The Canadian Federal Election will probably be October 14th

[Asher]

Common sense legislation:

PM pledges Internet, gas pump protection

THE CANADIAN PRESS

VICTORIA–The Conservatives say they would introduce an anti-Internet spam law under a wide-ranging series of promises to protect consumers.

Stephen Harper said today that he would also make it illegal for cellphone companies to charge fees for unsolicited text messages, and increase inspections at gas stations to combat pump-tampering.

The Tories say they would increase the maximum penalty for deceptive marketing by 20 times, from the current $50,000 fine to $1 million.

They also promise to almost triple the maximum prison sentence for cartels and bid-rigging, to 14 years, and set fines of up to $25 million.

The Tories say that Canada remains the only G8 country without anti-Internet spam legislation.

They say they would introduce an omnibus bill to make it illegal for a company to use deceptive Internet practices, like using spam emails to collect personal information under false pretences.

As for gas-pump tampering, the Tories say that nearly a third of stations have a defective pump and that customers are sometimes severely overcharged.

They promise to increase Measurement Canada's inspection budget, increase fines for first-time offenders to $5,000 from $1,000, and set a maximum penalty for repeat offenders at $50,000.

"We are a party that believes in free enterprise, free trade and free markets – these things form the cornerstone of our prosperity," Harper said.

"But they do not absolve government from obligations to the population."

Referring to gas-pump tampering, he promised a Conservative government would "ensure that drivers who pay for a litre of gas receive a full litre."

Added Harper: "Whether it's spam, price-fixing, gas-pump tampering, or anti-competitive behaviour more generally, Canadian consumers expect their government to take action and achieve results."

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Also Wezil, what happens to our bet if the conservatives get more seats than the libs but there's a lib/ndp alliance?

As I recall the bet was who wins the most seats. I guess we could search for the thread if it becomes an issue.

I personally hope it does. You would hear my gut laugh from one end of the country to the other if Harper won most seats then immediately lost a confidence motion setting up a Coalition government. That would be so sweet.

Asher - Nope. No substance until you man up and aknowledge the points already made.

[Asher]

You're not seeing me complain about your lack of posting. Don't worry.

[Wezil]

Asher - No doubt. I call you on your lies.

Oncle - I found the thread....

Okay then.

I state Dion will not win the next election and become PM.

If he does I will display an avatar of your choice for 6 months(?).

If he does not you will display an avatar of my choice for 6 months.

You added the provisoes that both must still be leader of their parties at the time of the vote.

Therefore, it seems to me I win if Harper wins most seats and forms a government, even if he is immediately toppled. Now, if he doesn't form the government but a Coalition is formed instead, then you would win. Agree or no?

From this thread:

http://www.apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?threadid=160107&perpage=30&pagenumber=5

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wezil
Asher - No doubt. I call you on your lies.

No, you just become insanely spammy and pedantic. You take a quote from a party loyalist who was not a party leader espousing his party's position to be his own personal position. Not sure what to call that if not naive.

[Wezil]

Still can't admit you were wrong? Too bad.

It's why this thread has little solid debate. The best debate thus far has come from Flubber, Kontiki, Victor and others. Discussions that didn't involve you.

What have you been doing? The usual - attacking sources and avoiding issues. You are turning into such a bore. It's unfortunate b/c you are obviously an intelligent man.

[Asher]

You made your case, I made mine, you think I'm wrong, I think you're wrong. You're throwing a tantrum because I don't agree with you. Get over it.

The simple fact is Harper has been PM for quite a while now and hasn't at all indicated, while he's had the power to do so, he'd get involved in Iraq.

You're debating "what ifs" as if they're facts, and now you have the balls to say I'm avoiding the issues. I'm the one here more than happy to post and reply, you're the one crossing your arms and refusing from enterting a discussion -- and I'm the one avoiding issues. Classic.

[Asher]

The Star ran the article on Harper's anti-spam, text message charge, and pump protection laws for less than 30 minutes on their frontpage.

They've now replaced it with two articles:

Harper an 'economic incompetent,' Dion charges

Women's groups accuse Tories of anti-abortion agenda

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Asher

It is widely known that gasoline for cars is exempt from the green shift. Doing so would raise the price of driving further, which would then lower demand for automobiles...

It's not so much the auto plants are explicitly exempt, it's that there has been subsidies announced to "aid" the trucking industry (which is a major part of auto manufacturing, if you did not know) and no additional tax on gasoline for cars (even though this is one of the country's largest polluters). The Liberals are ensuring that they minimize the impact of the Green Shift on the auto-manufacturing industry by sheltering it from decreasing demand due to the green shift, and subsidizing its trucking operations (since the diesel tax will increase trucking costs).

It has already been said that the current gasoline tax is already to the order of $40 per ton of CO2.

Right now, the diesel tax is 4 cents a liter. Dion wants to increase it to 11, which would make the diesel tax similar to the gasoline one (10 cents).

And I haven't heard that Dion promised to subsidize the trucking industry. When did he say that?

[Victor Galis]

http://community.investopedia.com/news/IA/2008/Canadian_Election_Could_Be_A_Matter_of_Trusts_BTE_HTE_PVX.aspx?partner=YahooSA

With a historic and lively presidential election campaign under way in the United States, it's entirely understandable that the vast majority of the American public has very little interest in the general election currently taking place in Canada.



However, for a not-so-small group of U.S. investors who have placed their bets over the years on the widely followed Canadian energy trusts, many of which are inter-listed on U.S. exchanges and include companies like Baytex Energy Trust (NYSE:BTE), Harvest Energy Trust (NYSE:HTE), Provident Energy Trust (NYSE:PVX) and Pengrowth Energy Trust (NYSE:PGH), it may be worth showing more than passing interest to how things are proceeding north of the border.

Why?

Because the party that gains the upper hand in the Canadian Parliament could have a direct bearing on the ability of this group to continue paying out distribution yields that in some cases exceed 18%.

Trust Tax Deadline Just Over Two Years Away
Back in October 2006, the then-Conservative government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper shocked Canadian investors with a surprise announcement that it would be altering the tax rules that allowed Canadian trust entities to avoid paying corporate-level taxes. By avoiding corporate-level taxation, the trusts were able to increase their payouts significantly, producing yields that were sometimes in the double-digit range. The new tax rules will make the trusts fully taxable by the end of 2010 – a little more than two years away. (Interested in the subject of taxes? Check out Using Tax Lots: A Way To Minimize Taxes.)

As things now stand, the trusts have two basic choices: convert back to the corporate structure that means paying corporate taxes and slashing payouts and yields, or sell out to another entity, preferably at a premium. While those Canadian trusts opting for the former option have seen their share prices plunge, a good example of the latter can be seen in the recent sale announcement of Fording Canadian Coal Trust (NYSE:FDG) assets to Teck Cominco (NYSE:TCK). Fording unit holders managed to get a price about 17% over the pre-deal market price of Fording shares.

The fact that deals like Fording come more than two years before the trust deadline reveals the extent to which some players in this drama see little chance that the Canadian government will ever reverse or modify its decision on trusts. There is a sliver of hope, however.

In Canadian Politics, Sometimes The Unexpected Can Happen
While it's currently behind in the national polls, the Canadian Liberal party has consistently gone on record in favor of reducing the corporate tax burden set to be imposed on the trusts from 31.5% to 10%. It also has supported efforts by the Coalition of Canadian Energy Trusts that call for an investigation of Conservatives' claims that trust structures cause “tax leakage”.

While it's a longshot bet at this point that Liberals can form the next government, in the sometimes-contradictory world of Canadian politics - where a fellow Conservative like the populist Premier of Newfoundland Danny Williams is actively campaigning for Harper's defeat - anything seems possible. As was summed up in a recent piece in the New York Times, the Conservatives have everything needed to win but are not winning, while the Liberals have everything needed to lose but are not losing.

If the Conservatives fail to consolidate their power with a majority win this time around, that could set the stage for another contest a year or so out, during which they might be inclined to roll back their decision on trusts. This move would play to the natural Conservative constituencies of Western Canadian oilmen and income-oriented retirees, who were badly burned when the surprise announcement on trusts was made in 2006 and are not likely to vote Conservative until they see some redress.

The Final Word
Like the rest of the oil and gas sector, the recent sharp pullback in energy prices has pummeled the inter-listed energy trusts. While a rebound in oil and gas prices as we approach winter would be the natural catalyst for a revival in this group's fortunes, failure by the Conservatives to win a majority could provide an additional tailwind to a group that looks decidedly oversold at this juncture. (Want to learn more about the oil patch? Check out Oil And Gas Industry Primer.)

Why do the conservatives want Ottawa to take my money?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


It has already been said that the current gasoline tax is already to the order of $40 per ton of CO2.

Right now, the diesel tax is 4 cents a liter. Dion wants to increase it to 11, which would make the diesel tax similar to the gasoline one (10 cents).

And I haven't heard that Dion promised to subsidize the trucking industry. When did he say that?

http://www.canada.com/theprovince/story.html?id=49499a54-fedc-4785-956d-1dd081825bac

WINNIPEG - Liberal Leader Stephane Dion plans to propose extra breaks for farmers, truckers and fishermen to buffer the impact of fuel price hikes under his Green Shift carbon tax proposal, an election campaign centrepiece.

The list of industries getting breaks under the Green Shift are the ones where he hopes to be winning votes. The more "breaks" he keeps adding, the more blatant the wealth redistribution shift becomes.

He's not helping the environment, he's taxing some regions and providing breaks to the others. If he's concerned about the environment, he'd tax gasoline more to drive down automobile demand and use and not increase the tax of diesel, which is used by public transportation and newer model fuel efficient vehicles...

[Flubber]

Wezil

Debate me if you want . Only problem is that I might simply agree with half the anti-Harper stuff you might say. I don't have a real genuine liking for any of the parties right now.

Where I am

Liberals-- I like them least of all the parties. I am not yet over all their years of corruption and do not view Stefan Dion as an effective leader. I see the Green Shift Plan as a typical attempt by liberals to use tax money to purchase votes and don't see much green in it. Can't you pollute all you want if you simply payb the tax? If you actually want to cut emissions I, by far, prefer cap and trade systems where there are actual limits to emissions. I think to give people an allowance of allowed emissions which then shrinks year by year is more reasonable and reflects the fact that most "big polluters" are creating the power and energy that we all use. The green shift plan constantly refers to the polluters as a "them" as if they were somehow separate and apart from the population.

Conservatives-- don't agree with them on gay marriage (or on abortion either) but don't see them as defining issues. In a still relatively decent economy I do like traditional conservative economic policies-- let business do business-- but am concerned if Ben is correct and that hasn't been reflected in some decreased government spending-- Coming from Newfoundland I have seen the absolute harm that can be caused to people and communities when reliance on certain social programs becomes the norm-- I also find Harper about as personable as mannequin with a broomstick up his butt although his sweater clad commercials where he speaks soft platitudes are ok


NDP-- I like them in spite of myself-- I like ideologically motivated folks I guess. I like Jack Layton. At any given time there even seems to be between 10 and 50% of their platform that I can totally agree with. But then theres some stuff I don't like and usually a few things that I see as impractical silly ideologues being themselves . I also wonder at the competence of his people (not that the Cons or Libs have ever dazzled me ) But many NDPers have a lifetime of "opposing", raising concerns or even tilting at windmills-- I wonder how they would do when they actually have to decide things. Its all nice in opposition to say 'lets shut down the big polluters" but if you are governing and then realize that doing just that means the lights go out in Ontario and Quebec -- its a different story. So as usual I am wanting the NDP to do well, win a bunch of seats but really don't want them ever controlling government policy

Green-- Ditto much of the NDP stuff-- They have less of a history here but they probably are sucking away the lefty libs or NDP votes-- I actually think that the sensible thing to do would be for the NDP and Greens to join together (GDP anyone?)

Bloc ?-- The irony of electing avowed separatists to the federal legislature is still delicious after all these years


Based on everything I would probably most like a small conservative majority with the NDP and Greens gaining seats and the Liberals finally getting spanked for their years of corruption. Decimation of the bloc would be nice too.

Why? I don't think harper is as rightist as some people portray and I really want to see what he can do with the ability to actually govern. The reality is that most of his MPs would be of the former PC mold and I don't for a second believe they would support anything too radical regardless of the tradition of party discipline. I am not super-enthusiastic with this wish and its more about not liking the Liberals, not seeing the lefties as a real viable alternative, and not liking more minority gamesmenship that could see us at the polls again soon. So my view is simply lets give Harper a chance.

Since I'm in a Calgary West that is conservative, my personal vote won't matter much. But since my local conservative candidate is not good I might end up voting Green or NDP. I understand that a party gets some funding for each vote so at least I can make my vote count that way.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Victor Galis




Why do the conservatives want Ottawa to take my money?

Intersting for me is that a conservative government which those Star letter writers are accusing of giving tax braks to corporations are still getting slammed for the income trust decision. Put simply, if the conservatives had not made the decision they did, the concept of corporate taxation would have disappeared from the Canadian tax scheme. The tax advantage was so extreme that the 5 major chartered banks and ALL the major oil and gas companies were at least looking at converting to trusts.

Unchecked the actual corporate entity would pretty much disappear as ALL business would have been by trust. If you want no corporate taxes, why not just abolish them instead of making everyone convert to a trust.

The conservatives decision on this matter was right at the time, its right today and its right tomorrow. Their error on this issue was in ever commiting to do otherwise

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Flubber
Wezil

Debate me if you want .

I would be glad to Flubber. I have always found you to be a quality poster and you are intellectually honest to boot.

Only problem is that I might simply agree with half the anti-Harper stuff you might say. I don't have a real genuine liking for any of the parties right now.

We can talk about any party. I hate them all at the moment.

Liberals-- I like them least of all the parties. I am not yet over all their years of corruption and do not view Stefan Dion as an effective leader. I see the Green Shift Plan as a typical attempt by liberals to use tax money to purchase votes and don't see much green in it. Can't you pollute all you want if you simply payb the tax? If you actually want to cut emissions I, by far, prefer cap and trade systems where there are actual limits to emissions. I think to give people an allowance of allowed emissions which then shrinks year by year is more reasonable and reflects the fact that most "big polluters" are creating the power and energy that we all use. The green shift plan constantly refers to the polluters as a "them" as if they were somehow separate and apart from the population.

The "Green Shift" was an incredibly stupid policy for Dion to trot out. It has become even more so with the economic uncertainty rising the past few weeks. A campaign killer to be sure.

As to "cap and trade" plans it would appear they are not working where they have been implemented. I confess this is not an area I know much about so to me it is a big

My problem with the policy is that Dion seems to be making assertions about the plan which are absurd on the face. For example: He claims we need to change behaviour on "bad" things yet the policy shift won't actually cost the taxpayer any more than we pay now. If it won't cost me any more then why should I change?

In the end I agree with your premise that the plan is more political than economical. As someone (NYE?) said earlier - it was only a matter of time before Ottawa came after the oil wealth. Not surprising it would be the Libs.

I want to break the Conservative paragraph into smaller bits...

Conservatives-- don't agree with them on gay marriage (or on abortion either) but don't see them as defining issues.

I agree those issues in particular aren't "defining" but the impression the Cons would delve deeper into their social conservative roots (given a majority) is the problem for the party in some places.

In a still relatively decent economy I do like traditional conservative economic policies-- let business do business-- but am concerned if Ben is correct and that hasn't been reflected in some decreased government spending--

Ben is correct. (No really, he is ). Spending by this government is way up. They haven't gone into deficit yet (that we know of anyway) but it could certainly be around the corner.

In a related issue - the Cons have agreed to have the estimates for the Afghanistan mission released during the campaign (this req'd all party agreement and the Cons didn't want to be seen as hiding the number). It will be interesting to see if the cost is anywhere close to what we have been told.

Coming from Newfoundland I have seen the absolute harm that can be caused to people and communities when reliance on certain social programs becomes the norm--

No argument here. I am a fiscal conservative.

I also find Harper about as personable as mannequin with a broomstick up his butt although his sweater clad commercials where he speaks soft platitudes are ok

I heard a wag talking about Harper and his sweaters early in the campaign. Something to the affect of "I haven't seen Harper this warm and fuzzy since he shook his young son's hand on the 1st day of school".

I think the makeover is rather cynical and I suspect others feel the same.

You didn't mention leadership and style of government. This is of course my major complaint with Harper (as you know). He ran on the big plank of openness/accountability/transparency in the last vote which were things desperately needed after the malaise of the former government. Unfortunately I must have missed Harper's small print in the promise which stated he would actually provide less not more of these things. The concentration of power in the PMO under this PM is unprecedented. Canada is too big and too damn cold to be a banana republic. Someone needs to tell Harper.

NDP-- I like them in spite of myself-- I like ideologically motivated folks I guess. I like Jack Layton. At any given time there even seems to be between 10 and 50% of their platform that I can totally agree with. But then theres some stuff I don't like and usually a few things that I see as impractical silly ideologues being themselves . I also wonder at the competence of his people (not that the Cons or Libs have ever dazzled me ) But many NDPers have a lifetime of "opposing", raising concerns or even tilting at windmills-- I wonder how they would do when they actually have to decide things. Its all nice in opposition to say 'lets shut down the big polluters" but if you are governing and then realize that doing just that means the lights go out in Ontario and Quebec -- its a different story. So as usual I am wanting the NDP to do well, win a bunch of seats but really don't want them ever controlling government policy

Yeah, we are in agreement on the NDP. They truly believe what they are trying to sell but most of us see them as just plain nutty.

The experience (or lack thereof) of their members is a legit concern. We saw that in Ontario with Rae. He had a Cabinet full of incompetents.

I do find their current strategy of running for 2nd place to be intriguing. This approach leads me to believe an NDP/Lib coalition is a distinct possibility in the next Parliament. Again, we have seen it in this province before (the Peterson government before Rae only took power b/c of their coalition with the NDP) so to see it happen Federally wouldn't be a stretch. Layton needs a strong showing in the vote to pull this off and have any sort of real influence in the coalition, hence the push to beat the Libs in the general election. Again

Green-- Ditto much of the NDP stuff-- They have less of a history here but they probably are sucking away the lefty libs or NDP votes-- I actually think that the sensible thing to do would be for the NDP and Greens to join together (GDP anyone?)

The Greens took most of the Conservatives they were going to get before the last vote. New support will be from the left.

I don't think the Greens and NDP would be a great fit due to their opposite economic positions. Greens are to the right and the NDP dress left. The Greens are a threat to the NDP with environment voters however but quite frankly politicians don't win (or lose) elections on that issue. Too many other things are more important to the voters.

I have a problem with May. She has (is working on) a Masters in Imaginary Beings. I am not convinced she is sane. It should make for an interesting debate however.

Bloc ?-- The irony of electing avowed separatists to the federal legislature is still delicious after all these years

20 years now. Long enough to collect a sizable pension from Ottawa. They came to Ottawa to prove Parliament didn't work. Hmmm.

Based on everything I would probably most like a small conservative majority with the NDP and Greens gaining seats and the Liberals finally getting spanked for their years of corruption. Decimation of the bloc would be nice too.

This election is killing me. I don't like any of them and will spoil my ballot. I'm in a strong NDP riding (London/Fanshaw) where the incumbent will win. If I had any fear of a Conservative winning the riding I would vote NDP for the 1st time in my life but it won't happen. I guess I am ABC.

Why? I don't think harper is as rightist as some people portray and I really want to see what he can do with the ability to actually govern. The reality is that most of his MPs would be of the former PC mold and I don't for a second believe they would support anything too radical regardless of the tradition of party discipline. I am not super-enthusiastic with this wish and its more about not liking the Liberals, not seeing the lefties as a real viable alternative, and not liking more minority gamesmenship that could see us at the polls again soon. So my view is simply lets give Harper a chance.

Not me. I've seen enough. It's why I like the idea of a coalition government with the Conservatives on the outside. Let them come back when they mean what they say. Nothing I would enjoy more than to see the Cons win most seats but have to sit in Opposition. It would be a more accurate reflection of the public will as more people will vote against Harper than for him. Bring a little PR to our FPTP system if you will.

Since I'm in a Calgary West that is conservative, my personal vote won't matter much. But since my local conservative candidate is not good I might end up voting Green or NDP. I understand that a party gets some funding for each vote so at least I can make my vote count that way.

Good point.

You know, if "None of the Above" was (were?) listed on the ballot I suspect they would win.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Asher




The list of industries getting breaks under the Green Shift are the ones where he hopes to be winning votes. The more "breaks" he keeps adding, the more blatant the wealth redistribution shift becomes.

It was pretty blatant from the outset. When a green plan spends paragraphs talking about why tax credits should be refundable (ie so people that don't pay tax get a cheque), you have strayed pretty far from an environmental plan.

The environmental plan of Dion's proposal is actually pretty simple-- put a tax on those things that cause emissions-- that about covers it