Election 2015

[George Wallace]

Here is an interesting article on the stand some have against Harper.  It cuts it to pieces.

Reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act

What the Case Against Stephen Harper Is Really About
The Atlantic
David Frum
12:55 PM / September 13, 2015

Now we’re getting somewhere.

A month ago, The New York Times posted an oped by a Canadian novelist, Stephen Marche, warning that the country’s prime minister, Stephen Harper, was waging a “war against science” in service of his larger purpose “to prevent democracy.”

I held this claim to scrutiny here at The Atlantic a few days later, and found it lacking, to put it mildly. The accusations against Harper presented by Marche and those who think like him ranged, I said, from the true but trivial (more formal manners at press conferences) to the overwrought verging on hysterical.

Here’s an especially outlandish version of the latter, postdating Marche’s article but endorsed by him in his Twitter feed: In late August, many media sources across Canada—including Canada’s state broadcaster, the CBC—lent credence to the claim that Harper was “targeting science” because the federal Department of Agriculture was digitizing farm research libraries and then recycling or pulping obsolete and redundant printed materials. This claim was magnified and publicized by left-of-center social media into a veritable Fahrenheit 451 bonfire of precious knowledge:

Follow

Evidence 4 Democracy
‏@E4Dca
@PIPSC_IPFPC claims another research library closed, many books and resources in trash http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/harper-government-trashes-another-federal-science-library-2049562.htm … #cdnsci

People have gone pretty far over the cliff when they can believe that an update to modern technology constitutes a war on science. The truth of the matter was less far-fetched and more squalid. Demand for materials-on-paper from the Lethbridge library had plunged by more than 80 percent over recent years. Digitization of the library threatened public-sector jobs. What was at issue here was not know-nothingism. It was unionized Luddism.

Pretty obviously, the Marche version of the argument has become an embarrassment even to its former proponents. So now we have a 2.0 release of the anti-Harper case, this time by a retired newsman and Canadian radio personality, Parker Donham.

What’s useful in the re-released version of the anti-Harper case is that it dispenses with Marche-style heavy breathing about Canada’s road to serfdom, and cuts right to the chase: Stephen Harper’s obstinate and perverse insistence on governing in ways not to the liking of Parker Donham.

The “ever lengthening list of grievances” that Donham presents involve central issues of how Canada should be governed. He wants a more activist approach to climate change, more resettlement of Syrian refugees in Canada, and an approach to domestic security more in line with the left-wing NDP than with the Conservative and Liberal Parties that together enacted the 2015 anti-terrorism act 183 votes to 96 in the House of Commons. He wants to see a less friendly attitude to the United States than Harper has expressed, more Canadian troops detailed to UN peacekeeping missions, and more frequent conferences with the provincial premiers. He wants fewer prisons, less development of fossil fuel resources, and a looser policy on voter ID.

Those are his views, he’s certainly entitled to them, and I expect he’ll cast his vote on October 19 accordingly. That’s democracy, and fair enough. What’s not so fair is the obdurate refusal to accept that democracy means that other people are equally entitled to their views—and, if they are numerous enough, to elect a government that represents their views in the same way that Donham believes himself entitled to be represented.

Atlantic readers may remember how in 2008 Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin was excoriated for rhetoric that seemed to divide “real Americans” (rural, religious, conservative) from other Americans (urban, secular, liberal). Parker Donham’s piece is an extended exercise in Palinism in reverse. There’s the real Canada—which Donham believes he’s speaking for—and then there’s an illegitimate Harper government and its “many offenses to the country’s long tradition of political and social liberalism.”

And with that, I think, the cat is out of the bag.

The indictment against Harper is not about democracy. It’s not about science. The “intense animosity” to which Donham confesses is the emotion of those who got used to seeing Canada run a certain way in most of the period since the mid-1960s. For nine years, Stephen Harper has run Canada a different way. That’s the unforgivable thing, and all the rest is just so much overhyped publicity.

It’s apt that Donham describes Harper’s differences from Canadian liberalism as “offenses.” The Gospeller wrote, “For it need be that offenses come, but woe to him by whom the offense cometh.” These latter day upholders of Canada’s liberal orthodoxy feel just the same way. ​

More on LINK.

So?  It would appear that this is not Harper being against scientists, but Luddites not complying with a policy to digitize our resource libraries.  Seems that some collective tried to play "chicken" and lost, and are now upset that their incompetence or vindictiveness cost them.

 

[Kirkhill]

Interesting link there George.

I especially found this quote from another article that David Frum referenced interesting:\

As a young political staffer in the 1980s, he witnessed the destruction of the 1984-1993 Conservative government resulting from then-Prime Minister Brian Mulroney’s indulgent attitude toward the mistakes and misdeeds of his caucus and cabinet. Some observers believe Harper has over-corrected—that his discipline is too severe and unforgiving. That’s a reasonable point of view. The next prime minister of Canada will probably over-correct in the opposite direction.

I wonder if this is one of the indulgent mistakes to which David Frum was referring?

As Meech accord withered, Mulroney told cabinet Lucien Bouchard would never seriously impact politics after leaving Tories

And a general question - I wonder if all those who opposed Meech and Charlottetown are happier with no deal at all.  That would certainly be a good anarchist-libertarian position (as is the lack of a position on abortion in this country).  But it certainly doesn't seem compatible with a well structured communitarian society as espoused by the Liberals and New Democrats. 


But I am wandering - again.

 

[Kilo_302]

OK, Kilo. Now you are just insulting me and others who have a strong spiritual belief of some sort.

But would you have said the same thing if we were talking about a different religion? I was raised a Presbyterian (the so-called "thinking man's church") and I am now an atheist. I'm often to blame for threads being split off onto other tangents. But this is worthy of discussion no? But this form of politicized religion is a strategy. It's meant to convince people that socially progressive ideas are what is to blame for our current situation. I would argue that it's more to do with economic structure. All of our 3 parties agree on economic policy. The disagreements are minor.

I think that religion has a crucial part to play in what we would broadly call "civil society." The sense of community etc. But we can't allow these issues to be passed by because it might offend someone. Western religious fundamentalism DOES exist. Openly? No. But again, I would argue that Harper's inexplicable opposition to science and data is LIKELY in part due to his religious beliefs. I agree that one's personal belief's shouldn't be questioned in public, but to a point. There are many intelligent and inquisitive minds on this thread and site at large. I AM biased, because I think that certain ideas are more valid than others. So are the rest of us. BUT, the absolute resistance to discuss this issue is indicative of a resistance to critique the CPC.

I am further left than most if not all of you. That much is clear. But I still will rag on the NDP, the Liberals, AND the Conservatives. None of us should be happy with the options before us. My aim is not to offend anyone, but to further the debate. I think we can all agree it's relatively narrow thus far, both on this thread and nationally. For example, the "fear" of an NDP majority is laughable. Even if they won, it's quite clear that Mulcair agrees with Harper on the economy, outside of a few new social window dressing programs. Don't you see? You've won! There's so little to discuss as far as the big three are concerned, it's depressing.

The "loony left" that was referenced above is only loony given their chances of changing things. All of you military guys, think back to times when doctrine had to suddenly shift, based on new technology or new realities on the battlefield. Or maybe it changed more slowly. How are we now SO resistant to new ideas, to the acceptance that our current way of doing things is not a net benefit? The embedded interests have done their work well.  We're only so happy to point these faults out in other nations. Most of us are realists, politically speaking. If that's the case, how can we believe our own bullshit?

 

[JesseWZ]

This has nothing to do with the ongoing discussion, but I thought it was an excellent read. Props to Mr Akin for an enjoyable and easy to understand read.
Reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act

When a war room fails a leader: Trudeau, truthiness and the economy
David Akin - September 14th, 2015

Last Friday, every newsroom and, one would assume, every campaign war room in the country, would have seen the following advisory from the Department of Finance:

The Department of Finance will release the Annual Financial Report of the Government of Canada at 9:00 a.m. ET on Monday, September 14, 2015.

The Annual Financial Report summarizes the Government’s financial results for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2015, including the budgetary balance. The Department is also releasing updated Fiscal Reference Tables, which provide annual data on the financial position of the federal, provincial-territorial and local governments.

And everyone who saw that would have immediately understood its importance. This Annual Financial Report (AFR), with numbers verified by the Auditor General of Canada, would tell us once and for all whether the Stephen Harper Conservatives ran their 7th consecutive deficit for the 12-month period ending on March 31, 2015 (known for the rest of this post as fiscal 2015 or FY15) or broke free and ran a surplus.

In Budget 2015, the Conservatives themselves said FY15 would be the last of a string of deficit budgets and did not commit to being out of deficit until the current fiscal year, which ends on March 31, 2016 (and shall be referred to as fiscal 2016 or FY16). Their political opponents have been saying all campaign long that FY15 would be a deficit. But many independent observers thought that FY15 would show a small surplus.

So everyone knows this scorecard is to be made public at 9 ET.  Every major newsroom in the country (including mine) was offered a chance to get a copy of the report at 8 ET on the condition we would not broadcast or publish details until 9 ET. I was one of those journalists that agreed to this routine embargo condition and accepted the report.

Nonetheless, the Liberal campaign — which did not get an embargoed copy — scheduled its leader, Justin Trudeau to make an announcement on support for seniors at 8:30 ET on Monday morning, 30 minutes before the release of the Annual Financial Report (AFR). Trudeau’s announcement was made in Toronto in front of a seniors advocacy group. The announcement itself took only a few minutes but then, rather than immediately take questions from reporters, Trudeau played host to a town hall-style Q & A from the assembled seniors. The clock, meanwhile, ticked toward 9 ET...

 

Remainder continued here:
http://blogs.canoe.com/davidakin/politics/when-a-war-room-fails-a-leader-trudeau-truthiness-and-the-economy/

 

[Kirkhill]

But Kilo - can you not perceive of the lack of religion as being a religion and equally at risk of being co-opted as a rallying point as any other religion - One Presbyterian to another (and I have never heard it referred to as the thinking man's religion - most Presbyterians I knew were at pains to hold their beliefs to themselves - it is a tendency one picks up when Bonnie Dundee (Bloody Clavers) shows up at your services intent on slaughtering you and your kin).

There are few people more religious than Laicete French and atheist Communists.  Thou shalt not have a religion.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>Well, if you can point out a lie or a fallacy in this piece please do. The author has done nothing wrong by drawing a link between evangelism and the oil sector in Alberta and Mr. Harper's religious background and policies.

Try this explanation.

Evidently the author of that piece hooked, landed, and gutted you like a trout.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, courtesy of David Akin, are a couple of interesting local polling results:

Spadina-Fort York (671 responses)
A new ridingn(2012) created from part of Toronto Centre and the old Trinity-Spandina riding
    New Democrat, Olivia Chow:  45%
        Liberal, Adam Vaughan:       39%
        Conservative, Sabrina Zuniga: 13%
        Green, Sharon Danley:              3%
Not as close as many pundits predicted ...

Calgary Confederation (697 responses)
Another new riding (2012) created from parts of Calgary Centre-North Calgary West and Calgary—Nose Hill
        Conservative, Len Webber:    37%
        Liberal, Matt Grant:              38%
        New Democrat, Kirk Heuser:  19%
        Green, Natalie Odd:                4%
Much closer than many pundits predicted ...

If these local results are any indication then it is a tight three way race.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Two Globe and Mail reporters appear to have some inside information about how the Liberal platform was constructed which they share with us in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from that newspaper:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/the-decisions-behind-the-scenes-of-the-liberals-infrastructure-plan/article26375251/

The decisions behind the scenes of the Liberals’ infrastructure plan

DANIEL LEBLANC AND BILL CURRY
OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail

Last updated Wednesday, Sep. 16, 2015

The Liberal Party’s plan to dive back into deficit in support of an ambitious infrastructure program has been months in the making, but party officials say the decision to borrow up to $10-billion a year to pay for it was only cemented in June.

Talk of a major infrastructure push has been percolating in the party as far back as its 2014 policy convention in Montreal. It featured guest speaker Larry Summers, the former U.S. treasury secretary who has warned against the “disastrous trend” of less and less government spending.

An economic advisory team met regularly over the past year and platform ideas were debated at a January caucus retreat in London, Ont. But it was not until June that Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau and his core campaign team agreed to the final details, leaving top caucus members in the dark for weeks.

The decision was announced in late August as part of a plan to nearly double infrastructure spending in the country over the next decade. The move goes against Canadian political orthodoxy as the Liberals gamble that voters will support a party that openly advocates deficits. It immediately became a lightning rod for attacks from the Conservatives and NDP, but the Liberals hope the pledge will ultimately help them break ahead in what is currently a tight three-way race for power.

Liberals say the advisory council of MPs and independent economists told Mr. Trudeau that deficits could be acceptable from an economic perspective provided that the federal debt as a share of the economy continued to decline. The spending also had to be large enough to have a positive impact on growth.

Economist Mike Moffatt, a member of the council, said he estimated that a deficit of up to $20-billion a year would be sustainable in the short term.

Mr. Trudeau has been telegraphing his thirst for a more activist government for years. But after the Conservatives’ April budget left little room for new spending, he faced two options: scale back the party’s infrastructure plans and balance the books or go ahead with the spending plan on the argument that borrowing cash has never been cheaper.

“The feeling emerged that while the main issue in the 1990s was government deficits and debt, the main issue today was languishing growth, inadequate job creation and the huge infrastructure deficit,” said John McCallum, a former bank economist who is running for the Liberals to keep his seat in Markham-Thornhill.

“So I think over the months, the feeling emerged that what was right for Canada was to do a big push on infrastructure.”

While it was not known at the time that Canada was in a technical recession, the growing signs of a weak economy influenced the decision to go with the more ambitious option.

“As it became clear that Canada was already in deficit – we believe – and clearly in recession, the case became stronger,” Mr. McCallum said.

In the end, Mr. Trudeau presented a plan to run deficits of up to $10-billion a year for two years, followed by a smaller deficit in the third year before balancing the books in 2019-20.

“The leader gave us his marching orders on the policy-development side that he wanted a real plan that was going to make a difference in people’s lives, and there was no way to do that, to give the economy what we believe it needs, without running a modest deficit in the short term,” said a senior campaign member.

The move allowed the party to lump a number of its initiatives – including investments in child care – into $60-billion in new infrastructure spending over 10 years.

The Liberals argue the plan offers a clear contrast with the Conservatives and NDP, which are both promising to keep Canada in the black. The party’s critics say it looks like Mr. Trudeau is scrambling.

“It’s complete fiscal ad-hockery,” said Conservative candidate Jason Kenney.

Polling data by Nik Nanos shows support for all three main parties is virtually unchanged from mid-August, before the Liberals made their announcement.

Mr. Nanos said the Liberals face a significant challenge in selling their platform to the country now that the government has confirmed that it was $1.9-billion in the black last year.

“It’s not playing out very well because we have a surplus,” Mr. Nanos said.

Dr. Moffatt, who teaches at the University of Western Ontario, said he supports the party’s decision to set $10-billion as a yearly maximum for the next two years.

“I’m no political strategist, but I think the important thing is just convincing people that the money will be well-spent,” he said in an interview. “I think people would prefer not to run a deficit, but if it’s, ‘Okay, we’re going to run a deficit and that means my commute is 15 minutes shorter,’ then I think people might be quite happy with that.”

--------------------------------

Economic team geared to combat Trudeau’s inexperience

Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau surprised many by running his campaign on the economy with a message that growth comes before balancing books. But he makes sure part of the message is that he’s surrounded by an economic team.

That’s largely an effort to combat knocks on Mr. Trudeau’s inexperience, but also a bid to highlight experience that rivals in the NDP don’t have, in addition to new recruits with business and economics backgrounds.

Three former cabinet ministers, ex-finance minister Ralph Goodale, John McCallum, former Royal Bank economist, and Scott Brison, former public works minister and current finance critic, make up the experience factor. But they also provide a whiff of throwback, so the Liberals have pushed new recruits forward.

They include Bill Morneau, 52, the CEO of Morneau Shepell, a publicly traded human-resources outsourcing firm, who is the blue-chip Bay Street figure in Liberal ranks.

In Manitoba, there’s Jim Carr, 63, former president of the Business Council of Manitoba, and in Toronto, author and former financial journalist Chrystia Freeland, 47.

Some of the team is campaign show – Mr. Trudeau hustled former PM and finance minister Paul Martin onto the hustings, backed by more than 20 supposed economic-team members.

But a core group forged an identity on economic issues: pro-business Liberals with an interventionist agenda of infrastructure spending, middle-class tax cuts and, to make it possible, three years of deficits.

Mr. Morneau hinted at the tone during a Liberal convention in Februrary, 2014, when he said business knows you don’t cut your way to success; Ms. Freeland, co-chair of Mr. Trudeau’s council of advisers with Mr. Brison, led the wonkish work of building a policy direction. - Campbell Clark

--------------------------------

How the Liberals plan to address key campaign issues

Taxation

The Liberals would introduce a new tax rate of 33 per cent on income of more than $200,000. That would help fund a tax cut on income between $44,701 and $89,401, dropping the rate from 22 per cent to 20.5 per cent.

The Liberals would maintain income splitting for seniors, but cancel it for families with children under 18. The recent near-doubling of the Tax Free Savings Account annual contribution limit would also be cancelled. The Liberals support lowering the small-business tax rate from 11 to 9 per cent, but say they would ensure the cut is not used by wealthy Canadians as a way to avoid taxes.

Infrastructure

The Liberals made a major policy splash near the midway point of the campaign, announcing they would run three years of deficits to finance a major spike in infrastructure spending. The party is promising $60-billion in new spending over 10 years on roads, bridges, transit and other projects. Mr. Trudeau said municipalities would set the priorities as to what gets done.

The party is planning to roll out further details on this plan throughout the campaign. Spending would be divided evenly into three categories: public transit, social infrastructure – including social housing, child care and hockey rinks – and green infrastructure, which includes flood protection, waste-water facilities and clean energy.

Energy

The party is leaving key details on energy and climate-change policy until after the election, arguing that decisions will be based on discussions with the provinces. Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau has promised federal cash for the provinces to help them implement their climate-change plans. The party promises to encourage renewable energy use across Canada.

Manufacturing

The Liberals have not yet announced their manufacturing platform. But they have warned that NDP plans to raise the corporate tax rate will make it harder for Canada to attract manufacturing jobs.

Bottom line

The party is promising to balance the books in the 2019-20 fiscal year after three years of deficits that would help pay for infrastructure spending. The party insists that Canada’s debt as a share of the economy will continue to decline over that period. It also promises that the size of annual deficits will not exceed $10-billion.

This single sentence, "Mr. Trudeau has been telegraphing his thirst for a more activist government for years," is one of my fundamental areas of concern with him as a leader (the other being his lack of "bottom," or gravitas ~ a résumé that goes beyond ski-instructor and drama teacher). I want less and less intrusive government ... I agree, wholly, with those who say that government is necessary and that some steady government spending, rising and falling against economic cycles, is a good thing, but I oppose much of the modern, "culture of entitlement" that has existed (in North America, Europe and Australia) since about 1970, even though, being a "senior" I enjoy some of its benefits.

I agree with Nick Nanos that "the Liberals face a significant challenge in selling their platform to the country now that the government has confirmed that it was $1.9-billion in the black last year" and, I suspect, as he says, that “it’s not playing out very well because we have a surplus.”

It is wrong to say that government should be "run like a business" or that the national budget should be managed like your or my household budget, but I sense that many Canadians are afraid of deficits that seem unnecessary. It, proposing deficit financing for infrastructure, is another sort of beau risque, and I commend M Trudeau for taking it, but I doubt that M Trudeau's plan is well enough conceived (wrong kinds of spending in two out of three cases) and I am sure it would be badly delivered if we had a Liberal government.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Is Kathleen Wynne hedging her bets when she disputes "this notion . . . that I won’t be able to work with (NDP Leader Thomas) Mulcair or (Conservative Leader Stephen) Harper — that I will only be able to work with Justin Trudeau" and says that "it is my job as a premier of Ontario to work with whoever is the prime minister and I will do that?”

It should be obvious, of course, that a premier will work with whomever has power in Ottawa, but it sounds a bit like backfilling.

 

[Edward Campbell]

There is more bad news, more of those pesky "events," for the Conservatives. The Globe and Mail reports that the Trans Pacific trade deal, which would have been a very nice, shiny bauble to have in the last part of the election camapaign, is stalled, again, this time over Japanese rigidity on auto manufacturing. Advantage: NDP.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Is Kathleen Wynne hedging her bets when she disputes "this notion . . . that I won’t be able to work with (NDP Leader Thomas) Mulcair or (Conservative Leader Stephen) Harper — that I will only be able to work with Justin Trudeau" and says that "it is my job as a premier of Ontario to work with whoever is the prime minister and I will do that?” ....

Depends on what she was asked - from the article:

.... “It is my job as a premier of Ontario to work with whoever is the prime minister and I will do that,” she told the Star Friday.

“No matter who is the prime minister, I will stand up for the people of Ontario on Oct. 20.”

In her interview, Wynne would not say whether she would like to see Mulcair’s New Democrats and Trudeau’s Liberals topple Harper if the Conservatives fail to secure a majority in the 338-member Commons ....

In these situations, a question like "Could you work with the NDP or Conservatives if they win?" can be asked to see if anything OTHER than the "right" answer is given.  She's no more hedging her bets than any other Premier comitting to work with whoever won.

That said, if this is the newest information they could glean from an interview with the Premier, it's not a huge story - consider it the journalistic "goat" being fed.

 

[Edward Campbell]

David Akin, Sun News, continues to hammer M Trudeau for outright dishonesty is his response to the budgetary surplus news, in a column in the Sun chain in which he (Akin) says:
   
    "... he [Justin Trudeau] continues to insist, despite evidence to the contrary, that the surprise surplus for 2014-2015 that we learned about Monday is bogus because it came from cuts to funds earmarked for veterans,
    aboriginal Canadians and seniors.

    NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair had the good sense to respond to news of the surprise surplus by simply noting it would make things all that easier for a government he hopes to be leading after October 19.

    Not Trudeau. He wanted to argue for his own version of reality.

    “Mr. Harper has put us in deficit this year,” Trudeau said Monday when told of the surprise surplus. He said as much again Tuesday arguing that that silly Mulcair fellow was wrong for the job because all he would do would be to eliminate Harper’s deficit.

    Except Harper’s deficit is already gone."

 

[Edward Campbell]

Quite predictably, the Laurentian Elites' favourite spokesman, Jeffrey Simpson, tries to spin the budget surplus announcement into a deficit and recession because, he suggests, that's what it really should be in his column in the Globe amd Mail.

One thing about which he is correct: "The size of the Canadian economy is about $2-trillion. In that context, whether the federal budget shows a small deficit or a small surplus is almost totally irrelevant. Politically, the party leaders invest the budget number with inflated importance; economically, it doesn’t matter [and] What does matter is what, if anything, the federal government intends to do over the longer haul about structural challenges to the Canadian economy and the federation."

Prime Minister Harper promises "more of the same" ~ some stimulus spending on infastructure, especially urban mass/rapid transit, no tax hikes; M Mulcair promises to roll back some Conservative tax breaks and spend on e.g. affordable childcare; and M Trudeau, bravely, promises roll back the tax breaks and deficit financing to provide even more (than Harper) stimulus. The bigger difference is in trade and investment promises. On the record, the NDP are protectionist (which, as many of you know, I equate with stupid), the Conservatives are, generally, "reluctant free traders" and the Liberals are "neither fish nor fowl nor good red herring," they campaign on whatever they think will win votes and then govern according to whatever the Mandarins say.

 

[Remius]

There is more bad news, more of those pesky "events," for the Conservatives. The Globe and Mail reports that the Trans Pacific trade deal, which would have been a very nice, shiny bauble to have in the last part of the election camapaign, is stalled, again, this time over Japanese rigidity on auto manufacturing. Advantage: NDP.

That fell off my radar.  Yes, I suppose it will be a bit of a setback.  Most people I know aren't even aware of this.  I suspect it will add some fuel for the upcoming debate and allow the opposition to attack PM Harper on something (seeing how there is now a surplus).  This deal is important to teh CPC and Harper in particular, I'm not so sure it is that important to the average voter (it should be but I doubt they know enough to care one way or the other)

 

[Edward Campbell]

That fell off my radar.  Yes, I suppose it will be a bit of a setback.  Most people I know aren't even aware of this.  I suspect it will add some fuel for the upcoming debate and allow the opposition to attack PM Harper on something (seeing how there is now a surplus).  This deal is important to teh CPC and Harper in particular, I'm not so sure it is that important to the average voter (it should be but I doubt they know enough to care one way or the other)

Indeed, the Globe and Mail's debate, focused on the economy, is being broadcast tomorrow. You will be able to see/hear it on the Globe's "website at tgam.ca/debate, on The Globe and Mail iOS and Android apps, and on YouTube – The Globe’s channel as well as the YouTube Canada Election 2015 Hub."

But, I agree with you, this is not "top of mind" for 90% of Canadians ... pity.

 

[Remius]

And another one gone...http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-chris-austin-sturgeon-river-parkland-nomination-1.3230350

I wonder if we're seeing a record here.

 

[jollyjacktar]

You can bet your bottom dollar that the various parties will be doing a more thorough electronic scan of their numpties history in future elections.

 

[a_majoor]

Is Kathleen Wynne hedging her bets when she disputes "this notion . . . that I won’t be able to work with (NDP Leader Thomas) Mulcair or (Conservative Leader Stephen) Harper — that I will only be able to work with Justin Trudeau" and says that "it is my job as a premier of Ontario to work with whoever is the prime minister and I will do that?”

It should be obvious, of course, that a premier will work with whomever has power in Ottawa, but it sounds a bit like backfilling.

While one should hope that any preimier should be able and willing to work with the Federal Government, the fact that this premier has been pretty openly in the tank for the Young Dauphin makes what she says a bit problematic. Of course there are plenty of other reasons to be cautious or disbelieving about what this premier says....

 

[Brad Sallows]

A few months ago the PBO predicted a small deficit for FY 16, and it was Very Grave Important News used to flog the CPC for poor fiscal stewardship.  Now we have an equally small (magnitude) reported surplus for FY 15, and it is No Big Deal.  The NDP - as predicted - welcome the balance shift as a font of new funding to meet their election bribes, and Liberal supporters are either downplaying its significance or attacking it as something achieved "on the backs of <favourite cause here>".

First prize should go to Don Pittis at CBC for trying to argue that a $2B surplus in a $2T economy during a "recession" is some sort of incompetence.  If Stephen Gordon the economist is right about the nature of the current weak economy and how the Canadian economy responds to stimulus and austerity programs, then Pittis and others arguing the same points are very wrong.

Some people (mostly supporters of Trudeau's proposed deficit-financed spending) are back to arguing that perpetual deficit financing is OK, as long as it is below the rate of growth (ie. so that debt as a % of GDP does not increase).  What is left out is that GDP growth can slump, whereas public spending is difficult to turn off, and things can get out of hand in a hurry.  Also left out is that public spending can simply displace private spending, so that it amounts to economic mobilization.  Generally, economic mobilization - the direction of resources away from where people would choose to use them, in order to achieve a particular aim - is less efficient.

Re: Wynne and "it is my job as a premier of Ontario to work with whoever is the prime minister and I will do that".  "Work with" has to be more than "insult and beg money from".

 

[Edward Campbell]

In anticipation of tonights's Leaders' Debate (focused on the economy) hosted and sponsored by the Globe and Mail, the Ottawa Citizen, in this article which is reproduced, without further comment because I think it's pretty fair and balanced, under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act, takes a look at the state of the economy and the three leaders' key claims:

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/how-canada-compares-economically-with-other-countries

How Canada compares economically with other countries

JASON FEKETE, OTTAWA CITIZEN

Published on: September 16, 2015

Heading into Thursday’s federal leaders’ debate on the economy, Stephen Harper, Tom Mulcair and Justin Trudeau have all been spinning their own messages about Canada’s economic health.

Harper says Canada is an “island of stability” in increasingly choppy global economic waters; Mulcair says hundreds of thousands of lost manufacturing jobs are symptoms of a struggling economy; and Trudeau says the middle class is hurting under deep cuts to the economy and tax breaks for the wealthy.

How is Canada actually faring? What is the economic health of the country?

The Citizen looked as how Canada compares in a handful of key areas to other major economic players, according to data compiled by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD):

Projected Real GDP Growth in 2015:

United Kingdom: 2.4 per cent

United States: 2.4 per cent

Germany: 1.6 per cent

Euro area: 1.6 per cent

Canada: 1.1 per cent

France: 1.0 per cent

Italy: 0.7 per cent

Japan: 0.6 per cent

China: 6.7 per cent

India: 7.2 per cent

Brazil: -2.8 per cent

World: 3.0 per cent

Projected Real GDP Growth in 2016:

United States: 2.6 per cent

United Kingdom: 2.3 per cent

Canada: 2.1 per cent

Germany: 2.0 per cent

Euro area: 1.9 per cent

France: 1.4 per cent

Italy: 1.3 per cent

Japan: 1.2 per cent

China: 6.5 per cent

India: 7.3 per cent

Brazil: -0.7 per cent

World: 3.6 per cent

Real GDP Growth in 2014:

United Kingdom: 3.0 per cent

United States: 2.4 per cent

Canada: 2.4 per cent

Germany: 1.6 per cent

Euro area: 0.9 per cent

France: 0.2 per cent

Japan: -0.1 per cent

Italy: -0.4 per cent

China: 7.4 per cent

India: 7.2 per cent

Brazil: 0.2 per cent

World: 3.3 per cent

Employment:

Canada has experienced a “fairly solid” labour market recovery since the trough of the global recession, according to the OECD, with Canada’s 6.7-per-cent unemployment rate in the first quarter of 2015 only 0.8 percentage points higher than the pre-recession low. (Canada’s employment rate rose to 7.0 per cent in August, according to Statistics Canada data, as more people searched for work).

Also, Canada’s incidence of long-term unemployment – the share of those who have been searching for a job for more than one year – was 13.4 per cent in the last quarter of 2014, one of the lowest in the OECD, according to a July 2015 report.

Employment prospects of youth “are improving,” says the recent OECD employment outlook for Canada. The youth unemployment rate increased from 11.2 per cent prior to the 2008-09 economic crisis to 16 per cent at its peak in the third quarter of 2009. By the first quarter of 2015, youth unemployment in Canada had declined to 13 per cent, according to the OECD.

Statistics Canada’s August labour force survey said the unemployment rate among youths aged 15 to 24 was 13.1 per cent in August. On a year-over-year basis, there was little change in both the employment level and the unemployment rate for Canadian youths, according to Statistics Canada. However, the number of employed youths aged 15 to 24 has increased less than one per cent since mid-2009, say the Statistics Canada data, with a 12-per-cent drop in the number of employed youth aged 15 to 19 between June 2009 and August 2015.

Debt-to-GDP ratio:

A country’s debt-to-GDP ratio compares what a country owes to what it produces, and is a reflection of its ability to back its debts. The federal debt at the end of the 2014-15 fiscal year was $612.3 billion. (To put that in perspective, the annual federal budget is approximately $280 billion. The federal government just announced this week it posted a $1.9-billion surplus in the 2014-15 fiscal year.)

Canada’s federal debt as a percentage of GDP was 31 per cent in 2014-15, less than half of the post-Second World War peak of 67.1 per cent in 1996.

International comparisons of net debt are made on a national accounts basis. For Canada, that includes the net debt of federal, provincial/territorial and local governments, as well as net assets held in the Canada and Quebec pension plans. Canada’s total government net debt-to-GDP ratio was 40.4 per cent in 2014, the lowest among Group of 7 (G7) advanced economies and less than half the G7 average of 86.8 per cent of GDP (according to OECD data).

Inequality:

Wage inequality in Canada is “relatively high,” according to the OECD, with wages of workers toward the top end (the ninth of 10 equally divided groups of people) almost four times higher than those of workers toward the bottom (the first of 10 equally divided groups of people), and above the average ratio of other countries.

The OECD says wage inequality in Canada can be partly explained by the gap between the least and most skilled (which is third among 22 countries studied), and by the “relatively high returns” to skilled workers.

Additional investments in skills, “particularly for those who do not currently have many, would therefore help reduce wage inequality in Canada,” the OECD said in its July report.

Key claims – The Conservatives:

The prime minister regularly highlights that Canada has created almost 1.3 million net new jobs since the depth of the global recession in mid-2009, a claim backed up by Statistics Canada data.

There were approximately 16.7 million Canadians employed in June 2009, and that number increased to almost 18 million in August 2015 (7.7 per cent increase), says Statistics Canada. Approximately 81 per cent of jobs in Canada last month were full-time.

The number of full-time jobs in Canada has increased 9.3 per cent since mid-2009, according to Statistics Canada data, while the number of part-time jobs has increased 1.5 per cent.

Key claims – The NDP:

Canada has lost 400,000 manufacturing jobs since Stephen Harper took office in 2006, says NDP Leader Tom Mulcair.

The NDP, when citing the lost manufacturing jobs, points to Statistics Canada labour force survey data, which list approximately 2.1 million jobs in Canadian manufacturing in mid-2006, compared to approximately 1.7 million manufacturing jobs in mid-2015.

Key claims – the Liberals:

The federal government’s new income-splitting plan for couples with children is a tax break for the rich and will benefit the wealthiest 15 per cent of Canadians the most, says Justin Trudeau.

The federal parliamentary budget officer, in a report released in March, concluded the new income-splitting plan for families with children will benefit about 15 per cent of Canadian households – mostly high- and middle-high income – and cost the government approximately $2.2 billion in 2015. Lower-income households will get virtually no benefit, while approximately 11 million Canadian households, or 85 per cent, won’t benefit from the tax break, the PBO said.

Debate on the Economy

The Globe and Mail leaders’ debate on the economy will be livestreamed at ottawacitizen.com Thursday beginning at 8 p.m.