h/t Cam @ Ottawa Citizen

So the budget’s out. Billions and billions in spending and tax cuts. I would like more tax cuts than spending, but hey, we’re in a minority government and we can’t just do it our way. (I would also do away with 230 million for the Arts, but we all know how a measely $48 million worked out in the past).

This budget is obviously heavily geared towards appeasing the Liberals: moderate tax cuts, investments in jobs, subsidies, low income, infrastructure. It has nothing for the NDP because, well frankly, they would vote it down regardless, and they didn’t bring any suggestions to the table, so why would there be anything in there for the NDP? The Liberals didn’t bring anything official to the table, but at least they let everybody know what they would like in it, so I guess the CPC watched the evening news and got the message.

Layton, who sported a green tie matching his green brain, turned it down without even reading it. He didn’t like the fact the Throne Speech was less than four pages (he would rather drone on and on and on and waste a whole day on reading it) and so the budget couldn’t be much better. “The bad stuff in there is not good, and if there’s good stuff, we don’t trust them to actually implement it” is a wonderful stance to take Jackie! Has anybody ever told Jack the role of the opposition is not to just oppose everything the government does?

Jack wants his stuff in the budget, or he’ll vote against. I guess it’s “My Way or the Highway” for Jackie.

Iggy meanwhile, said he had to look at the polls sleep on it to see if the budget was good enough, and today he came back with some changes. He likes the budget, but it didn’t implement all of the Liberals suggestions, so there’s a blackmail ultimatum on the table.

Iggy wants his stuff in the budget, or he’ll vote against. I guess it’s “My Way or the Highway” for Iggy.

Gilles just dismissed it right out as “there’s nothing in there for us”, meaning no money for Quebec specifically, and as such, he can’t vote for it.

Gilles wants his stuff in the budget, or he’ll vote against. I guess it’s “My Way or the Highway” for Gilles.

It seems the only one not going the “My Way or the Highway” route is Harper, wich is ironic of course, since he’s the only one being accused of doing just that.

While the mercury in Ottawa got stuck overnight at -32 (I hear it is going to be -38 over in Calgary), a senior Environment Canada scientist is blasting the federal government for causing a “public embarrassment for Canada” by preventing him from organizing a world gathering of experts on global warming. Don MacIver is the director of the Adaptation and Impacts Research Division at EC and was chairing a committee for the WMO (World Meteorological Organization) at the UN climate change summit in Poland, the same summit where Elizabeth May is peddling her Global Warming For Dummies book. Senior bureaucrats scrapped the trip in a cost-cutting measure. I agree, sending our “scientists” to false UN summits on subjects that don’t exist is not in the tax payers’ best interest. And if Elizabeth May is there, it can’t, by definition, be good for the taxpayers. According to Ms. May, delegates from other countries were “puzzled” by the cancellation of our committee chair’s address, and were left “wondering why it got cancelled” (that’s quite the “public embarrassment”). Earlier in the week, May was heard saying people at the summit had ”burst into tears” when they heard Harper had prorogued parliament.

I guess what I am trying to say is that Ms. May is more of an embarrassment to Canada than any cancellation of any speech ever will.

This all comes on the heels of a report that melting polar ice caps could actually help the fight against global warming. Apparently, there is excessive plankton growth in the sea areas that are now ice free, creating a huge carbon sink.

And Jack Layton just can’t give up.

For all you boomers out there:

The country is facing a recession, people of all stripes are cutting back on their expenses, some are losing money on their RRSPs, gauging (more like fleecing) at the pumps, people are losing jobs left and right, yet the Liberals, NDP and Bloc are against capping their salaries, cutting their expense accounts and want to hold on to their entitlements.  “We must work together to make this parliament work for the Canadian people” has changed to “I don’t want to give up my $1.95 per vote and a pay hike”. Thanks Jackie, Stephane and Gilles. Glad you’re working for us. Glad you’re chippin’ in.

Now it’s either another election with Mr. Money vs Mr. Broke, Mr. Poor and Mr. Stupid, or a coalition government between Mr. Am I Prime Minister now or Tuesday?, Mr. Kitchen Table and Mr. Separatist. Lovely.

These people live in such lala-land it is unbelievable.

Yes, I received another email from my good friend Jack Layton this afternoon. After he chalked up his “historic gains this election”, he sat down with Mr. Harper and told him how to fix this economy thing, and, he says, he hopes Harper can put aside his petty partisan ways and listen to him. Jackie hopes Mr. Harper mentions the following suggestions in his throne speech:

• Cancelling the scheduled 2009 unconditional corporate tax giveaways;
• Investing in the new energy economy to create jobs and fight climate change;
• Investing in a national training strategy;
• Cracking down on the banks receiving government support but still charging outrageous credit card and ATM fees;
• Protecting pensions and RRSPs so that Canadians can sleep at night knowing their retirement is safe and secure.

Jackie, don’t get me wrong, these are good suggestions. Really good, but I don’t think in this time of economic uncertainty that ATM fees are really all that important. Or fighting climate change. Or national training, whatever that is.

All throughout the letter my good friend Jackie mentions me and my family and how he wants to help us. All we have to do to weather this storm, is to “stick together and put family first”. On three occasions in the short letter my pal Jackie tells us how to accomplish this: by giving him some money. Just $20. That’s enough. But give ’em more money!

My buddy Jackie is going to help me and my family weather this economic storm by taking more money out of our pockets!

I am richer for having such a good friend.

Jack, I need you to tell me this is a global catastrophe, and that something needs to be done! Snow on October 28th? Where are you?

We woke up to some 4 cm of snow today (I know, the STORM TEAM from A-News announced 15 cm yesterday, but hey, we’ve got that STORM TEAM all fitted out with the parkas and the ski-goggles, so we’ve got to use ‘em!), and, of course, Ottawa’s streets are filled with idiots who do not know how to drive. On my modest 20 minute drive to work I came across three cars in the ditch and one spinning out of control coming up to a stop sign you can see from four miles away. On top of that, there were numerous cars with the windshield “cleaned up” by windshield wiper instead of snow brush, leaving the driver to peer through two small half-moon holes in a white sea of snow. This was 4 cm of snow, people. Neither a STORM nor weather worthy of a WATCH or WARNING. Slow down, clean your car properly, watch your fellow road users and you can easily stay on the road.

And Dalton, never mind banning gadgets, how about banning idiots?

This is the first election I’ve heard the opposition parties say: If the Conservatives win a strong minority or a slight majority that means they got 40% of the vote which means 60% of Canada did NOT vote for them. 60% of Canadians DO NOT WANT them. That means 60% of Canada voted for US and so we should govern.

So I did some research into past elections and, applying the above ‘rule’, where you don’t have the Canadian people’s blessing to govern if you don’t get more than 50% of the vote, the history of our country would have been quite different:

• 1867: Conservative won with 50%, Macdonald can stay.
• 1872  Conservative won with 49.9%. Macdonald thrown out. Liberals and Other govern. (Blake PM)
• 1874: Liberals won with 53.8%. Mackenzie can stay.
• 1882: Conservative win with 53.4%. Macdonald can stay.
• 1887: Conservative win with 50.7%: Macdonald can stay.
• 1891: Conservative win with 52%. Macdonald can stay.
• 1896: Liberals win with 45.1%. Laurier thrown out. Conservative & Order govern (Charles Tupper PM)
• 1900: Liberal win with 52%. Laurier can stay.
• 1904: Liberals win with 52.5%. Laurier can stay.
• 1908: Liberals win with 50.6%. Laurier can stay.
• 1911: Conservatives win with 51.2%. Borden can stay.
• 1917: Conservatives win with 57%. Borden can stay.
• 1921: Liberals win with 40.7%. Mackenzie King thrown out. Other and Conservatives govern. (Arthur Meighen PM)
• 1926: Liberals win with 43.6%. Mackenzie King rown out. Conservatives & Other govern. (Arthur Meighen PM)
• 1930 Conservatives win with 49%. Bennett thrown out. Liberal & Other govern. (Mackenzie King PM)
• 1935 Liberals win with 44.4%. Mackenzie King thrown out. Conservative, Social Credit & Other govern.
• 1945: Liberals win with: 41.4%. Mackenzie King thrown out. Progressive Conservatives, CCF, Social Credit & Other govern. (John Bracken PM)
• 1949: Liberals win with 50.1%. St-Laurent can stay.
• 1953: Liberals win with 50%. St-Laurent can stay.
• 1957: Progressive Conservatives win with 39%. Diefenbaker thrown out. Liberals, CCF, Social Credit & Other govern. (St-Laurent PM)
• 1958: Progressive Conservatives win with 53.7%. Diefenbaker can stay.
• 1962: Progressive Conservatives win with 37.3%. Diefenbaker thrown out. Liberals, Social Credit, NDP & Other govern.
• 1963: Liberals win with 41.7%. Pearson thrown out. PC, Social Credit, NDP & Other govern. (Diefenbaker PM)
• 1972: Liberals win with 38.5%. Trudeau thrown out.PC, NDP, SC & Other govern. (Stanfields PM)
• 1974: Liberals win with 43.2%. Trudeau thrown out.PC, NDP, SC & Other govern. (Stanfields PM)
• 1979: PC win with 35.9%. Joe Clark thrown out. Liberal, NDP, SC & Other govern. (Trudeau PM)
• 1980: Liberals win with 44.3%. Trudeau thrown out. PC, NDP, SC & Other govern. (Joe Clark PM)
• 1984: PC win with 50%. Mulroney can stay.
• 1988: PC win with 43%. Mulroney thrown out. Liberals, NDP, SC & Other govern. (Turner PM)
• 1993: Liberals win with 41.3%. Chretien thrown out. Bloc, Reform, NDP, PC & Other govern. (Lucien Bouchard PM!!)
• 1997: Liberals win with 38.5%. Chretien Thrown out. Reform, Bloc, NDP,PC & Other govern. (Manning PM)
• 2000: Liberals win with 40.8%. Chretien Thrown out. Canadian Alliance, Bloc,NDP, PC & Other govern. (Stockwell Day PM)
• 2004: Liberals win with 36.7%. Martin thrown out. Conservatives, Bloc, NDP, Green & Other govern. (Stockwell Day Harper PM)
• 2006: Conservatives win with <50%. Harper thrown out. Liberals, NDP, Bloc & Green govern. Dion Martin PM.

So, to recap, with this new ‘rule’ we’d have had: No Jean Chretien (+), A BQ as PM (-), No Paul Martin (+), No Free-Trade (-), One term of Trudeau (+), Right Government for past 15 yars (+)

Hmm… more pluses than minuses. Maybe they’re onto something here…

Jack Layton sent me another email (calling me his friend, I’m so lucky) containing the following quote:

Every vote for a New Democrat elects a New Democrat MP and stops Harper. And every vote for a New Democrat will spark the change that’ll move Canada forward.

“Every vote for a New Democrat elects a New Democrat MP”?!? I hope Jack Layton is running 6.4 million candidates, if he gets 20% of the vote, he’ll need them!

Hypothetical scenario:

Minority Conservative Government. First vote of confidence will be on Tough on Crime for Young Offenders. It will (obviously) be defeated. Liberals, NDP, Bloc and Greens will go to the Governor General, and form a new coalition government. We’ll get:

1. Prime Minister Stephane Dion
2. Minister of Finance: Bob Rae
3. Minister of Defense: Jack Layton
4. Minister of the Environment: Elizabeth May

If this doesn’t scare anybody I don’t know what this country is a-comin’ to.

And this is a VERY REALISTIC scenario. The Bloc, Greens and NDP have already said they’re open to it. Dion has REFUSED to rule out putting May in his cabinet, indicating he’s open to a coalition. The only way to stop this is by electing a majority Conservative government.

h/t to Lowell Green’s radio show

From The Star, December 21, 2007:

OTTAWA – Prime Minister Stephen Harper expects Canada’s economy to suffer next year, buffeted by turmoil south of the border and the “cost” of new climate-change measures here at home.

In a calculated signal to Canadians, Harper said that 2008 will be “more challenging” for his government and the country.

“There remains very serious economic uncertainty in the United States and in other parts of the world, and it’s impossible for me to see how Canada can be entirely immune from those developments,” he said in a year-end interview with the Star.

While Harper has warned of uncertainty before, this is his strongest statement yet that economic problems will hit Canada in what many expect to be an election year.

As a result, Harper said the government is planning a “stand-pat” budget aimed at stability.

“We will have very much a stand-pat fiscal stance focused on stability, focused on paying down debt, which is what families and businesses do when they face a period of some uncertainty,” he said.

His warnings came as the International Monetary Fund downgraded its economic growth forecast for Canada to somewhat less than the 2.3 per cent it forecast just three months ago.

In the United States, housing and credit woes have sparked fears of a full-blown recession. Earlier this month, TD economists warned that Canadian economic growth will “slow materially” in the months ahead.

In Canada, a rising loonie has accelerated the loss of thousands of high-paying manufacturing jobs. Ontario’s manufacturing sector has been particularly hard hit, with the loss of 44,000 jobs in the first nine months of this year.

Harper also warned that climate-change measures that take effect next year “will start to bite.

“It will hit home the reality that you cannot reduce greenhouse gas – you cannot mandate it – without there being some economic cost in the short term,” Harper said.

“We happen to believe we’ve set it up so that those costs are manageable, so that we provide incentives for firms and sectors to exploit the technology opportunities that this regime requires,” he said. “But the fact of the matter is it will cost.”

The Prime Minister sat down with the Star this week at his official residence at 24 Sussex Drive. Sitting in the living room, a large Christmas tree behind him, he reflected on the year past and the year ahead.

Harper said the Canadian economy is “probably the strongest it’s been in 30 years” with low unemployment and has shown “considerable resiliency in the face of some worrying signs around the world.”

And he argued that his government has tried to put the Canadian economy on a good footing, most recently with the fall economic update that provided cuts to income and business taxes to “strengthen the confidence of consumers and families, and also strengthen Canada’s position as a place to invest.”

But because of fears of a slowdown, Harper said such largesse would not be repeated in the budget expected in February or March.

“This government will be very cautious when it comes to fiscal actions. … As I said we’ve taken our tax measures for the budget … this government will not be throwing billions of dollars around in the spring,” Harper said.

This obviously comes from a man who has been on the pulse of the economy for a very long time. As opposed to Dion, whose idea of a plan for the economy came to him during the English debate (about 24 days into a campaign) where he pledged to have 30 days of meetings to come up with a plan. Some plan. “Harper doesn’t have a plan!”, no, you confused him with you! What you mean to say is that YOU don’t have a plan!

Layton, on the other hand, has a plan, but unfortunately, to pay for his plan he intends to roll back (read: raise) corporate taxes by $50B. Someone ought to sit down with Jack at his kitchen table and tell him that corporations (businesses) are what keep this economy rolling and keep a lot of people employed. Especially the Alberta oil sands. Raising their taxes will surely slow down the economy and lose a lot of jobs.

Little Miss Sunshine from The Green Party want to “green” the economy. Buy less from the US (I am sure they’ll be thrilled with that and cut back the 80% of our products they buy), and re-establish the national dream, that is railroads (I’m not making this up, this is in their “economy” section).

I don’t care what the Bloc says.

There you have it folks, you can chose between a guy who has been seriously talking about the economy for years, versus: 1) a man who needs 30 days to come up with a plan, 2) a man who will tax this economy to a grinding halt, 3) a woman who dreams in green, and 4) a separatist who wants to tear this country apart.

Take your pick. I know who I’m voting for.

Candidate Bob Rae issued a warning that Layton and Green Party Leader Elizabeth May are robbing votes from the Liberals and as a result, are actually strengthening the Conservatives’ chances.

Bob, you’re all on the left, and judging by the debates, you’re all battling a common ‘enemy’! Of course you’re “robbing votes” off each other. All parties are constantly “robbing” votes off each other. There are not any more voters now than 20 days ago. It is the same pool. They go from party to party. That’s how the system works!

“We know for certain that if Stephen Harper had been Prime Minister five years ago we would have troops in Iraq,” Rae said.

Um, if Ignatieff was the leader of the Liberals 5 years ago, we’d be there too.

And if you were Prime Minister, this country would be bankrupt within the year.

If I was the PM and I was at the French debates I’d say:

To Gilles Duceppe: Can I finish my sentence for once?
To Jack Layton: How come you sound like a Scot, and I sound effeminate?
To Stephane Dion: Can you take a stand on something? I know Rae and Iggy are not here, but geez. You can’t even say if you’re for or against a our crime bill. At least Jack said he’s fundamentally against so he’ll vote against. You say “we’ll see”.
To the moderator: They have four minutes to pile on me, and I have 1 minute for rebuttal. Why are we sitting around a giant guitar pick? Do I have to sit next to the passion flaky? Why am I facing a three headed firing squad? Why is my back to the camera in the overhead shots, and the firing squad is facing the audience?
To Elizabeth May: God, you’re annoying. You remind me of Jar Jar Binks (”Global Warming comin dees way: Meesa Gonna Die!”) I hope so…

And that is why I would never be a PM. But that’s OK.

The debates

Wouldn’t it be fun if, at the debates, whenever someone says something really stupid (and the chance of that is pretty high, with Dion, Layton, Duceppe AND May in the same room), that Harper looks into the camera a la Jim Helpert of The Office with a look of “What am I supposed to do with this?!?”.

That’s what I want out of these debates.