Boondoggle

Look at two similar occurances at nearly the same time: The Newfoundlanders lost their cod, and they are still sitting around collecting welfare (even though they have plenty of off-shore oil and an agreement with the Feds that they get all royalties collected). Alberta lost its oil with the NEP, and now we are the richest region in North America. Alberta still has its oil. There's the difference. Do any of you remember the "Please God, send us another oil boom. We promise not to piss it away this time" bumper stickers? And Newfoundland has oil. Why are they poor and we are not? They don't have nearly as much. The key to developing the economy in the Maratimes is to attract more business. Young people often move out of the area to find job opportunities. It's a very rural area so that can be challenging. I think it would be better in the long term to try to develop more of a skill based economy than resource, but perhaps money from oil production can kick start that.

Like a business, sometimes you have to spend money to make money. Education, for example, is a worthwhile investment. It means people can get better jobs, which means a higher standard of living for them, and it means more tax revenue because of higher paying jobs, which can be considered a return on investment. Having some debt isn't that bad if kept in check, and economic growth can also keep it under control. For example, budget cuts helped elminate the record high deficit in 1993, but the Canadian economy has grown 50% since then. That means a drop in debt to GDP ratio even if debt stays the same. In 1993, debt to GDP was over 60%. Today, it's about 38%. So, even if we increased debt, we wouldn't be where we were in 1993. Ontario may have debt, but it also has a more robust and diverse economy than Alberta. It also has good economic growth. Paying down debt in Alberta is, however, smart because it shields it from possible vulnerability in the energy sector. For those that want to make this a partisan issue - including some that do that but deny doing it - the US has far more debt, and more often than not, the Republicans are in power. The US also has an equivalent of just about any social program you can find in Canada despite its tendency to have right-wing governments.

Just remember that a true conservative puts money away for rainy days. Considering that Alberta has had a bust and boom economy in the past, rebate cheques might not be the best way to use the money. Why would a "hard working" conservative want money that he/she didn't earn anyways? Wouldn't you rather a tax cut?

You make it sound like a good thing to pay someone sh*t wages. I guess as long as it's not you making the sh*t wages.... One could argue that there is another big story: Conservatives were locked out of Canada's major cities. Toronto has a bigger population than Alberta, almost as many ridings and not one is Conservative despite the fact that it's Stephen Harper's home town. Last I checked, the financial heart of the country was on Bay street. The unemployment rate in Ontario is about a whopping rate of 5% - same as the US. Toronto is known as the silicon valley of the north because of all the high tech jobs. As far as construction goes, it's one of the fastest growing areas in North America, and you don't have that kind of growth in construction if you don't have a strong economy. The City Place condo project going up by the CN Tower alone is worth $1.5 billion. Donald Trump is building one of his towers in Toronto, and from what I've read, the cost to live there can reach up to $18 million. Now, if the economy is so bad compared to Alberta, who'd be able to afford that? If there's no market for it, why build it? Yet Toronto is a Liberal stronghold.... Perhaps, the opposition to the Conservatives is so strong in the area because Mike Harris left Ontario with a $5.6 billion deficit despite budget cuts, which the Liberals will eliminate by 2008-2009. The Liberal government at the federal level, however, must also share the blame for fiscal problems in Ontario. By cutting transfers to help eliminate the federal deficit, they basically shifted federal debt over to provincial debt. I live in the Toronto area and I agree with the Conservative platform on many important issues. I've even voted Conservative, but there are two sides to a coin, and you can spare me your regional supremacy crap because I can just as easily point out the strengths of Ontario, but its the sum of parts not one province that makes Canada a great country.

Most Canadians are ignorant to the fact tht 80% of our economy is based on US consumer spending... but oh well. Actually, it's 80% of trade not the economy. A lot of other things go into the economy. Take construction for example. Most people that buy homes in Canada are Canadians, and those homes are built by Canadians using Canadian materials.

If you read my post again, you'll see that I start off by saying that people that are partisan tend to only use facts that either favor their position or reflect poorly on what they oppose. In other words, they offer an incomplete, and therefore inaccurate, picture. The purpose of my post was not to refute, but to add some of what you left out. I'm not cherry picking or being partisan either. Naturally, I covered area that either made the Liberals look bad or the Conservatives look good to balance what you already covered. That's not being partisan. If I were partisan, I wouldn't have acknowledged that the Liberals have done good things, nor would I say Trudeau was one of the better Prime Ministers. The only thing that I really mentioned that the other parties are promising is democratic reform, and given the length of my post and how much I dedicated to that, I don't think it's accurate to say I was stressing that point. However, it's worth mentioning that there is bipartisan support for democratic reform. What will the Liberals do for democratic reform? Remove the notwithstanding clause and have the courts dictate? No thanks. If international obligations to NATO and the UN are important to you, then you should keep in mind that under international law it is for the Security Council to decide on matters of security not NATO. Kosovo was a NATO mission not a UN mission, and airstrikes are hardly classified as peace-keeping. The only two wars that the UN supported were Korea and Desert Storm. As for nuclear weapons, Canada signed on to the NPT (Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons) in 1968, yet had nuclear weapons in the country long after that. Of course, this could open a debate about effectiveness of the UN, but that's not the point when you mention our obligations. If you prefer the Liberals, that's totally your prerogative, but it's simply untrue to suggest that one party has it all right and the other has it all wrong.

The only facts that matter to someone that is partisan -- and your post is very partisan -- are facts that can be used to support his/her own view and/or reflect poorly on what he/she opposes. However, there are also the facts that these people like to ignore. The Liberals have accomplished quite a bit, but they have also been in power most of the time. I'm not going to try to deny that the Liberals have done some good things because I'm not interested in partisan arguments. However, while they've done well in some areas, they've neglected others. For example: they've done well with the budget in recent years, but I just don't think they get it when it comes to defense, democratic reform and law enforcement. Rather than having tunnel vision on what's already going well, maybe it's time to focus on things that aren't going so well, and I'm not convinced you're going to see that with the same party remaining in power for so long. I consider Trudeau to be one of the better Prime Ministers. However, it's interesting how the Liberals recently tried to imply in an attack ad that the Conservatives would use the military to impose martial law when the only Prime Minister to do that was Trudeau. Canada has had 8 years of surplus because the tax payers gave them money while services were cut. They tell you they have plans for the future, but if you elect the same government, you're likely to get the same result. That would include paying down debt, which is good, but I don't think that's the only issue to consider. The question is: are you happy with the status quo? If so, vote Liberal. I'd say that the friendship between Canada and the US exists more as a result of social and economic interaction than from political rhetoric. It's well known that some of the comments from the Liberals in recent years haven't exactly been helpful. By definition of the word "ally" Canada should support the US when appropriate. The US doesn't always have it wrong; therefore, supporting the US in conflicts is not an absurd thing to consider. Furthermore, it's estimated that 500,000 to 1,500,000 people died in Iraq under the sanctions that Canada helped enforce while the Liberals were in power. If you take the lowest figure, it's still higher than the number of deaths in the Iraq war. The conclusion in the Duelfer report echoed what people in UNSCOM were saying years ago, which was that Iraq was fundamentally disarmed in the 90s, yet sanctions continued, and thus the suffering continued. The US/British policy was that 100% verified disarmament was necessary to end sanctions, which was impossible to achieve. I think Harper spoke prematurely on this subject for partisan reasons, but has long since changed his position. The most important thing, in my opinion, is that elected representatives listen to constituents, and Harper as demonstrated that he can do that. If he gets elected and it's just lip service, it'll be twice as hard for Conservatives to get re-elected. For the Conservatives, the critical thing will be to build trust not pushing contentious issues. Also, don't forget that it was the Liberals that sent CF-18s on bombing missions in Kosovo in addition to the Canadian armed forces in Afghanistan, and indirectly, Canada contributed more to the Iraq war that alot of the coalition. Canada also contributed indirectly to the Vietnam war. Canadian made Napalm and Agent Orange ended up in Vietnam, and Agent Orange was tested in Canada even though the government denied it for years. It was the NDP, by the way, that helped uncover that. They also tested Agent Purple, which is far worse than Agent Orange. I agree that it was a mistake to scrap the arrow, but there's more to the story when it comes to the Bomarcs. Despite pressure from the US, Diefenbaker refused to arm the Bomarcs with nuclear warheads. At the time, Pearson's wife joined a group called Voice of Women that opposed nuclear weapons in Canada, and Pearson himself was against the idea. However, he later changed his position, and Trudeau lashed out at him for doing so. The following election was fought on the issue of nuclear weapons in Canada, and Pearson won. In 1963, Pearson met with JFK and agreed to nuclear weapons in Canada, which arrived at the end of that year. It seems alot of Canadians aren't even aware that there were nuclear weapons in Canada, but it was a reality thanks to the Liberals. Native people also got the right to vote when Diefenbaker was Prime Minister. Typical partisan argument. The Liberals blame Mulroney for it, and the Conservatives blame Trudeau. As for the GST, I thought the Liberals were gonna cut it? What happened to that? And the Liberals expanded on it with NAFTA. How do you expect to grow your economy with an isolationist attitude? Canada is next door to the largest economy in the world, which accepts the majority of Canadian exports, and Canada usually has a trade surplus with the US. That comment shows contempt for democracy. It is NEVER good for democracy to have a lack of opposition to the governing party regardless of which party your views are aligned with. Without opposition, what you have essentially is a coronation not an election. One of the key issues, I believe, in this election is democratic reform, and both the NDP and Conservatives agree on fixed election dates and possibly proportional representation. Perhaps, but the only way for them to grow is if more people support them. Who knows, they my get people in the House of Commons this time. Also, unlike other media sources, CPAC has been covering them. True, but cherry picking it for partisan reasons is pretty bad too.

Where are those figures on the Liberal Warehouse daycare plan? Ontario's cost for the 25,000 daycare spots is presently costing Ontario taxpayers -$44,000 per spot. How much will 650,000 spots cost with the Liberals plan? Another gun registry? No,something even more expensive. So your solution is "scru the kids. I want a few bucks in some kind of rebate. Any kind." No, the solution is to give parents a choice.

So Harper is first accused of a hidden plan to cut social programs, and now he's got a hidden plan to spend more on health care? Which is it? You know Harper is an economist too, right?

We are already in deep debt, blame that one on the Liberal Messiah Trudeau. And Bush's deficiet is due to military spending in Iraq. Harper has said no Canadians will go to Iraq. The Conservative platform works, you'll find plenty of economists that endorse it. Canada's debt is about 38% of GDP. In contrast, the US has about 8 trillion in debt with a GDP of about 11 trillion. In other words, US debt is about 73% of GDP, but they are also somewhat shielded from the effects of high debt by having the worlds main reserve currency. Canada's debt is less than $500 billion. In contrast once again, the deficit in the US for one year, about 300-400 billion, would cover most of Canada's debt. So, I'm not sure I would say Canada is deeply in debt. It could be better and it could be worse. It certianly was worse in the 90s when debt to GDP was at about 68%.

Central planning vs. free markets is a classic debate, and those interested should read about Keynes & Hayek. I think some government regulation is ok when it's in the interest of the public (ie health care), but name one country that's benefiting economically from government control of markets. I disagree with you when it comes to the Liberals on this issue. The Liberals have spent billions on tax cuts, paid down debt, and signed on to NAFTA. This creates the conditions to expand private enterprise not government. The Liberals are more for big government when it comes to social programs. The national child care program they want to create is an example. However, they are fiscally conservative, and thus they're more of a centrist party. This is an interesting topic, but it doesn't necessarily get into the details of the election or follow party lines. The fact is that the most important thing in politics is winning, and you do that by recognizing what there is demand for and using it to your advantage before your opponents use it against you. For example: with the increase of gun violence, there is demand for getting tough on crime, and Layton is talking about that even though it's typically more of a right-wing position. In contrast, Harper is talking about affordable housing, which is something you'd expect from Layton. Meanwhile, the Liberals have been one step behind because they're hoping the scare tactics used in the last election will work again. Personally, I don't think the "hidden agenda" argument used by the Liberals holds water. After 12 years, the opposition is hungry for a chance to gain power. If they win and proceed to do things that upset alot of the constituents, it'll be twice as hard for them to get elected again, and I'm sure they're aware of that. Instead, I think what we'll see is that they will maintain the status quo on things like social program spending, and instead work on issues where there's more of a consensus but little action from the Liberals. If they want to stay in power after being elected, they'll have to prove themselves, and I think this is why they've taken care to have a pragmatic platform.

Because that's what the military is for: a status symbol to show other countries how bad-ass we are. Couldn't Canada just buy a flash sportscar and get a young trophy girlfriend instead? If that's the case, Canada should be going for the F-22. The F-35 is actually a pragmatic approach by design: You can view the countries that are involved here: http://www.jsf.mil/program/prog_intl.htm and an image with an F-35 that has a Canadian flag on it here: http://www.jsf.mil/downloads/mediakits/pos...airshow2005.pdf As usual, when it comes to the military, the Liberals only spend enough to say they're doing something, but Canada is still involved. I know there are pacifists in this country that'd be happy to have the neglect of the armed forces continue, and perhaps they'd be even happier if Canada didn't even have armed forces, but history shows that Canada is not a nation of pacifists. There is nothing wrong with having a properly funded military, and there are some things worth fighting for. For example, The General in charge of the UN peace-keeping mission in Rwanda, Romeo Dallaire, is Canadian. He told everyone months in advance about what would happen and said he needed a couple thousand more troops. Canada likes to have peace-keeping as a national symbol and already had a General in charge of the mission so why not send a couple thousand troops? Was it that Canada was unable to do that because of the government cutting the budget and expecting the military to do more with less, or did they just turn their backs like everyone else while 800,000 people were killed? Either way, it doesn't exactly reflect well on us does it? If people are concerned about getting involved in armed conflicts, they should focus on the policy not on the funding for the military.

If we ever had a serious natural disaster in this country we would need the Americans ASAP It's obviously much easier to deploy troops and equipment in your own country than a landlocked country thousands of miles away with poor infrastructure.

Actually, I saw an interview with a pilot once, and he said that whether you're talking about an F-15, F-16 or F-18, they're all lethal, and the difference is in the skill of the pilot. Until the F-35s and F-22s are ready, the newest of the bunch is the F-18 Super Hornet. I doubt Canada will get F-22s because they're so expensive, but Canada did contribute money to the development of the F-35 program, and the order of who gets them first is based on who contributed and how much. Therefore, it seems that the Canadian government wanted to keep the option to replace the F-18s with F-35s open. Why replace the F-18s with an older plane like the F-15 or the updated F-18 Super Hornet when you can use them until the F-35s are ready? Of course, I don't see how the difference between the F-35s, F-22s and F-18s really matters when you're talking about fighting the Taliban.

Let's be honest about this, the media was just trying to get Duceppe to admit to what he was doing. Duceppe has said he wants to increase the number of seats that the Bloc has, but recent polls show his numbers going down while support for the Conservatives in Quebec is going up. The Conservatives are ahead of the Liberals in Quebec; therefore, Harper is more of an opponent now than Martin. Instead of attacking Martin constantly, as he usually does, he is suddenly spending more time attacking Harper. His reasons for doing so are blantantly driven by numbers. He has to attack the federal party that has the most support in order to maintain support for his separatist party. Personally, I think any federal party that bites into support for the Bloc is doing a good thing.