mar

However, there is a major problem with the GST cut. To begin with, few economists favour the idea (though why the news channels are not having discussion of this is anybody's guess). More pertinent, in the debate, Mr. Harper answered Mr. Duceppe's statement that Quebec would lose 200 million from the GST cut by promising to re-imburse Quebec for the loss (this sudden revelation by Mr. Harper also did not cause much media comment, unlike Paul Martin's). The tax formula used in the Atlantic provinces would result in a similar problem. So now we have a drop in federal tax revenue resulting from the 1% cut PLUS the cost of re-imbursing the provinces for their drop in revenue. Now, Quebec's (highly questionable) tax-on-tax cascading formula will result in an actual revenue drop if GST is lowered. Other provinces - say Manitoba - who do not cascade tax will, on paper, lose nothing. However, if the federal government makes a transfer payment to Quebec to cover lost revenue does anyone believe that all provinces and territories won't demand a smiliar payment? They will use a number of arguments, not the least of which will be why should they be punished for implementing the federal government's preferred tax calculation scheme while Quebec is rewarded for it? If transfer payments are not made why would they not immediately convert their tax calculation formula to Quebec's and ensure themselves future compensation? So we have a GST cut that delivers small amounts of money to lower income people, much more to those making large retail expenditures. Now we discover the cost will be much greater than what is projected due to compensation to the provinces. Backtracking on compensating Quebec will result in a huge federal-provincial battle. Compensating Quebec and not other provinces will do the same and possibly result in provinces implementing a cascading tax formula which will result in a higher combined GST/PST for their residents, wiping out part of the 1% cut. So what will be cut to pay for this and is it even worth the trouble? AND . . Why is the media not asking: 1) Is this simply an election promise that the Conservatives don't intend to implement? They can cite provincial disagreements as a reason for dropping it or being unable to even pass legislation in a minority government. 2) What would be the real cost of this cut?

CUE: SOMBER MUSIC The blurred screen gradually sharp focuses on a line of coffins draped in the Canadian flag. VOICEOVER: If Stephen Harper had been Prime Minister in 2003 he would have sent Canadian troops to Iraq. Now he says he was misled by the intelligence. Mr. Cretien was not misled, Mr. McCallum was not misled, Liberal, NDP and Bloc MP's were not misled. The majority of the Canadian pubblic was not misled. Either Mr. Harper has poorer judgement than the majority of the public or he was willing to sacrifice the lives of our sons and daughters, husbands and wives in the Canadian military to ingratiate himself with George Bush. Do we really want Stephen Harper answering the phone the next time Mr. Bush calls? (unlike your ad, everything in mine is true)

I'd like to try to do this as fairly as possible. My premise is our media has a tendency to become a player in elections, rather than an observer. I agree with Conservative posters that at various times in the past they have chosen to focus on peripheral aspects of the Reform/Alliance/Conervative party and were quite happy to play the role of opinion shaper against the party. I also agree with Liberal posters that in this election they have decided to let the Conservative party and Mr. Harper slide by with virtually no criticism or even analysis. My opinion is this is not really a sinister political plot. I think we all know that there are individuals within the media who have (unadmitted) party biases that are pretty clear from their comments. That's probably inevitable, if regrettable. I think there is also a tendency for the media to want to prove themselves correct. They have been saying for a long time the sponsorship issue would sink the Liberals so they went into this election with the pre-conceived idea that scandal would keep the Liberal message from getting out and have made this come true by not covering Liberal policy in favour of scandal (whether real or manufactured). Its even possible that ratings hungry execs at the networks - especially as regards the 24 hour news channels - have decided that if, as their experts predicted - the Conservative party will win the election they will get more viewers by giving Conservative viewers/voters what they want. However, while not sinister in the sense of the media doing a particular party's bidding for financial or other gain, its hard to see it as reporting. The line between reporting and opinion has virtually been erased in the media. CTV newsnet is especially bad for this; people who are really nothing but news readers feel entirely free (and I presume are encouraged by CTV program execs) to mix their own comments with headlines. An example of this was the "income trust" announcement by CTV newsnet where Dan Matheson and his cohort (I forget her name) happily speculated that the RCMP would not make the announcement if there was not evidence of wrongdoing. This was totally unsupported by the RCMP's statement, did not stem - by the news readers' own words - from any inside information so was pure speculation masquerading as news. I am sure Conservative posters can offer examples of similar editorial chit chat that works agaunst their party. Are we comfortable with a process where the media become an active participant in elections? Do we really want them using their power to manipulate public opinion in favour of one party or another for reasons we can only guess at?

People! If you're gonna criticise, at least pay attention. CBC announced that the Harper people initially agreed on a date then cancelled due to "a scheduling conflict." To this point the Harper people have not agreed to a new date. If you have some evidence the CBC is lying, produce it. It is not the CBC's fault if Harper chooses to make himself unavailable. One wonders if he is trying to stall so that he will end up on TV just before the election.

Which would mean PR would make little difference (to us, not the parteis) but I agree with tml12 that its unlikely to happen. You could grow old waiting for political parties to do anything that would decrease their power. I don't mind the theoretical idea of an elected senate but I don't think it works with our population numbers. Assuming you gave it some legislative power like the U.S. Senate (and why make it elected if you're not going to) so that legislation had to be passed by both houses and you had, say, 2 per province and territory then you have suddenly created the 26 most powerful people in canada. Double it and the problem is the same. Go to any more and then its like all we've done is re-assigned the number of seats per province but created another huge bureaucracy to do it (why not just go to PR?) and save the expense and complication of having a Senate. One thing tho, If I was jack layton my entire platform would be: "Give us a majority just once. We'll abolish the Senate on day 1 and I promise not to screw anything else up for the rest of the four years." I mean, thank God that collection of minor celebrities and politcal hacks has no actual power but what are we paying them for?

I don't hold out much hope. Whoever is in power, when push comes to shove they will always shortchange the CAF in favour of things the public actually cares about. The problem hasn't been our military; we've had many insightful planners (and actually dominated by the air force in terms of strategic planning since WWII) but politicians are always a lot more concerned with how many votes they'll lose it they close this pointless base as opposed to that and other burning issues.

Ahhh. Another variation of the "strong leader" motif expressed as: "even if he was totally wrong he stood up for what he thought." You must really admire that strongest leader of all time - you know, Germany, 1930's, little mustache, bad hair . . . man stood up for what he believed in, even died for it. He fits your definition perfectly as he: "stood up before the others and gave his own personal views . . . knowing the consequences that would possibly arise from his speech" "he was not afraid to say what was in his mind even though he knew it could cost him dearly" "I admire him for saying what he felt he should say. That's how he won me." The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Must be very serene to be so devoid of morals that you dismiss either a total lack of judgement or a cynical ploy to cement ties with U.S. conservatives as "deflection and misdirection." Not quite sure who "you guys" are. Point of the ad was covered in 1 sentence: the ad was ill conceived and badly executed. Nobody disputes Harper said he wanted a greater CAF presence in uran centres. The text of the ad is suggestive but factually correct but the ad was so badly done it was not clear whether it was directed at the Conservative party or the CAF which I presume (not being a Liberal insider or even party member) was why it was not intended for release.

While this is covered elsewhere, the main problem with demonizing The Liberals and their attitude to the military can be summed up in one sentence: THEY DID NOT SENT TROOPS TO DIE IN IRAQ in 2003; HARPER WOULD HAVE. What part of "supporting the military" is wanting to send our sons and daughters, husbands and wives to die for an invasion not sanctioned by the U.N. and not supported by the majority of Canadians (let alone the rest of the world). To me, that alone disqualifies Harper from ever holding a position of responsibility as he was either a fool or was willing to have Canadians personnel die so he could support Bush. Why he gets a free pass on this is beyond me as its hard to find a clearer example of a position that renders someone unfit for the job of PM.

That's not very logical is it? First, the principal thing about the military ad was the incompetence of presentation. Nobody is disputing Mr. Harper did talk about and increased military presence in Canadian cities. All of the other ads are referenced and with a little digging you can find the source when not explicitly provided. You can certainly argue Harper was not responsible for what a conservative columnment in the Washjington Times said about him but then Martin shouldn't be held responsible for what conservative columnnists say about him either and these form a major part of the Conservative attack ads. What I find totally bizarre on the military ad is why didnt they just say that if Stephen Harper had been PM in 2003, Canadian troops would have served and died in Iraq. Can't argue with that and Harper's recent turn around (WT reply DEC-11) that he no longer supports the Iraq invasion and was misled by the intelligence begs the question as to why Cretien, McCallum, Layton and the majority of the Canadian public weren't misled. Is Harper admitting he is dumber/more gullible/has less judgement than better than 1 out of 2 Canadians? If that's the case if we forget the election and pick someone off the street to be PM we have a better than 50-50 chance of getting a PM with better judgement than Harper. The more serious question is was he so eager to support Conservative inspiration George Bush that he didn't care if CAF personnel died for an invasion the Canadian public did not support and the U.N. didn't sanction.? Its one thing to say you support the military, another to accept the responsibility that goes with it and principal among the responsibilities is to not put troops in harm's way without sufficient reason.

And why would we? What possible good would it do? I don't necessarily disagree with you. What I think would be helpful both to the general population and the CAF would be to clearly define what we expect from our military, because as it is, they are ill equipped for most combat roles (as distinct from peace keeping) but, increasingly, we ask it of them Afghanistan, the Balkans, etc.). Perhaps what Canadians want is a force sufficient to defend us against a plausible military or quasi-military threat on Canadian soil such as a terrorist attack (cleary we could never defend ourselves from a massive invasion by China, the U.S., etc.), a navy and airforce sufficient to defend our air and sea borders and a peacekeping force sufficient to maintain an active role in international activities. If that's it, fine, but lets make it clear.

Doesn't seem we're gonna agree in this. My point is not that Customs offiers are too stupid or whatever to learn this, its a question of specialization which is applied in all military and policing organizations. I think its unfair to change the working conditions of customs officers simply because it would be cheaper than providing trained professionals and it would be interesting to see how their union would approach this if it became law. And there is the question of proportion. Its one thing to confiscate the handgun a U.S. couple habitually carry in their glove compartment, another to disarm a carload of gang members. If, as all politicians are saying, our priority is to stop the flow of firearms deliberately smugggled by criminals and if there is enough of this going on to warrant action, then surely we need a force with sufficiently greater firepower than one or two customs agents with handguns . . . say small teams of highly trained personnel with automatic weapons. Even the British police with a century long history of civilian security has had a number of problems in becoming an armed force and I really think arming Customs agents is one of those ideas driven more by economy than logic. If we look at the problem as providing adequate security to deal with any likely situation AND providing a secure environment for Customs Officers to perform their necessary duties, I think a specialized force is the better solution.

Its nice to keep going on about this but the reality is the majority of Canadians haven't cared about our military since the end of WWII and the only reason the neglect has been more Liberal than Conservative is simple percentages in how many years they have governed. We have never had a post-war election fought on military issues and while Canadians like to say they take pride in our forces, it always ranks very low on their voting priorities. So yeah, its true: we purchase land vehicles we can't transport (remember the spectacle of our retruning assets being at risk of siezure because of the bancruptcy of the shipping compary hired to transpost them?) and aircraft we can't support outside their home base. However, nobody, including the Conservatives, is even hinting at the kind of massive expenditure it would take to turn the CAF into a viable, mobile force. Plus, its not even clear the majority of Canadians support a more active international role and they are unlikely to swallow budget deficits or massive cuts to other programs to pursue one. So its business as usual; lots of plattitudes about support but not much else.

I would disagree. I am not saying you could not add the task to the role of Customs officers, provide adequate training and recruit new personnel more suited to the task, but it is very different from the present and historical role of customs officers. I agree with you that its always been a problem for customs officers to be disarming "tourists." A friend of mine was a customs officer at an airpot with a lot of private and small plane activity and had all sorts of stories of turning Americans back at the border (then one-time policy of holding illegal firearms had been adandoned due to the sheer danger of attempting to confiscate weapons and the logistical problems of storing them). However, I think it would be far more logical to either task the RCMP or even the CAF (with an approproate budgetary commitment) to provide border security if we feel that extensive an armed presence is necessary and let Customs Officers continue in their current role. I just don't think you can turn personnel trained in customs and excise duties and immigration into a disciplined armed force without major problems in the short-run. Its hard enough for professionals like police and military personnel with extensive training to learn that balance between over-reacting and under-reacting in confrontational situations and I think its too much to expect of our current Customs Officers.

I think the last part of your post is the most accurate, though incomplete. Ultimately, I think they just want to be proved right. They have been saying since the last election the scandals would sink the Liberals and now they view everything in that context. I'm sure some of them are Conservative supporters but for most its a combination of spinning everything to conform to their pre-conceived idea of the outcome and a little bit of sheer boredom with covering the Liberals all these years and wanting a new target. You can bet the honeymoon with Harper will be short (though its certainly a love fest now).

Clearly the ad was ill conceived and ill executed to the point that whatever the message was supposed to be got lost. As to the Conservative policy they were presumably attempting to attack there are several factors. First, a succession of federal governments since the Trudeau days have been trying to rationalize CFB's and recently, the sheer cost of maintaining bases in large urban centres - cities are increasingly unwilling to accept fed monies in lieu of taxes, especially on prime real estate - has driven a move to more rural bases (something not real popular with personnel who prefer urban locations). The cost of reversing this would be immense. Second, if Mr. Harper wants to use CAF as a kind of adjunct to civil authorities (as the U.S. does with the National Guard at some airports) a lot would have to be done. One of the problems that always plagues the CAF is politicians tend to see it as an underutilized labour pool that can be tasked to serve in any understaffed role that comes up. The CAF tends to resist this as it rarely comes with the requisite budgetary commitment for training and equipment or even a clear definition of tasking. If we wanted to use military forces for civilian police/security purposes we would have to provide adequate training (CAF perform admirably in any role we ask of them but it would be courting disaster to expect them to assume the role of a civil authoity without extensive training). There would also be a major equipment question as very little of their current arsenal or vehicle pool is suited to civilian security. That raises the question of whether the tasking the military is the best choice; perhaps creating a secuurity unit within the RCMP would be more logical and efficient. About the only thing you can say in favour of this is its probably saner than Layton's suggestion to arm Customs Officers at the border (many European countries used military personnel at border crossings long before 9-11).