcomes in which a CPC minority (if it is the largest minority, in order to meet Harper's own criterion - the party with the most seats) governs:
1) Seat count of CPC + BQ >= 170.
2) Seat count of CPC very close to 170, and Harper goes shopping for floor-crossers before the first confidence vote.

Mulcair and Trudeau have changed the calculations of all voters who favoured a CPC minority subject to bargaining with NDP and LPC opposition.  Now voters have to decide: CPC majority, LPC minority, or NDP minority.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Is "expansion of CPP" a roundabout way of saying "increase benefits and premiums", being in turn a roundabout way of saying "we spent most of our income on ourselves instead of raising more children (or any at all), so now you kids will have to pay a greater share of your income to support us"?