Election 2015

[blacktriangle]

Completely agree. I think you'll see these positions come right out of the field force again, which is short just like everyone else. They also don't specify whether they are SF Op/Assaulter/CBRN Op positions, or if they are supporters.

By supporters, you mean HQ staff officers, right?  ;D

 

[PuckChaser]

By supporters, you mean HQ staff officers, right?  ;D

Absolutely. Startop still has parking spaces I think.

 

[YZT580]

If they are a citizen, they are our problem.  INCLUDING if they commit a crime elsewhere, which is why we should always intervene in cases where their punishment might be considered barbaric.  Or if they are innocent/prosecuted wrongly elsewhere as well (a certain Egyptian pardon comes to mind).  Can't stop someone from being a Canadian just because its inconvenient, costly or distasteful.  If we let them in and accept them as part of the family we take the good with the bad and deal with the family problems IN the family.  I don't agree with that law and I never did.

Same thing in the Forces.  We should be taking care of our own, good or bad.

and after that is done, send them back to their home countries.  Why should we shoulder the burden of paying their pensions?  They have done nothing to earn them and by their actions have demonstrated that they despise the country that gave them succour.  Neither murder nor robbery is subject to the revoking of citizenship: only crimes against the state itself.

 

[Old Sweat]

David Akin commented on the Liberal costing of their platform in this piece which is reproduced under the Fair Dealings Provision of the Copyright Act:

Liberals offer a clear choice: Deficits for an economy already growing
http://www.ottawasun.com/2015/09/26/liberals-offer-a-clear-choice-deficits-for-an-economy-already-growing

David Akin BY DAVID AKIN, PARLIAMENTARY BUREAU CHIEF

OTTAWA -- For weeks now, Liberal leader Justin Trudeau has been saying in leaders' debates, television interviews and in media scrums that his party was "the first party to put a fully costed framework" in front of voters.

That wasn't quite true.

The fully costed framework from the Liberal Party was actually put before voters Saturday morning. Apparently someone forgot to memo the leader on that one.

In any event, it's out now, and to the great credit of the Liberal campaign team, the numbers the Liberals are putting before the voters are certainly more credible and comprehensive than the costing document put out by their NDP rivals.

But that doesn't mean they are the right numbers.

The Liberals, as advertised, would add $26.1 billion to the national debt by running deficits in three of the first four years of a Trudeau mandate.

They'd cancel billions of dollars in tax breaks the Conservatives have already implemented. They'd be replaced by some of their own multi-billion dollar tax breaks as well as a different benefit scheme for parents.

The Conservatives are already spending billions on infrastructure, veterans, arts and culture. The Liberals would spend a bit more.

And despite loudly complaining a few months ago that the Conservatives were embarrassing Canada by spending a pittance on defence, the Liberals would spend exactly the same pitiable amount on the Canadian Forces. It looks like, no matter who forms government on Oct. 19, spending on national defence, relative to the size of our economy, is headed back to levels we saw during the so-called "decade of darkness" under the Jean Chretien Liberals.

There is no carbon tax in the Liberal fiscal framework or any revenue associated with putting a price on carbon. This seems a bit odd given that Trudeau has said several times in this campaign that Canada needs to put a price on carbon. Trudeau was not around Saturday and will not speak to reporters again until after Monday night's foreign policy leaders' debate but his proxies told reporters there will be nothing in any Liberal budget over any of the next four years that produces any federal revenue from carbon pricing.

A Trudeau government will somehow co-ordinate a national system of carbon pricing where the carbon taxes are collected (and presumably spent) by provincial governments. Stay tuned for more on that one.

And while Trudeau has vowed to legalize marijuana, his party's fiscal framework does not recognize any revenue from a pot tax or savings that may accrue because of reduced law enforcement expenses.

So there are still lots of questions about the choices the Liberals and every other party is making on spending, tax, and benefit issues.

But what now sets the federal Liberals apart from just about every other party in Canada is that they now believe that when an economy is growing, as Canada's economy now is -- the Bank of Canada and every forecaster anywhere says so -- the federal government ought to run deficits, however modest they may be relative to the size of the overall federal budget.

The huge deficits rung up by the Harper government after the 2009 fiscal crisis were a response to rapid and massive spikes in unemployment. But as almost any economist will tell you, Ottawa's massive deficits back then made only a bit of a difference.

And, in any event, any economist anywhere will also tell you that we do not have an employment crisis right now. Yes, because of the rapid drop in oil prices earlier this year, unemployment spiked in resource industries in Western Canada. But a federal deficit is not going to bring back high oil prices.

And though the economy shrank for the first two quarters of this year, enough for some to say Canada was technically in recession, this "recession" saw the creation of nearly 80,000 net new jobs from January to August, the most recent month for which data is available.

For the second half of this year, our economy should grow at a pace of about 2.5% per year adding even more jobs. Forecasters, including the Bank of Canada, have our economy growing at or near those levels for the next four years.

So, again, why should we add $26 billion to the national debt to "help" an economy that is growing and will be growing?

The answer is: We should not. Except for rare crises, such as the 2008-09 recession, even if the cost of borrowing is low and even if, as the Liberals say, the relative size of our national debt will remain low, a prudent, responsible federal government either raises taxes to match its spending plans or it lives within its means. That, in a nutshell, is the Conservative and NDP position. If you believe otherwise, the Liberals are your choice.


- mod edit to add link -

 

[Old Sweat]

Here is a link to the daily (nightly?) Nanos tracking poll. It shows the NDP has called to third place following the French debate, while both the Conservatives and the Bloc moved up in Quebec.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/election/nanos-polls

I am not a pollster but it seems useful to track progress via Nanos. I would comment that the Liberal one percentage point lead over the Conservatives is probably heavily influenced by the standings in Atlantic Canada where the Grits enjoy 54% support.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here is a link to the daily (nightly?) Nanos tracking poll. It shows the NDP has called to third place following the French debate, while both the Conservatives and the Bloc moved up in Quebec.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/election/nanos-polls

I am not a pollster but it seems useful to track progress via Nanos. I would comment that the Liberal one percentage point lead over the Conservatives is probably heavily influenced by the standings in Atlantic Canada where the Grits enjoy 54% support.

Look at the five bar graphs on the right side of the Nanos poll page; both the CPC and LPC have the same problem: inefficient vote distribution. The CPC have 46% of the vote in the Prairies (62 seats) while the Liberals have a whopping 54% of the vote in Atlantic Canada (but only 32 seats at stake). That skews the national numbers, I think, especially for the Liberals. My guesstimate is that the Globe and Mail's forecast is more likely, based on similar numbers: 50% chance that the Conservatives will form a government; 29% chance of an NDP government; and only a 23% chance of Liberal government, despite being ahead of the CPC and NDP nationally; and only a 1% chance that any party will have a majority government.

 

[Old Sweat]

I agree with your assessment. I would also suggest that after seeing an assessment on CTV News Channel, that the "crazy aunt in the attic" none of the Laurentian Elites want to even acknowledge is the issue of Islamic women's dress.

 

[Edward Campbell]

David Akin commented on the Liberal costing of their platform in this piece which is reproduced under the Fair Dealings Provision of the Copyright Act:

Liberals offer a clear choice: Deficits for an economy already growing
http://www.ottawasun.com/2015/09/26/liberals-offer-a-clear-choice-deficits-for-an-economy-already-growing

David Akin BY DAVID AKIN, PARLIAMENTARY BUREAU CHIEF

OTTAWA -- For weeks now, Liberal leader Justin Trudeau has been saying in leaders' debates, television interviews and in media scrums that his party was "the first party to put a fully costed framework" in front of voters.

That wasn't quite true.

The fully costed framework from the Liberal Party was actually put before voters Saturday morning. Apparently someone forgot to memo the leader on that one.

In any event, it's out now, and to the great credit of the Liberal campaign team, the numbers the Liberals are putting before the voters are certainly more credible and comprehensive than the costing document put out by their NDP rivals.

But that doesn't mean they are the right numbers.

The Liberals, as advertised, would add $26.1 billion to the national debt by running deficits in three of the first four years of a Trudeau mandate.

They'd cancel billions of dollars in tax breaks the Conservatives have already implemented. They'd be replaced by some of their own multi-billion dollar tax breaks as well as a different benefit scheme for parents.

The Conservatives are already spending billions on infrastructure, veterans, arts and culture. The Liberals would spend a bit more.

And despite loudly complaining a few months ago that the Conservatives were embarrassing Canada by spending a pittance on defence, the Liberals would spend exactly the same pitiable amount on the Canadian Forces. It looks like, no matter who forms government on Oct. 19, spending on national defence, relative to the size of our economy, is headed back to levels we saw during the so-called "decade of darkness" under the Jean Chretien Liberals.

There is no carbon tax in the Liberal fiscal framework or any revenue associated with putting a price on carbon. This seems a bit odd given that Trudeau has said several times in this campaign that Canada needs to put a price on carbon. Trudeau was not around Saturday and will not speak to reporters again until after Monday night's foreign policy leaders' debate but his proxies told reporters there will be nothing in any Liberal budget over any of the next four years that produces any federal revenue from carbon pricing.

A Trudeau government will somehow co-ordinate a national system of carbon pricing where the carbon taxes are collected (and presumably spent) by provincial governments. Stay tuned for more on that one.

And while Trudeau has vowed to legalize marijuana, his party's fiscal framework does not recognize any revenue from a pot tax or savings that may accrue because of reduced law enforcement expenses.

So there are still lots of questions about the choices the Liberals and every other party is making on spending, tax, and benefit issues.

But what now sets the federal Liberals apart from just about every other party in Canada is that they now believe that when an economy is growing, as Canada's economy now is -- the Bank of Canada and every forecaster anywhere says so -- the federal government ought to run deficits, however modest they may be relative to the size of the overall federal budget.

The huge deficits rung up by the Harper government after the 2009 fiscal crisis were a response to rapid and massive spikes in unemployment. But as almost any economist will tell you, Ottawa's massive deficits back then made only a bit of a difference.

And, in any event, any economist anywhere will also tell you that we do not have an employment crisis right now. Yes, because of the rapid drop in oil prices earlier this year, unemployment spiked in resource industries in Western Canada. But a federal deficit is not going to bring back high oil prices.

And though the economy shrank for the first two quarters of this year, enough for some to say Canada was technically in recession, this "recession" saw the creation of nearly 80,000 net new jobs from January to August, the most recent month for which data is available.

For the second half of this year, our economy should grow at a pace of about 2.5% per year adding even more jobs. Forecasters, including the Bank of Canada, have our economy growing at or near those levels for the next four years.

So, again, why should we add $26 billion to the national debt to "help" an economy that is growing and will be growing?

The answer is: We should not. Except for rare crises, such as the 2008-09 recession, even if the cost of borrowing is low and even if, as the Liberals say, the relative size of our national debt will remain low, a prudent, responsible federal government either raises taxes to match its spending plans or it lives within its means. That, in a nutshell, is the Conservative and NDP position. If you believe otherwise, the Liberals are your choice.


- mod edit to add link -

I thought Jean Chrétien's Red Book, issued first in the 1993 campaign, was a stroke of campaign (tactical) brilliance. But, now, 20+ years and a half dozen campaigns later it is both old hat and unbelievable.

The first thing M Chrétien taught us, again, was that campaign promises are infinitely flexible in their execution, if candidates remember them at all. The second thing he taught us was that those pesky events drive policy in the real world, not political manifestos.

I am prepared to agree with David Akin that the Liberal "costed promises" are slightly farther from cloud-cuckoo land than are the NDP's. But I don't believe that either M Mulcair or M Trudeau has any intention of keeping many of their promises ... oh, the F-35 will be gone if we elect the Liberals, that's an easy promise to keep. But all the other "goodies" promised by both the NDP and LPC will have to wait while the government deals with economic realities, real or just perceived. I don't believe the Conservatives, either: their promises are as flimsy as their chances of forming a majority government.

So, my reaction is ...

 

[Edward Campbell]

I agree with your assessment. I would also suggest that after seeing an assessment on CTV News Channel, that the "crazy aunt in the attic" none of the Laurentian Elites want to even acknowledge is the issue of Islamic women's dress.

I think that's a winning issue for the CPC. You're right, no one (in the national commentariat) wants to discuss it, but a solid majority of ordinary Canadians find it easy to side with the CPC and hard to forgive the LPC and NDP for missing what is, to them, an obvious "truth."

 

[Rocky Mountains]

I don't believe[/i][/color] the Conservatives, either: their promises are as flimsy as their chances of forming a majority government.

Chretien repeated the same promises for 3 elections and kept almost none of them - daycare?

Harper has been remarkable in the number of election promises he has kept.  Prominent are reduction of the GST and eliminating the long-gun registry.

While NDP and Liberal promises are each in the billions, the Conservative promises are much more modest and achievable.  The Conservatives have a record which shows a year and a half balanced budget without the destruction of social spending transfers.

 

[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."

More on this, and the potential Constitutional conundrum facing His Excellency, the Governor General, 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/close-election-brings-danger-of-political-instability/article26554054/

Close election brings danger of political instability

RANDALL PALMER AND LEAH SCHNURR
OTTAWA — Reuters

Published Sunday, Sep. 27, 2015

With Canada’s three main political parties all getting around 30 per cent support in polls, the odds of a period of political instability after the October 19 election are rising.

It could also shed an awkward spotlight on the constitutional role played by Governor General David Johnston, who is Queen Elizabeth II’s representative in this member of the British Commonwealth.

A proposal from Canada’s Green Party leader Elizabeth May for the two main parties on the left to take power immediately if Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper fails to get a majority - even if his party has more seats than anyone else - has triggered concerns that Johnston will face a very difficult decision.

While few see a full-blown constitutional crisis erupting, investors and economists warn that prolonged political uncertainty could undermine Canadian financial markets at a time when the economy has seen two straight quarters of negative growth, for many the definition of a recession, as the nation’s energy sector suffers from plunging oil prices. The Canadian dollar is already trading at near 11-year lows.

Johnston, 74, who is appointed by the Queen on the recommendation of the prime minister, is usually a figurehead who presents awards and attends commemorative events while also giving routine royal assent to Canadian laws once they pass Parliament. But after an election, he plays a critical role by asking one of the political leaders to form a new government.

This is easy if one of the parties gets a majority of the 338 seats in Parliament. It gets a lot trickier if they are all short of that, and there is the possibility of a coalition being formed between parties, or at least some kind of co-operation that would allow one to govern with the other’s support.

“There could be a lot of confusion and disagreement and competing claims, and it’s not clear how those would get sorted out,” said Mark Jarvis, from Toronto-based think tank the Mowat Centre. “In a worst case scenario, we could potentially have a great deal of confusion about who has a legitimate claim to form a government.”

Could fail quickly

If Harper’s Conservatives get more seats than his two opposition left-of-center rivals, the Liberals and the New Democratic Party, then by tradition, the governor general would be expected to ask Harper to form the next government. Harper has said the party with the most seats should govern.

But some constitutional experts said the Greens’ proposal could be a viable alternative and reduce instability.

The danger if Harper forms a government without a mandate in seats or votes is that it could fail quickly.

He would likely lose the first vote in the House of Commons after the election, which would be a vote on the so-called Speech from the Throne, in which the new government lays out its policies. Its rejection would show that Harper would find it next to impossible to govern effectively.

May proposes that Johnston not wait for that but instead ask the Liberals and the NDP to form a government if they are prepared to support each other. She says the Greens, who have about 4 per cent support in polls, wouldn’t join a coalition themselves.

Certainly, there is a good chance that this election will create historical waves. A Canadian prime minister has never been defeated on the first throne speech after an election, and Canada last had a coalition government in 1917.

Edward Schreyer, who was governor general from 1979-84, said if a combination of parties could show they could form a coalition with majority support, they would be allowed to form a government. “What the country needs, what the governor general must look for, is evidence of a stable government,” he said.

But insiders in all three main parties said if Harper had the most seats he would have the right to form a government and present his policies at the throne speech, usually several months after the election.

‘Snowball’s chance in hell’

Asked by Reuters whether the Liberals would back a Harper minority government, the party’s leader Justin Trudeau on Tuesday said at an event in Montreal: “There are no circumstances in which I would support Stephen Harper to continue being prime minister of this country.”

If the opposition brought down the government in a confidence vote over the throne speech, then the governor general would have to decide whether to let the second-place party try to form a government. He could also call a new election if Harper asked for one.

While up until now Trudeau has rejected the idea of a coalition or a formal arrangement with the NDP, he did indicate last week an openness to backing an NDP minority government, saying his party “has always been open in minority situations to working with other members of the house to pass legislation that serves Canadians.”

NDP leader Thomas Mulcair said last Wednesday there was not “a snowball’s chance in hell” of supporting a Conservative throne speech. He has said he is open to working with parties other than the Conservatives but says Trudeau has slammed the door shut on co-operation.

A lack of clarity on who was in the driver’s seat “is negative for GDP growth and unemployment,” said Canadian economist David Madani at Capital Economics.

Paul Taylor, chief investment officer of BMO Asset Management Canada, said a negative market reaction was guaranteed if there was no clear winner. “Anything Canadian should come off a little - the Canadian dollar, Canadian bonds and Canadian equities,’ he said.

Stick to the principles

Johnston, a constitutional expert himself, advised then Ontario Lieutenant Governor David Onley in 2014 when he looked set to face a similar constitutional problem in the province.

Onley said Johnston told him to “just remember, you stick to the basic principles ... (those are) the sitting prime minister or sitting premier has the right to not resign even though his party may have fewer numbers of seats than one or both of the other parties.”

Johnston’s office said in a statement that while various scenarios can arise if no party wins a majority, it “will not hypothesize on potential courses of action” he may take, adding it was inappropriate to speculate on what he would do if party leaders called him about other power-sharing arrangements.

More recently, Harper fended off an attempt in 2008 by a Liberal-NDP coalition to bring down his government, calling it an undemocratic power grab.

Facing a confidence vote that would have defeated his minority government and seen the coalition take office, Harper bought time by asking and getting then-governor general Michaelle Jean to suspend Parliament.

One of her advisors, Peter Russell, told OntarioNewsWatch.com in 2012 that Jean feared “a dreadful crisis” if she had allowed the coalition to form a new government and then the Conservatives had condemned the decision as equivalent to a coup d’etat. “We would have been there in the headlines of the world like Greece. (That’s) not very good for the country in any which way.”

Jean, who is now secretary-general of the Paris-based Francophonie organization, declined comment.

One option at the time was to ask the Queen to dismiss or overrule Jean if she had refused to suspend Parliament, a Harper spokesman Kory Teneycke said in the 2010 book “Harperland.” Teneycke, who is now Conservative campaign spokesman, later said his comments were taken out of context.

Experts said there was little chance of the Queen wading into Canadian politics.

“There’s no way that the Queen is going to get dragged in,” said Robert Hazell, director of the Constitution Unit at University College London. “Even if he (Harper) were to appeal to the Queen, Buckingham Palace would refer it straight back to the governor general.”

First, with regard to "going to the Queen:" I agree it's a hopeless (and hopelessly unclassy) move; King George VI issued letters patent to the Governor General of Canada in 1947 that, de facto, made him, the GG, head of state and responsible for all these sorts of matters.

Second, the King Byng Thing still applies. Lord Byng, the Governor General, used his authority and, contrary to Prime Minister King's advice, did not dissolve parliament and call an election (which King needed to avoid a quite serious scandal) and, instead, asked Arthur Meighen to form a government, which he did, using a bit of (now outdated) political chicanery. Meighan lost the first vote in the house and King won a very strong minority government. The outcome is that the power of the advice of the prime minister is very, very strong and GGs ought to follow it except in the most odd circumstances ... think Australia in 1975. I agree with the late Eugene Forsey that Byng was right; to have acceded to King's request for an election would have been "tantamount to allowing a prisoner to discharge the jury by which he was being tried.... If the Governor-General had granted the request, he would have become an accomplice in a flagrant act of contempt for Parliament," but the generally prevailing view is that King won and the PM established his authority over the GG.

Third, the first duty of the sovereign (or the GG) is to ensure that the country has a government, or is (actively) seeking one by way of a general election.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Like it or dislike it, it seems pretty clear even to me:

.... Onley said Johnston told him to “just remember, you stick to the basic principles ... (those are) the sitting prime minister or sitting premier has the right to not resign even though his party may have fewer numbers of seats than one or both of the other parties.” ....

Incumbent PM seems to get first crack at maintaining a government.  That said, it'll be interesting to see what happens, given this (hearsay) read of the GG's feelings, if the PM in a minority gives it a go and loses a confidence vote.

 

[ModlrMike]

Personally, I think folks are imprudently discounting the Quebec effect. If the Bloc were to perhaps gain 15 seats, they might hold the balance of power. They might see themselves better off supporting the Conservatives and wringing concessions from them, rather than being the most junior member of a triumvirate.

 

[Edward Campbell]

According to an article in the Globe and Mail, the "Quebec campaign gets nasty; [but the] ad wars still muted in rest of Canada."

The article features two ads that are playing in Quebec: https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=1&v=lVE-N-htzKs and https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=1&v=CmmSV1jtK3s

The first, by the BQ, is aimed at the NDP but probably helps the CPC, too. The second should resonate across the country, but it's against Harper rather than being For the NDP.

 

[PuckChaser]

Absolutely, as well they'll take seats directly from the NDP, weakening their position in a house of Commons ménage a trois attempt.

 

[dapaterson]

So, which party leader dismissed David Suzuki's "sanctimonious crap"?

I guess Justin's now chasing the Tory vote as well...

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/david+suzuki+says+trudeau+called+views+climate+change/11393762/story.html

 

[SeaKingTacco]

You know, maybe there is hope for that Justin guy, after all...

 

[Kirkhill]

You know, maybe there is hope for that Justin guy, after all...

Fur skin coats and dissing St. David.... maybe next time.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

Personally, I think folks are imprudently discounting the Quebec effect. If the Bloc were to perhaps gain 15 seats, they might hold the balance of power. They might see themselves better off supporting the Conservatives and wringing concessions from them, rather than being the most junior member of a triumvirate.

Except that their great leader has already stated that under no circumstances will they support the Conservatives.

 

[Underway]

Except that their great leader has already stated that under no circumstances will they support the Conservatives.

Which means nothing.  The NDP statement means nothing as well.  Everyone but the CPC will be broke after this election, so calling an election right after will be favouring the conservatives.  As such the NDP and Lib's may very well get together and make a coalition.  NDP and BQ maybe, as they have much in common.  Floor crossers etc...

You can never say you will form a coalition in the middle of the campaign.  That's like saying our "team might lose the Stanley Cup" before the series starts.  You play to win.  Always.  You deal with the consequences of the election after the election, not hedge your bets before so you don't haemorrhage votes to some other party.