Election Roundtable

Glyn says the Adscam business is funny. I’m not laughing.

Too often we try to normalize things that are, in fact, rotten. This Liberal government is a great example. How many “get out of jail free” cards do they get for initiating the Gomery inquiry? How many “get re-elected cards” will be issued by voters who would not tolerate this action in any facet of business, charity or personal endeavour?

What makes anyone think that it’s OK to treat Ottawa as a no-accountability zone? Corruption should never be treated as “normal.” Most Canadians have already reached this conclusion. More will before Jan. 23.

To suggest that Liberal Leader Paul Martin deserves any special credit for establishing the Gomery inquiry is like suggesting that then U.S. President Richard Nixon deserved special credit for setting up the taping system that revealed the Watergate scandal. Nixon’s boys didn’t deserve another swing at the White House, so why should former prime minister Jean Chretien’s finance minister and a party described as systemically corrupt be given another chance in 2006? We tried that – in 2000 and 2004.

The new investigations continue to roll in. The Liberals are lining up to be Lucy holding the football. Canadian voters have to tell them that unlike Charlie Brown, they’re not going to kick yet again.

Glyn also mentions that accountability had a place in the original 1993 Red Book and that the tables are now turned with Conservative Leader Stephen Harper offering an accountability act. I fail to see how the comparison is apt. In 1988, the federal Conservatives promised free trade. They delivered. In 1993 (and in 1988), the Liberals promised to scrap free trade. Once elected, they didn’t deliver.

Let's not assume all political parties are carbon copies of the Liberals. Let's at least talk about the different shades of grey as well as the fact that there is only one major Canadian political party that has never been dealt the humbling and learning experience that was dealt to the Tories in the 1990s.

The Tories and NDP have their own faults. Those faults should be considered, not exaggerated, and also never excused. We are still left with the exercise of choosing the lesser of the evils on election day. Most Canadian voters still vote.

That means that while we may all exclaim “they’re all the same” when we talk about politicians, we still think about who has offered enough policy and vision to deserve the next shot at governing the country. It also means we should never reward any party that tries to treat systemic corruption as part of the new “normal.”

No sooner had the echoes of the gunfight at the Yonge Street Corral subsided than familiar strains arose from the Root Cause Chorus:

Poverty, bigotry, not enough welfare

Exclusion, confusion, please tell  me that you care

The greedy and privileged won't share a dime

These are the causes of  runaway crime.

(With apologies to Rodgers and Hammerstein.*)

Over dinner with a friend who works in the justice system, I learned that crime isn't a black-and-white issue that could be addressed through simple measures like tougher enforcement and sentencing. The problem is complex, the root causes difficult. When people are poor and hungry, they find whatever means they can to survive.  I interrupted.

"People don't steal because they're hungry."

"Yes they do!" was the disbelieving reply.

"Oh?" I asked. "What do they steal?"

"What do you mean?"

"What do they steal?" I repeated.

"Well ... electronics, televisions."

"They don't steal food?"

The poverty-leads-to-crime rationalization is a falsehood and insult to victims, and a slander against millions of  low-income Canadians. Those who are truly disadvantaged or in temporary need should be able to turn to communities without suspicion and shame. Their struggle is difficult enough without the burden of being thoughtlessly associated with criminals.

I know people who have lived in poverty, who were denied education, endured substandard housing, had roadblocks thrown their way through circumstance or poor health, and who took second and third jobs to ensure their children were fed, clothed and went to school to earn a better life. 

They did not steal. They did not assault the innocent. They did not exploit the failings of others. They did not victimize the elderly or vandalize property. Poverty was no barrier to discipline, respect, honesty and a work ethic. Indeed, poverty was no barrier to generosity.

The canard that "poverty causes crime" is the  product of lazy correlation. We associate crime with poverty  because criminals are so often poor. However, the association is an inversion - people don't become drug-addicted thieves because they're poor - they're poor because they're drug-addicted thieves.

If poverty were a root cause of crime, the six-figure executive wouldn't embezzle, the limo-driven politician wouldn't defraud. There'd be an income threshold at which crime was no longer "necessary" for survival. Poverty and ruin are simply possible consequences when high-risk, high-return windfall economics trump morality, honesty and the work ethic.

What the white-collar criminal and inner-city gang member have in common is something quite different, and it's unrelated to birthright or economic misfortune.

What they share is a sense of entitlement. They have convinced themselves (through varying measures of rationalization and socialization) that they are entitled to our money, our property, our lives.

But where poverty is a factor in advancing the criminal mindset is in its usefulness in furthering agendas of those who trade in the currency of identity, class and envy to exploit the poor for the  advancement of their own political interests.

A low-income community is infiltrated by leaders, activists and politicians who advise that citizens are "owed" a standard of living, an inherent right to benefits, that they are "entitled" to special policing and sentencing because of "cultural sensitivity." When that message is parroted by celebrities and endorsed by intelligensia, it should surprise no one that a percentage will embrace the entitlement ethos and take it a step further to decide for themselves just what is owed, when laws apply, what boundaries exist and what they may take without permission.

As Marcie alludes to, Finance Minister Ralph Goodale's response is not a very well-thought-out strategy. Of course, everyone will jump on the opposition's accusations in this matter and, of course, the NDP and Conservatives are demanding Goodale's resignation. This is under the assumption that someone actually did leak the information. As I pointed out in my last post, many believe that the flurry of trading was because the announcement was expected , not leaked.

It was common knowledge that a statement was imminent _ and nobody expected Goodale to do anything unpopular ahead of an election.

This is just a quote from the story above and it makes complete sense to me. Considering the main attack of the opposition parties is the sponsorship scandal, there is no doubt they will use this to their advantage as much as possible, even if the accusations are unfounded. Recently, Paul Martin admitted knowledge of the income-trust decision beforehand, but then some members of his office "needed" to know. This still says nothing about a leak, however, and I see no reason why Goodale should resign either. If everyone who had allegations and accusations stabbed at them were to resign, there would pretty much be nobody left in office anywhere...

And why wasn't this brought up after the Nov. 23 announcement? Why wait until the mid-point of an election campaign to bring the fiery hot pokers out?

It's really quite funny. This Sponsorship Scandal affair. It would seem that something that occurred under a Liberal government, albeit a completely different PM, would end up being the absolute biggest campaign tool for almost all of the opposition parties. I mean really... many of the tax credits and incentives amount to about a can of beans and a pack of smokes a day (if you buy the cheap brands) and may simply be glossing over the voters' thoughts with easy numbers.

Liam likes going on and on about accountability and the arrogant Liberals. Fair enough. The use of taxpayers' money for anything underhanded is indeed of paramount importance to the public. However, Martin, love him or hate him, did indeed initiate the Gomery inquiry to look into the fiasco. As Alan points out, the original Red Book delves into accountability just as Harper does. Except now, the tables are turned.

It seems many people's historical memories of government begin only when the Liberals regained power after the amazing run Mulroney had. Fact of the matter is, there will be scandal no matter which party is in control. We come to expect it in modern society. Big, small, scandal is part of the government. Our buddy Svend Robinson out in B.C. is running again, after his "personal" problems - I wonder how this is possible. Harper and his Conservatives are no Knights of the Taxpayers' Round Table to be sure, and to suggest they would be if elected is infantile.

Another example of the accountability tactics are the recent allegations against the finance minister, which seem to be almost unfounded in many instances. Many people think that his announcement was easily predicted beforehand, so are there even grounds for an investigation? Naturally, Conservatives (remember, the names could be reversed just as easily) jump all over this and seem to forget about the innocent until proven guilty part... even if the case is incredibly weak to begin with. But played out right, this can be a very useful tool in the accountability campaign.

Should Goodale resign or not? Originally in Canada, a cabinet minister resigned whenever anything serious went wrong in his ministry. It was considered the only honourable thing to do. However the bureaucracy was smaller back then and easier to keep track of. These days, ministers are only usually called on to resign when they (or perhaps their direct staff) make an error.

Using that standard, I don't think Goodale needs to resign now. It's not clear yet if the leak came from his office or the PMO. If you accept that a minister should only resign when they or their personal staff have erred, at the moment there is no reason why he should resign. I think ministers should be held more accountable and resign more often and I think we should revert to a standard closer to what we used to have… but that is not the issue right now.

I do agree with Liam that Goodale's response about "proving it" or "This isn't technically illegal" is stupid. What's worse, it's Goodale's reason for not resigning. I think this could cause way more damage, especially if that becomes the new standard in deciding when ministers should resign.

When resignations were more common they didn't carry the same stigma. After a period of often less than a year you could say you had learned your lesson and the prime minister would likely put you back into cabinet. Resigning now has a much deeper political stigma than it used to. This is one of the reasons I think the standard being used now is bad for Canada. If resigning may cause serious harm to your political career it becomes a lot harder to resign. This can then lead to a lower standard before a minister resigns. It becomes a circular problem.

The current calls for Goodale to resign have nothing to do with this… Sure they'd call on him to resign regardless, but usually no one, not even those complaining, would actually think it would happen. The only reason it is being taken seriously is because politicians and the media are just looking for political blood during an election. It's still quite possible that by staying on at the moment he is doing the Liberals more harm than good. But by the current normal political standards regarding whether a politician should resign or not there is still no good reason for him to resign.

While the Liberal campaign is being rocked by the announcement of an RCMP investigation into allegations of insider trading, scant attention has been paid to Phase 1 of the scandal - the  incompetence of Ralph Goodale that set the fiasco in motion. 

On Sept. 19, the government suspended advance tax rulings for companies that were moving to convert into income trusts - 11 days after a consultation process was launched on the future of the trusts themselves.  In a case of "loose lips sink markets,"  the value of income trusts plummeted, erasing billions in retirement savings of Canadians,  through RRSP and Canada Pension Plan investments.

CanAccord Capitalrang the alarm bell;

The income-trust sector lost $23 billion in market capitalization over the past month, largely due to fear and uncertainty instilled by the federal government. Recognize this is BILLIONS of dollars of foregone capital gains tax revenues (or the creation of capital losses) that the government is behind in efforts to contain $300 million in purported tax leakage.

Moreover, it partially represents billions in foregone retirement income, which is also subject to tax on RSP/RIF withdrawal. A 'no-action' decision by the government could reverse this whole mess.

Goodale responded by publicly accusing CanAccord of a partisan political attack. Then, having shot himself in one foot, he reloaded to take dead aim at the other.

Under pressure to clarify the Finance Department's position on the trusts, Goodale finally announced that a decision on changes to income trust taxation would come around the end of January. Then suddenly, plans changed, not to restore market stability,  but for far more urgent reasons - to  remove a political handicap and calm a nervous PMO in the face of a looming no-confidence vote and election campaign. 

On Nov. 23, Goodale announced that, along with a reduction in capital gains tax, there would be no changes to the rules when it came to taxation of income trusts.

The artifically depressed trusts were ideally positioned for huge advances. Overnight, the volume of trading and the value of the trusts soared. And had the activity been limited to 'overnight,' the scandal would have been limited to criticism of the miserable performance of the Finance Department. 

"It's Brutal, It's Third World"

On Nov. 27, the first hints of insider trading appeared in the Financial Post. Barry Critchley wrote of the bizarre behaviour of the markets the afternoon before the announcement.

A prominent investment banker "was disgusted at what has occurred," he wrote.

" 'I was talking to some prominent lawyers and bankers and they were up there in Ottawa earlier this week and they were basically told this was going to happen,' " said the banker, who over the years has won his share of the deals up for grabs. " 'It's all over the street. All the people are talking about who had a heads-up and who didn't.' "

The events left the banker wondering whether Ottawa was interested in consultation or more interested in passing on inside information. In this banker's mind, " 'It pays to consult. The government has leaked this out to their friends and cronies in the business community, and [in so doing] panicked the little investors who sold.

" 'It's brutal. It's Third World. It's unbelievable,' " he said.

By Dec. 29, CTV  was naming names. 

Bloggers have been digging into this story over the past month, posting charts that illustrate the now famous "afternoon spike." You can view examples here and here. The NDP also has a useful fact sheet on its website.

The scandal some call "ITscam" isn't merely a controversy over whether the politically connected  made bagloads of money at the expense of average investors. It has the potential to rock confidence in Canadian financial markets internationally, hurting us all.
Now that the issue is in the hands of the RCMP, it's hard to say which outcome could be more damaging to Canada's reputation: an investigation that leads to charges laid, or an investigation that doesn't.

Like Glyn, I was pleased to see that the CPC has made a mini-announcement of a micro-point about public transit. Public transit is good, but it costs a lot to run well. Apparently under a Harper-led government, the average taxpayer will get about $150 a year in a tax refund and that is going to change the world.  He said his tax credit incentive could increase ridership by 25 to 50 per cent.   I think that, to be polite, is inordinately hopeful and smacks of ice troopers parachuting in to deal with foreign submarines. I can't think of any behaviour I have that will shift based on $12.50 a month or about three bucks a week. Beer and popcorn? That barely buys the popcorn. Trickle-down economics runs into walls sometimes - like reality.  And I am starting to think that the CPC, by announcing the small planks day after day rather than an entire policy, is neatly avoiding presenting their plan. They are avoiding the idea that they have a secret agenda, but it would still be nice to have their non-secret agenda in terms of a big picture overall plan.

But back to the point. One of the more useful programs for getting real money into public transit has been the federal gas tax transfer. Millions have been added in a focused way to municipal budgets allowing the one level of government where the rubber really hits the road to begin, for example like in Charlottetown or, like here in Kingston, to add to convenient and safe transit systems that are priced smart. Frankly, I want a one-dollar-a-ride bus pass now. I don't want a $2.50 or $3 daily bus ride and a $150 rebate 15 months from now. OK, to be fair, I want them both. So how about this. Forget the tax credit. Take the existing system of gas tax rebate and top it up with the same amount of money which would be refunded - maybe adding another 10 per cent or 25 per cent. Then earmark that new money to fare reduction only. In terms of just figuring out the paperwork, it costs a heck of a lot less in terms of administration to fund municipalities through a direct grant program than each individual Canadian through their income taxes. Keep it simple and top-level. Forget the tiny tax credits that also require taxable income so do nothing for the really poor or, unless they are transferable, do nothing for stay-at-home parents or children.

The campfire ghost story of "government always bad" is naive. Sometimes it just makes more sense for government to plan smart and pay for valuable public services with our tax dollars.   

We won't know until a Conservative government is elected if Conservatives will follow through on the vision for Canada that they have laid out during this federal election campaign. That's just the way it works. We do know that the Conservatives have tried even as an opposition party to introduce decent legislation for Canada.

In 1993, when there was a change in government, the focus was not on the Liberal Red Book that would later turn out to be not worth the paper upon which it was printed. The focus was on punishing the previous government. The punishment of the Conservatives at that time was largely deserved. Little did Canadians realize that when they elected the likes of Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin that while they had humbled the Conservatives, they were electing a party with a political culture that had never been humbled in a similar way. There was no fear.

For about 70 of the last 100 years, Liberals have ruled Canada. Those 70 years were punctuated with periods of broad-based but short-lived Conservative governments. Liberals view the stacks of Ottawa offices all paid for by our tax dollars as their own nest. Many believe they're entitled to do whatever they want to do when they're there. And why wouldn't they believe that? They've been re-elected so often!

From setting up an essentially false bogeyman in the U.S. ambassador, to putting hundreds of Liberal campaign workers back on salaries paid for by taxpayers, to Adscam, to casting the majority of Quebec voters as villians for daring to vote Bloc, to paying off pork to buddies like Dingwall, the Liberals still know no fear. When cornered, as Ralph Goodale was, over a criminal investigation into even more alleged wrongdoings, the Liberals always have the same response - "Prove it," or "This isn't technically illegal." I'd call it damage control, except it's doing greater damage to Canada's reptutation internationally. When given the chance in an election campaign to show the slightest bit of regret, not only do the Liberals refuse to offer the sorts of policies that would prevent more sleight-of-hand, they have the gall to suggest that everything's just fine.

Stephen Harper and Jack Layton aren't offering any perfect solutions. But they both have offered significant legislation to prevent future corruption. The Liberals opposed it. Why? Because they think they can get elected without it and keep repeating the sort of graft they're used to. There is no other reason to oppose accountability legislation.

This contrast in political culture isn't limited to the Liberal allergy to democracy (i.e. - refusal to appoint senators elected by Albertans) and accountability (opposition to Harper's Accountability act); it extends to its lax attitude toward actual crimes. The Liberal caucus has stood many times to defeat oppostion motions calling for tougher sentences on child abuse, violent crime, and other serious crimes.

With a moderate centre-right policy-oriented alternative in Stephen Harper's Conservatives and a strong left-wing option in Jack Layton's NDP, Canadians will never have a better time to finally deal the Liberals a real humbling. The Liberals who have become so comfortable in Ottawa need to be checked. They need to learn some respect for the taxpayer. It's the only way they'll ever learn.

Public transit is cool. No really, it is. It saves on pollution, congestion, parking, and you can finally meet that really neat guy who plays banjo in the LRT station... But how do we get even more people to buy in to the system?

I like Harper's public transit tax credit as a means to keep people riding. If it doesn't apply to all Canadians, I guess that's fine too, since much of the problem with emissions occurs in the biggest urban centres of the country, where traffic is busy, and the areas are much smaller than in rural places. The tax credit is a good way to encourage people to ride the transit, assuming they are willing to keep their receipts and fill out the tax forms.

Personally, I think taking transit in a city is a given, and in fact, numbers are probably already quite high regarding just how many commuters there really are. But would these tax credits be enough to convince others to change their ways? What about the people who need their wheels while they are working downtown? I suspect the majority of students already use public transit. I suspect that many office workers use public transit. Does the boss? I doubt it. He has meetings. Do delivery guys? Salespeople?

In Calgary, with a population base just under one million, Calgary Transit reported nearly 120 million passengers used its systems in 2004. I could fiddle numbers, and come up with estimates about what percentage of the city that is, but the key here is to figure out why the others wouldn't use the system. Perhaps location? Not convenient enough? I know many places have great bus systems, like Red Deer. But then I would need to leave work at just the right time, or else I would be waiting for a half hour for the next bus. I am not saying this justifies doubling the number of buses, but it illustrates what could be a very common thought. For a 16 per cent discount, I don't think I would be willing to wait in the cold for the next bus every day...

Maybe a tax credit won't get that many new folks on board. It will cost the Conservatives an estimated $2 billion though. That is a lot of money. It could be used to enhance the existing systems, adding more routes and greater capacities, as opposed to trying to keep the people already riding on board. Without getting new folks on board, it will do nothing to help reduce pollution levels, congestion and parking issues. And the banjo player will make no new friends.

Polarizing the country works – for Liberal staffers. Paul Martin could have at least offered the real statement he was making when he declared that “Federalism works.” I'll bet even many of my friends who normally vote Liberal were shocked by that one.

What else could Paul Martin have meant? Paul Martin has written off the largest part of Quebec, the part that votes BQ and PQ, and declared that everything is just hunky-dory in Canada.

It’s becoming a bit of a trend for Liberal prime ministers. They embarrass the Quebec Liberal leader of the day by disagreeing with policies that federalists on the ground in Quebec need in order to address legitimate concerns there, then they preside over a referendum on sovereignty. Trudeau did it. Chretien did it. Martin’s next.

“Canada: Like it or leave it. Everything’s fine. Nothing’s gonna change.” Is that the message we want to send to alienated Western Canada? To Quebec? To provinces like Newfoundland and Labrador, which not so long ago set out a royal commission to examine its place in Canada? If it is, then it’s a message that is as tired, old, and bitter as Paul Martin himself.

We can do better. The truth, as can be attested to by premiers of red, blue and orange stripes, is that the federal government has been weak on matters that are true federal responsibilities – sound transfers for the provinces, a well-funded Armed Forces, and consistency in foreign policy. Meanwhile, the same arrogant federal government has tried to compensate for this incompetence and distract us from systemic corruption by acting in a most suffocating manner in areas of concern for the provinces.

When the East asked for more say in the fisheries that so clearly affect that region, Ottawa jealously guarded its power. When western provinces needed latitude to deal with challenges in health-care delivery, Ottawa threatened to cut funding. When Quebec was looking for some meaningful autonomy on matters of culture, Paul Martin flip-flopped from his original position and once again jealously guarded his own sphere of power.

Why do this? Because Liberal spin doctors think they can sell it as the actions of a “strong federal government.” They think it plays well in parts of Central Canada. They may soon be proven wrong. It’s a purely crass political strategy that could only be employed by a party that has written off most of Quebec, written off parts of the East, and written-off the West.

Paul’s almost right. Flexible federalism does work. It just so happens that his party doesn’t offer any. Two sovereignty referendums held by a PQ that gained its strength thanks to the last 35 years of federal-Liberal-inspired confrontation and polarization prove my point. There are other ways. Just ask Jean Charest.

Perhaps unlike some other commentators, I suffer from time to time from not really noticing that the Liberals are in government. Things just bump along pretty much the same, year after year, I never vote for them, yet there they are - governing me again.  And I have to admit I do not put a lot of mental effort into what they say they will do and what they in fact end up doing. Others will vote them in and they will do as they please. Pathetic?  Oh, probably - but for the most part, I have other things to do and the economy is doing so well... isn't it?   

But is there a benchmark for comparing words to deeds?  Is the 1993 Red Book a fair measure?  Is it not a manifesto for the modern Canadian Liberal movement, especially given PMPM was one of the main authors?  The text of that first Red Book can be found here.   Makes good reading. The experience of reading Chapter 6, entitled "Governing with Integrity", is not unlike reading the Conservative accountability policy this time around - all that talk about lobbying reform and strengthening the ethics commissioner. The plan for benchmarks and measuring performance for economic sustainability set out in Chapter 6 reminds me a lot of what the Greens are promising now. The Liberal call for an "innovative economy" in 1993 sounds a lot like their call for an "innovative economy" now.

So - should I be jaded or pleased?  The Red Book of 1993 remains pretty much where pretty much most Canadians want to be. Few parties now would break drastically from the plan it sets out for Canada, but still, there are over 62 per cent of Canadians - probably including me - who will not vote for them. You can wonder how it might have been, if things had been otherwise. What would have happened if there were no Gomery inquiry, no sponsorship plan to turn into a sponsorship scandal and maybe one or two decisions better taken?  How would the opposition parties be dealing with the Big Red Machine now?  But for that dumb decision to set the money tap a-flowin' to plaster Canadian logos on Via Rail trains and pass out little maple leaf flags at cultural festivals, we may have been looking at decades of Grit majorities, the nation bumping along with folk like me never noticing.

There are many economic theories that are present in Canada and other countries. Often one type of theory or another is more popular at one time or another in a country. This can be for a variety of reasons including who has the most political influence or history.

Unfortunately the only type of economics you hear about from the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party are based on laissez-faire economics. Other popular forms of laissez faire economics included Reagonomics (also known as voodoo economics) and Thatchernomics, although they are all different from one another.

It is unfortunate that the discussion in politics in Canada mostly revolves around one system of economic ideas. There is no history of any economic idea that I know of being completely correct, be it a left- or right-wing theory. If we don't discuss other economic theories, if for some reason it becomes taboo, or is labelled taboo, to discuss other economic theories (as is partly the case in mainstream Canadian politics right now) and how they might apply to Canada, we lose one of the best features of economic theories: that they allow us to look at a situation from different viewpoints and to use the best from all theories to make our economic decisions and our economy work.

I want to encourage a broader range of economic theories in this election and I'll be discussing different theories in simple English here. The actual election may heat up pretty quickly, so if it gets to busy I'll let people know if I write about it specifically on my blog.

Harper is sure touting military spending. The "threat" of a U.S. sub in the Arctic seems to have really spurred the debate on this, whether it is the Arctic Airborne that Alan mentioned, tanks that will undoubtedly help in peacekeeping, or now, an increased military presence in major cities.

Now don't get me wrong here - I believe Canada will never be a military "presence" - but we take pride in our peacekeeping and emergency response teams, though they may be lacking efficiency in many areas. The purchase of tactical lift aircraft proposed by the Liberals and followed up by the Conservatives so that we don't need to hitch rides is a good example of military spending that would be practical and budget-wise. Buying more rusted-out hulks of submarines or helicopters that require many more hours of maintenance than flying time is not smart or practical spending.

Back to military in the cities .

"This is a full military presence," he added. "Obviously we would anticipate that its domestic need would be in case of disaster... but obviously they would be military forces that could be forward-deployed in the event of more serious military conflict elsewhere."

A full military presence in our cities? What the heck is this now? Starting to sound like paranoia to me. Regina and Winnipeg need battalions of 500 troops stationed there? I don't agree with militarizing our cities. I agree with purchasing reliable and safe equipment and I agree with increasing defences to protect northern sovereignty - but 500 troops in major cities? Next we'll have missiles all over major cities...

I'll admit it. I voted for the Greens a couple of times in the past in P.E.I. provincial elections. I found their pro-environment platform attractive, especially in a place where there are heavy pressures on a limited land base. And with plans for a large wind farm near here in Kingston as well as two large wind power developments just south of us in the North Country of New York, this is an area that is ripe for the Green Party, and it showed in the 2004 federal election with 3,339 voters casting their ballot for them - that was 6.12 per cent of the total cast. Not bad.

But they are, on the one hand, a bit decentralized with certain fiscal policies of the federal party not necessarily being pushed strongly from the local riding associations or the Greens in other countries. On the other hand, it's hard to distinguish them from the NDP. You have the sense that this is still a party in its growing phase - which is fair enough. But sometimes I wish that their votes were not split off from the NDP's, the natural alternative for those voters. Adding the five per cent the Greens are attracting to the 18 to 20 per cent in the polls for the NDP would likely create a block of at least 50 seats to the left with a strong environmental stance. Separated off, it is unlikely that the Greens will win a single seat. So the chance for a large block of seats that can compete with the Bloc Québécois for alliance-making in another minority Parliament is lost.

One of the main reasons that the Liberals appear heading for another government is the legacy of this 1990s split in the left along with that more notorious split in the right that created Reform and the Bloc while sending a large number of moderate Tories to the Grits. It would be nice for some practicality to enter the scene with perhaps the Greens and NDP not running against each other where the Greens have a realistic shot in return for supporting the NDP by not running a candidate elsewhere. This is not to be this year, however, and we can now look forward to as many as five parties perhaps getting no more than between five per cent and 35 per cent national and another set of stalemates on election night.

"I don't know all the facts on Iraq, but I think we should work closely with the Americans." Stephen Harper, March 25, 2002

"I really think Canada should get over to Iraq as quickly as possible." - Paul Martin, April 30, 2003

One of the "default settings" underpinning the campaigns of all the major parties is this: that "Iraq is a failed American quagmire and any Prime Minister who might have sent troops to that theatre would have committed a dangerous error."

I can understand why it's easier to campaign on this premise than to oppose it. The "through a soda straw" coverage of Iraq that Canadians have been largely subjected to is relentlessly superficial, disproportionately negative, factually incomplete, and completely lacking in historical perspective.

For those who have followed events through a wider variety of sources - Iraqi blogs such as Iraq the Model and Mesopotamian, "boots on the ground" reporting from embeds Michael Yon and Bill Roggio, or the proven military and geopolitical analysis of the Belmont Club - as well as the scores of blogs, letters, and editorials from the U.S. military - the picture of Iraq becomes a great deal more complex. It's also a good deal more positive;

Think about everything you've heard about the conditions in Iraq, the role of U.S. forces, the multi-layered complexities of the war.

Then think again.

I'm a journalist. I read the news everyday, from several sources. I have the luxury of reading stuff newspapers don't always have room to print. I read every tidbit I could on Iraq and the war before coming.

Everything I thought I knew was wrong.

By every historical measure, the removal of Saddam Hussein and reconstruction of Iraq has been unprecedented in its ambition, and stunning in its success. The "bomb-a-day" and body count fixation of the western media is an affront to the bravery and accomplishments of coalition and Iraqi troops, and an insult to the Iraqi people, who, despite the high price extracted by Saddam loyalists and foreign terrorists, continue to confound the armchair prophets of doom. After voting en masse in a January election that experts declared "must be postponed," they ratified a constitution that "would never be drafted," and less than two weeks ago, turned out in even greater numbers to vote yet again.

And for all the campaign accusations of who might or might not have have sent troops into "harm's way," Canadians might be reminded that Iraq has been a safer tour of duty for an Australian soldier than Afghanistan - or Haiti - has been for Canadians. They might also be reminded that, contrary to the contrived mythology about "Canadian peacekeepers," going into harm's way is what we pay soldiers to do.

In the attention-deficit disorder we know as the "news cycle," historical perspective has been replaced by celebrity photo-ops, journalistic opinion-mongering, and national navel-gazing. Absent the broader historical context, we've developed an exaggerated perception of Canada's international influence, encouraged an ill-founded moral conceit and corrupted values fundamental to the preservation of our liberal democracy with the intellectual toxin of moral and cultural relativism - and with it, the very integrity of the democratic process.

To quote one of the world's most respected military historians, Victor Davis Hanson;

There can be legitimate disagreement about whether America's effort in Iraq will work, and whether it is worth our sacrifices. But that argument is one of efficacy, not morality. To those critics who babble endlessly about U.S. hegemony and imperialism, we should say simply: Shame! Shame on you for aiding those who blow up schools and murder women with purple fingers, in places that for the first time in modern memory do not have a tyrant's portrait leering down from their walls.

I concede that it's too much to ask that a politician fight an election campaign and counter an international propaganda war at the same time.

But I'm disappointed, nonetheless. Despite early, hopeful signals from both Paul Martin and Stephen Harper that they were willing to lead instead of follow, to stand beside Canada's traditional allies - the U.S., Great Britain, Australia - with a simple declaration of support (for realistically, we had no troops to send), in the end all the party leaders bowed to poll-driven partisan politics, placing themselves - and Canada - on the wrong side of history.

Remember that. Repeat it with me a few times: “Tax cuts aren’t always revenue cuts.” Maybe then we can get over that little mental block that affects about half of Canada’s politicos – the same half that seems to think average Canadians aren’t qualified enough to spend their own money. The myth that cuts in spending are needed to “pay for” tax cuts is an old one. It’s nowhere near that simple. It's nowhere near the truth.

Just to infuriate those same politicos who seem to often suffer from some rather severe anti-American prejudice, I’ll use two American examples to prove my point. (I know I’m on the right track when those who disagree with me simply try to dismiss the examples completely simply because they think anything from south of the border must be wrong. They betray their own bigotry when they do that).

Between January 1983 (when Ronald Reagan’s massive tax cuts began in earnest) and 1989, net federal income tax revenue in the United States increased by more than 54 per cent (28 per cent after adjusting for inflation).

President John F. Kennedy proposed a series of tax cuts that helped trigger the longest economic expansion in America's history. Between 1961 and 1968, the inflation-adjusted economy expanded by more than 42 per cent. Tax revenues increased by 62 per cent (33 per cent after inflation) between 1961 and 1968.

Imagine if Canadians, with Canadian priorities, were actually trusted to keep more of their money! The economic growth would likely generate billions in new revenue that we could use to rebuild our neglected education and health transfers, retire the national debt, and properly fund our long-neglected armed forces.

Canadians’ total tax bill now accounts for more of the family budget than shelter, food and clothing combined. The average family turns about half of its income over to governments in the form of various taxes. It’s really quite sick. It’s also completely counter-productive if our objective is a stronger economy, good universally accessible services, and a better future for our children.

The latest political scandal being talked about in the blogging world is called "Klandergate." The discussion is over a blog kept by Mike Klander (who is on the executive of the Liberal Party of Ontario). Most of the blog appears to be in bad taste, but what earned it significant coverage was that it posted pictures comparing Olivia Chow to a dog. To get an idea of what the blog looked like before it was taken down you can read an article by Paul Wells of Macleans (it includes links). The story in Inkless Wells was posted on Dec. 25. While it doesn't appear to have been widely covered by the mainstream media, and perhaps never will, Idealistic Pragmatist , Calgary Grit and Bouquets of Gray are some of the blogs that have been discussing it. Bouquets of Gray  says the Toronto Star carried the story on Dec. 23. But it was not an online story so it took a day or so for bloggers to pick up on it. The only good thing that can be said of the blog is that it has been taken down after complaints by the NDP around the 23rd of December.

Last Thursday, Jack Layton gave a great speech in Edmonton that included this:

There was a time when Canadians listened to their Prime Minister, they knew what that Prime Minister believed. There was a time when the Prime Ministers themselves knew what they believed. Not anymore. We now have a Liberal Prime Minister who seems to think that Lester Pearson is just the name of an airport.

One reason I have never voted Liberal is pretty much just that - whatever they have promised is not where we end up with them. So while they did provide the harsh medicine in the '90s that the federal budget needed, that was not really the main theme they ran on. And while they present themselves as the naturally governing party, the latest run of scandals are too closely tied to their administration - as opposed to the few rogue actors who usually pop up in any government - for me to consider changing my ways.

You never have that feeling with the NDP and I guess that is why they usually get my vote. When Jack! says the NDP will defend public health care, you know they will.  Even if you do not agree with fully funded public health care, no one would expect compromise on this policy from the good folks in orange. But, and this is a big one for me in this election, it is their firmness in their stances that sometimes makes me wish the Liberals were a party that I could honestly consider or that the Tories were still red. In my heart of hearts, I am a fiscal conservative but a social liberal. The goal of paying off the debt for me is to stop paying interest to banks and freeing up money for the poor or hospitals or for roads - for the community.  The strength of our public infrastructure is one key factor in the real strength of our economy these days. 

But sometimes the creation of that public infrastructure requires private participation. This can come in many ways, like true user pay for certain services or public/private partnerships for some projects. The idea that these methods always work better for all projects is naive, but so is their demonization. Similarly, downloading to lower levels of government properly done can place a public service exactly where the public can best receive it by tailoring it to local needs. I suspect on these points, Jack and I would differ. Still, here at the break, I expect to vote orange - but if someone were to come forward and convince me of a plan for a more flexible path (one I could trust to be actually implemented) I am still open to offers.