The “natural governing party” was the only party in Tuesday’s election to see its votes and support plummet, with Toronto being the last remaining holdout still beholden to the former Big Red Machine. Under Mr. Dion’s leadership the party moved to the far left and ignored the crucial centre ground. As Canada’s national newspaper The Globe and Mail puts it, “Liberals need to revive that nearly extinct animal, the blue Liberal.”

Blue Liberal, Red Tory – six of one and half a dozen of another. In the increasingly splintered political landscape today, the only way to obtain a majority, or a strong minority, leads right through the centre, the middle ground occupied by Blue Liberals and Red Tories. Red Liberals and Blue Tories really do not stand a chance in Canada, as either one is anathema to the vast majority of Canadian voters.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has therefore gone the route of incrementalism, moving from a once-deep-blue Tory to a pinkish-looking Tory – going by his liberal spending habits. Mr. Dion, by contrast, went in the opposite direction, painting himself as a crimson-red Liberal. This is why Mr. Harper is back on the job, while Mr. Dion is facing calls from his own party to resign.

Mr. Dion is known for his stubbornness, which will make it difficult to remove him from the helm of the party. In fact, the very act of removing him, with his arms and legs spread out so as to avoid being pushed out the door and leaving deep scratch marks in the door jamb, will probably add to the party’s unending string of embarrassments.

But go he must, as most Liberals agree, and so the process of recruiting a new leader must begin. Their search will most likely start with the “leftovers” of the previous leadership contest: Michael Ignatieff, Bob Rae, Martha Hall-Findlay and Gerard Kennedy. Since election night, the names of John Manley and Frank McKenna have also been added to the list.

There is no doubt about Mr. Ignatieff’s Liberal credentials. But apart from being perfectly bilingual and generally quite coherent, he would merely be a slightly improved upgrade from Mr. Dion. Both are Ivory Tower shut-ins with an underdeveloped sense of reality. As was true of Mr. Dion, so it must also be assumed that Mr. Ignatieff would view his position as prime minister as a social experiment, with Canadians acting as his lab rats, which would provide ample material for a new political science paper or book years later. This academic approach to active politics and government is usually quite dangerous and should be discouraged at all cost.

Mr. Rae is still haunted by his time as Ontario premier and the economic havoc wrought under his government. In addition, too many Liberals still eye him with suspicion, because they do not really believe that he has left his NDP past (and ideology) entirely behind him. Like Mr. Ignatieff, Mr. Rae, too, is seen as “damaged goods”, because he failed to win the leadership the last time. After the ordeal Liberals have just been through with Mr. Dion, the party will probably want to play it safe with fresh blood, rather than warming up last night’s dinner.

The “king-maker” of the last leadership vote, Mr. Kennedy, is no longer the star he was two years ago. Since conceding to Mr. Dion too early on in the leadership election, he has kept an extremely low profile both in and outside the party. What is more, many Liberals hold him personally responsible for the disaster that was Mr. Dion’s leadership, and if there is one thing people know about the Liberal Party, it is that Liberals can bear a grudge like no other.

Ms. Hall-Findlay’s chances are possibly the best of all the former leadership candidates. Having seen Hillary Clinton’s run for the presidency in the United States, Liberals may find it “cool” to replicate the experiment of putting a woman in charge of the party. However, Ms. Hall-Findlay was the first contender to be eliminated from the leadership vote at the Montréal convention, which leaves considerable doubt as to the potential support she may be able to obtain as party leader.

This is where John Manley and Frank McKenna come in. Both are brilliant politicians, who also happen to have a keen sense for all things financial and economic. Both are Blue Liberals who could help the party regain the all-important political centre.

Mr. Manley, a former finance minister, wrote an article for the Globe and Mail over a year ago that proved that he understands how the economy works – or should work. In it he chastened the manufacturing sector of Ontario for its lack of productivity and innovation. According to Mr. Manley, the entire sector had been relying for their profits solely on a low Canadian dollar, instead of building up their strength for the future. He concluded his piece by saying that, with the Canadian dollar reaching par with the U.S. dollar, Ontario manufacturers should not cry him a river and ask for government assistance when they had squandered plenty of opportunities to become more innovative and productive.

A former, long-serving provincial premier, Mr. McKenna enjoys great popularity in Liberal circles and across the country. Currently heading up one of Canada’s main banks, he also acted as ambassador to the United States. With him leading the Liberal Party, it is believed, the party could, indeed, become the Big Red Machine all over again.

Interestingly enough, both Mr. Manley and Mr. McKenna were asked to run in the 2006 leadership race, but declined. Within the first 24 hours of the Liberal defeat on Tuesday, however, both gentlemen intimated that, this time, they may be available to give it a go. The Liberals had better hope that this is true, because from the current short list, only these two stand a chance of rebuilding the party and making it electable again outside the Toronto city limits.

While the election may have produced a result that is only slightly different from the last parliament, there have been some interesting developments at riding level. Trudeau scion Justin won his seat in Montréal under the Liberal banner, and is already being traded on the rumour mill as a potential leadership candidate to follow in his famous father’s footsteps. Garth Turner, a former Conservative, then Liberal, MP, has been defeated in his Ontario riding – too bad for his constituents, but certainly a boon for the fans of his blog, as Mr. Turner will now be a free agent who can speak his mind without any fetters imposed by party discipline.

Alberta, always considered a “Tory fortress” in the “stranglehold of Conservatives”, has made a bit of history of its own by electing an NDP candidate, Linda Duncan, in an Edmonton riding. It goes to show that Albertans, who are actually not conservatives, but either small-liberals or outright libertarians, can vote outside the Conservative box, as long as it involves a party other than the federal Liberals.

The opposition parties have been quick to laugh at Mr. Harper and his latest “failure” to obtain a majority government, but realistically, the Conservatives will have a de facto majority for at least two years. The Liberals are in disarray and abundantly discouraged. Instead of rushing headlong into another leadership race, which produced the current albatross of a leader, Stéphane Dion, inside sources are saying that this time they want to take their time to rebuild the party and recruit a real and effective leader.

Apart from the Liberals’ troubles, Mr. Harper’s position is further strengthened by the two independent MPs elected to the House of Commons, who are both conservatives and who will be voting with the Conservative government on 99.9% of all matters before the House, thus making them part of the Tory caucus.

In Mr. Harper’s own words, the last parliament had become “dysfunctional”, which prompted him to call for an election. In view of the composition of the next parliament, voters have reason to hope that it will produce good results for Canadians. As Mr. Layton put it, “No party has a mandate to implement an agenda without agreement from the other parties.” So, the next parliament could, indeed, come to be defined by compromise and consensus and thus achieve real results for Canadians. Coalition governments in several European countries have regularly worked quite well – including those between conservatives and social democrats – and there is no reason to suspect that such a co-operative approach to government could not work in Canada.

Whichever form the next legislature takes, the Liberals will play only a very diminished role in it, if any at all, for the next two years or so. Changing leaders will not be enough. The party will have to undergo a root-and-branch reform and rebuilding effort from the ground up. The Liberals must also face up to the new reality of Canada: the centre of gravity has moved to Western Canada, as pundit and journalist Andrew Coyne noted on CBC last night as well, with the westward shift fully under way, which the Liberals have ignored at their own peril.

The first one is Calgary Northeast. This riding, which used to belong to Art Hanger, who is retiring from politics, is the scene of conservative infighting between the official Conservative candidate, Devinder Shory, and an independent conservative contender, Roger Richard. The battle between them has been anything but benign, with injunctions and other legal threats being traded liberally.

This could result in the same split of the vote on the right in this riding that was also instrumental in allowing the Liberals three majority governments under Jean Chrétien when the right was divided into Tories and Reform.

It’s a story as old as time: when two are engaged in battle like this, it is usually a third that comes up the middle and takes the prize – in this case, Liberal candidate Sanam Kang, for example. But the riding may also go to the Green Party candidate or the NDP. The only thing that the two conservative candidates have going for them is that the candidates of the other parties don’t seem too capable or promising, which may limit voters’ choices to Shory and Richard.

The other riding that warrants close attention is Edmonton-Strathcona. Here, the Tory incumbent is facing off against a strong NDP candidate, Linda Duncan. Duncan has enjoyed great momentum, as documented by Liberals4Linda, a blog of Liberals who have decided to endorse and vote for Duncan.

There is no real threat to Conservatives in any of the other 26 ridings, which will be won by the Conservatives by five-digit margins – as usual – including, unfortunately, Calgary West, where the always-absent and abrasive Conservative incumbent should have been removed from office a long time ago. So, in Calgary West, people’s hopes are that Jennifer Pollock can pull it off and restore democracy in the riding at long last.

After each question, the studio audience votes on who they thought answered the question most expertly and truthfully. The results are revealed before the next round starts. At the end, the audience is asked to vote on the final winner based on his or her performance throughout the entire townhall meeting.

In the Vancouver edition, for example, Adriane Carr, of the Green Party, was declared the debate’s winner, at around 40%, with the Conservative candidate coming in second place. The NDP and Liberal candidates finished last.

What is most remarkable about this format is summed up by the host: “This is about keeping an open mind and listening to what the various parties have to say about their platforms. This is to demonstrate how democracy should work, where people with preconceived ideas are willing to listen and be swayed by facts and information alone, rather than voting for the same party that one has always voted for.”

Indeed, this is how democracy should work. People who engage in “generational” voting – because parents and grandparents have voted the same way too – or “strategic” voting – with the democratic process being corrupted – are not helping democracy along at all. If a person’s vote is determined by how “grandpa” voted fifty years ago, it is hardly an informed decision. Similarly, when groups urge voters to vote strategically, it becomes a vote against, instead of for, something or someone, and this is not a healthy approach to democracy either.

The CBC program X-Challenge demonstrated beautifully how voters’ views can be changed if politicians and voters are given a fair opportunity to listen to one another. About forty per cent of the studio audience did actually change their minds by the end of the debate.

What is more, the candidates participating in the debate were humanized – unlike the leaders’ debates, where the prime minister and opposition leaders sat around a table and verbally assaulted each other with mostly non-facts, the candidates in this debate format were able to show more of their personal side and engage each other, as well as the audience members, in an overall more pleasant, congenial and open manner than was possible in the televised leaders’ debates. As a matter of fact, it worked so well that as a viewer one could not help but like, and root for, all the candidates.

Liberal MP Ujjal Dosanjh, who represented his party in the Vancouver edition of the program, did finish in third place, but of all the Liberals across the country, including Liberal leader Stéphane Dion, he was the first Liberal to explain the Green Shift plan with true, heartfelt, and infectious, passion – and in a way that (almost) made sense. Maybe Mr. Dosanjh should be tapped as a potential leadership candidate after the October 14 election.

X-Challenge is a great example of democracy at work and should serve as a wakeup call and role model for all voters on how to arrive at that crucial decision in the voting booth: people should forget how their grandparents voted and ignore calls for “strategic” voting. Instead, they should listen, keep an open mind, and educate themselves on the issues and party platforms.

In future, too, the Canadian TV networks would do well to change the leaders’ debates to the X-Challenge format. Seeing the political leaders debate each other in such an engaging and captivating setting may even prompt more voters to head out to the polls on election day and, thus, boost turnout.

Of the 17 people who firmed up how they’re going to vote in the last week of the campaign, 41 per cent picked the Greens, 24 per cent are headed to the NDP, and 18 per cent plan to back the Conservatives. The Greens are also the top choice for 34 voters who haven’t yet made up their minds. Stephane Dion’s Liberals, however, trail all parties among the survey’s decided and undecided voters.

That poll, of course is anything but scientific and representative, but it’s quite interesting all the same. It may, however, reveal traces of a very general trend. Then again, it’s not really news that Liberals finish dead last in Alberta, particularly in Calgary.

In those heady days the Liberal Party attracted a considerable number of people who had never been members of the party, or even voted for it, before. I was one of them. In Alberta, building a new movement or political party from scratch is in our blood. The Reform Party, for example, was a product of this passion so typical of Albertans. For me, therefore, it was a great opportunity to be part of a process that would breathe new life into an old and stale party that had long forgotten its roots.

Albertans are often erroneously labelled as conservatives when, in fact, they are small-l liberals in the traditional sense: protecting people’s freedoms and ensuring that every individual can unfold his or her full potential, while keeping government and its reach to a reasonable level and cracking down on those whose excesses of freedom, such as criminal activity, make it impossible for others to enjoy their freedoms. In that sense, and in that sense only, I am a liberal. As far as I am concerned, a party that uses the word “liberal” in its name must live up to those principles.

Hearing a lot of positive voices about renewing and rebuilding the Liberal Party, I was drawn in and became determined to do my share to help the party find its way back, as well as forward, to true liberalism. Some of the initial names bandied about for leadership did, indeed, instil hope that things were moving along in the right direction: Martha Hall Findlay, Gerard Kennedy or Michael Ignatieff. Eventually I plumped for Kennedy and even put myself up as a candidate to run as a delegate for him.

It was then that I noticed the first signs that the powers that be that controlled the reins of the party were not really willing to change their old and outdated ways. On the day delegates were elected, I came across a name on the ballot that should not have been there: one of the party’s top-tier functionaries was running as well, even though as a high-level office holder in the party’s hierarchy, she did not have to – she had already been designated as an ex-officio delegate by virtue of her office and position. This struck me as disingenuous and an attempt to manipulate the process.

Tilting at windmills
Despite receiving a good number of votes, I did not make it on to my riding’s list of delegates. There were complex formulas in place for ensuring that there was a certain number of men and women as well as senior citizens. Regardless, Kennedy’s delegates took the biggest chunk of the votes, so I was pleased. It did not matter to me whether I would go to the convention in Montréal as a delegate myself or not; what was important was that Kennedy had strong support, and he did.

We all know how things turned out on that fateful day of December 2, 2006. Kennedy threw in the towel way too soon and thus paved the way for Stéphane Dion to take the leadership crown. In hindsight, I have to admit that I was wrong about Kennedy. He quickly learned, apparently, to fit in with the old apparatchiks of the party, play by their rules and repeat their established mantra like a “good boy”. In all fairness to Kennedy, though, I believe he was genuine in his determination to bring change to the party at first, but later realized that he was fighting windmills and gave up (or became assimilated).

The same is probably true of Michael Ignatieff, who, based on his books and essays, is probably the closest the party has to a liberal in the classical sense, but he, too, has been sucked into the Old Liberal Party. He may show his true colours again one day if he manages to become party leader, at which point he could set the course and put his imprint on the party, instead of having to chant with the rest of them in unison to hedge his bets for a second leadership bid.

With Dion at the helm, the Liberal Party did not only return to business as usual, without any reform or renewal whatsoever and with more and more of the old stalwarts returning to the “scene of the crime”, but actually moved even further away from true liberalism – culminating today in Dion’s Green Shift plan, which is best described as a wealth-redistribution scheme, according to at least one Liberal MP, that would do any socialist or communist proud. Sorry, but if this a liberal concept, I am the emperor of China.

Obviously many others like me lost interest in the Liberal Party after Dion’s election as leader of the party, which is why, among other reasons, the party has had an extremely hard time attracting donations. People, including a large number of Liberals, took one look at the new party leader and decided to use their hard-earned money for worthier causes. Dion is doubtless a nice person, albeit one with an outdated ideology, but an effective politician or prime minister he is not, nor will he ever be.

The Liberals had a wonderful chance to build something new and better, but let it slip through their hands. The old apparatchiks in the party have prevailed, an ineffectual leader has been elected, and the party continues to be the same Old Liberal Party to this day. Meanwhile, Stephen Harper stole a march on them by positioning his own Conservative Party in the very place on the political spectrum that would normally be reserved for a small-l liberal party – this is why Stephen Harper will get my vote on October 14. So while the Conservative Party is not deserving of, or true to, its name, neither is the Liberal Party, but it does work out in the Conservatives’ favour.

In Alberta, the provincial Liberals may be able to succeed where the federal party failed so miserably. Equipped with a “New Liberal” platform, the next leader of the provincial party could stand a very good chance of creating a truly liberal party in the mould of John Locke or Thomas Jefferson. But in Canadian politics, many hopes are regularly dashed, which would explain the ever diminishing voter turnout, so only time will tell if Alberta’s Liberals are up to the task. I will keep my fingers crossed.

Nationally, however, the party appears to have stopped its week-long slide and come to rest with between 33 and 35 per cent support from decided voters – a shade below the 36 per cent of the vote it won in 2006, allowing it to form a minority government.

What does all this really mean? Very little, to tell the truth. First of all, polls are never accurate. To achieve any real representative accuracy or significance, polling companies would have to poll at least 3,500 people for each poll, rather than only 1,200, 1,000 or 800-900. Given the sample sizes in Canadian polls, all of them are for the birds.

Second, there is the issue of Canada’s undemocratic and antiquated first-past-the-post system – i.e., the winner takes all, as they say. Even if the polling numbers are accurate, which they are not, and we assume that the Tories will get, say, 34%, they can still form a majority government. All they have to do is win by at least one vote in 155 ridings, and the majority is in place. Or to put it in more drastic terms, if they obtained as little as 10% of the votes in 155 ridings, and 10% happens to be the highest count for any of the candidates in the ridings, they would also win a majority.

Always keep in mind what happened in the provincial election in Alberta this March: with only 22% of the electorate supporting them, the Alberta Tories formed a majority government, holding 72 of 83 seats (!).

Finally, the above numbers may not be all that accurate, as I said:

University of B.C. political scientist Fred Cutler, a voting specialist, warned that polling numbers early in a campaign can be suspect and that the decline in support is probably exaggerated.

It is for this reason that it will be a long time before any of the mainstream parties will ever agree to change to a system of proportional representation. As they surely see it: Why fix it if it ain’t broke?

The minority prime minister of two and a half years has not exactly wowed Canadians with visionary ideas, but he has provided steady leadership. Were mistakes made? Of course, they were. Government by definition is highly imperfect, and there is no government that has not botched things at some point during its term.

The British newspaper The Economist has endorsed Stephen Harper, just as it did prior to the last election in early 2006. That by itself speaks volumes, because, as the saying goes in Canada, the British publication is more influential than any of the Canadian media. When The Economist favours one leader over another, it is the former that invariably wins. Last time, the Brits dished up a double whammy: not only did one of the oldest magazines in the world endorse Mr. Harper, but it also trashed the then-prime minister Paul Martin by calling him “Mr. Dithers”. In the current campaign, The Economist has described Liberal leader Stéphane Dion as “wimpish” and now come out with its support for Mr. Harper – another double whammy.

Despite the relatively meagre roster of politicians in this election, Mr. Harper looks like a beacon shining at least a bit of light into the gloomy darkness that enshrouds opposition leaders, particularly Mr. Dion. On so many levels, the Liberals lost the election on December 2, 2006, when they elected Mr. Dion party leader. He may be a thinker, but a politician or prime minister he is not. This has been most prominently demonstrated by his recent Chicken Little impression while talking down Canada’s relatively sound economy.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has confirmed in its most recent report that the Canadian economy is strong and sound and that it will outperform all other G7 countries in 2009. Mr. Dion has been doing a great disservice to Canadians by trying to reduce the country’s economy to rubble. When investors and consumers hear about how the sky is not only falling, but has, in fact, already crash-landed on everyone’s head, when it has not done so at all, even the strongest economy can be driven into a recession in no time at all.

This is why Mr. Harper deserves Canadians’ gratitude for holding firm and steady in the face of such fearmongering from the Liberal opposition. It is true, though, that Mr. Harper has been somewhat insensitive in his comments of late, but then again, he is not exactly a great communicator and a bit on the socially awkward side. Does this personal foible make him any less of a prime minister? Quite the opposite is true, because when one keeps in mind the financial tsunami that has set itself in motion in the U.S. and will sooner or later inundate the entire planet, it is quite obvious that Canada needs a Vulcan-style leader, like Star Trek’s Mr. Spock, who can steer the Canadian ship free of any emotions. This may sound cold, but this is exactly the right prescription for Canada at this point in time.

A majority government may not be on the cards for Mr. Harper, but a stronger minority is a distinct and almost assured possibility. What is more, with an emboldened NDP as the Official Opposition, the federal government in Ottawa might actually accomplish more on the issues that matter to real Canadians than at any time in the last forty or fifty years or so.

Listeriosis kills several people across Canada because of lax food-safety inspections, and who gets blamed? The Harper government.

However, the lax inspection regime with respect to food safety was implemented by the previous Liberal government:

The architecture of the recently revamped food-inspection system–an issue that has dogged the Tories during the election– was crafted when the Liberals were in power in 2005, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency has confirmed.

The design of pilot tests for the Compliance Verification System (CVS), rolled out at federally regulated meat plants in April, began in August, 2005, said Brian Evans, the agency’s executive vice-president.

At the time, the agency was operating under the direction of former Liberal agriculture minister Andy Mitchell, who lost in the 2006 election. Ujjal Dosanjh, currently seeking re-election in Vancouver, was in charge of food-safety policy as minister of health; he now serves as health critic for the Liberals.

If anyone needs to resign over this, it is Andy Mitchell, but he’s already gone, and Ujjal Dosanjh.

Fingers need to be pointed in this tragic mess, but they need to be pointed directly at the Liberals, who have blood on their hands.

Strange, isn’t it? Along with other Canadian journalists, CBC anchor Peter Mansbridge (to cite only one example) uses the word “massive” to describe the $700-billion (U.S.) economic rescue package in the United States – but declines to use it to describe the cost of Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion’s election promises. Why this deference? Most analysts say that Mr. Dion’s promises would cost $80-billion (Canadian). Based on population numbers and using the usual 10-to-1 conversion ratio, Mr. Dion’s promises would thus cost the U.S. equivalent of $800-billion in supplementary spending. If the U.S. credit crunch expenditure is massive, Mr. Dion’s campaign promise expenditures must necessarily be massive, too.

Throw in a high-speed train service between Toronto and Montreal, which Mr. Dion has endorsed but hasn’t promised (at a cost of another $20-billion), and the Liberal Leader – his promises again expressed in cross-border conversion – hits $1-trillion in campaign commitments, making the credit crunch relief operation look quite restrained and, in an odd way, less important than the restoration of Liberal rule in Canada.

In this relative kind of comparison, useful in keeping things in perspective, Mr. Dion’s election promises exceed the cost of the U.S. government’s emergency credit crunch bailout. Yet Mr. Dion’s promises exceed the U.S. bailout in absolute terms – when compared on a per-capita basis. Mr. Dion’s promises would increase government spending by $2,424 for each man, woman and child in the country; the U.S. emergency funding package would increase government spending by $2,330.

In some ways this is how special-interest groups operate in order to drive public debate on their pet issues. They keep shining the spotlight on an issue in the hope of influencing people’s behaviour or attitudes. This, for example, is how wearing real fur has come to be considered gauche, and the global warming movement has been planting similar seeds in people’s minds.

Liberal leader Stéphane Dion has been driving his own mind-and-behaviour-altering campaign by talking incessantly about how sick the Canadian economy has become. Prime Minister Stephen Harper, realizing the effect that this could have on people and the economy, retorted that Mr. Dion was panicking and might actually trigger an economic crisis by repeatedly talking it down. It is for this reason that Mr. Harper has assumed a position some consider standoffish and even cold. When one political leader runs around like a headless chicken screaming “The sky is falling”, the other must step in and counteract any negative effect this will invariably have.

Canada’s economy is doing quite well, despite Mr. Dion’s best efforts to bring it down. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has just confirmed in a new report that economic growth in Canada will continue along just nicely and top all other G7 countries in 2009.

Still, there are sectors that are suffering, such as the manufacturing and auto sectors in Ontario. But theirs is a problem that has very little to do with the current subprime crisis in the U.S. Both sectors have been in decline for at least four years. The cause of the troubles is structural, not cyclical, and reflects a general shift that in all likelihood is irreversible.

Thousands of jobs have already been lost in Ontario as a result, and they will be lost forever. Nothing will ever bring them back. Apart from the sea-change gripping the industry, there is also a bit of that self-fulfilling prophecy in here. With environmental groups chanting the same global warming hymns over and over again, it was only a matter of time before their message would change people’s behaviour – and change it did. Car makers saw their sales of such moneymakers as pickup trucks and other expensive gas guzzlers crater.

More and more manufacturing jobs, therefore, have been shipped overseas to low-cost countries and, thus, away from Ontario’s labour unions and their unrealistic demands that have been instrumental in wrecking the industry in the first place.

Mr. Harper, so as not to appear too cold-hearted, has announced extended assistance and subsidies for Ontario’s auto makers. But this will only delay the inevitable, and not solve the problem at all. On the contrary, it is quite counterproductive.

For those who lose their jobs, there is unemployment insurance and welfare, as well as, at the provincial level, retraining opportunities. Mr. Harper’s additional funds, however, do not go to those affected, the workers, but the companies. In other words, it is a classic case of throwing good money after bad.

What is needed are two things. First, both Ontario and the federal government must realize that this sector has had it. Second, instead of propping up companies that are going nowhere, both levels of government must provide universally accessible education and training opportunities – through colleges, universities and vocational schools. The workforce must be empowered to acquire the necessary skills required in the 21st century, so that they can move on to new careers.

Besides, there is a “Why-not-me?” factor to all this. Canadians not employed in the auto sector will wonder why public assistance goes to this one sector, but not to them. If the economy tanks, everyone is in the same boat. Why, then, would the government bail out and grant special tax privileges to the car industry only, but not waitresses, writers or window washers?

Government cannot pour out its cornucopia of goodies over specific groups or sectors, without drawing ire and fire from all others. A line must be drawn somewhere, and calling for urgent help for one sector, as the opposition leaders have done without even understanding first what is actually going on, is a prescription for destroying an otherwise healthy economy.

It is a shame that Mr. Harper should have given in to pressure, instead of staying the course. As a result, the problems in the manufacturing and auto sectors in Ontario will continue and get worse, while the already-suffocating taxpayer will be poorer for it.

The book is not out yet, but some newspapers have started publishing unauthorized excerpts. Just a week away from October 14, the day of the federal election, Liberals are worried that Mr. Martin’s tell-all book could harm them. The party has therefore issued a call to all candidates and party faithful not to discuss the book with anyone, especially members of the press.

But with the excerpts floating around, the damage already seems done. Liberal leader Stéphane Dion, who has made his past track record on the Clarity Act one of his oft-repeated mantras in stump speeches, is also coming under attack in Mr. Martin’s book, who writes that “the law, which Mr. Dion oversaw, was unnecessary in light of a previous Supreme Court ruling.”

There you go: considered one of his biggest accomplishments – and arguably his only accomplishment to date – the Clarity Act has just been relegated to the landfill of political ideas by a former prime minister.

Mr. Martin is not too happy with Mr. Chrétien’s restrictions on political donations either. Before leaving office to make room for his rival, Mr. Chrétien substantially limited the amount individuals can donate to political parties, thus ensuring that the party that, in Mr. Chrétien’s view, had stabbed him in the back, would be financially hampered in future. Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper then raised the ante by limiting political donations even further.

But the main focus of the book seems to be on Mr. Martin’s rivalry with Jean Chrétien. His biggest beef is with the way Mr. Chrétien tried to clear himself of any involvement in the Adscam scandal by keeping the auditor-general’s report under lock and key until the day it was time for Mr. Martin to step up to the plate.

As Mr. Martin writes in some of the book excerpts, “I was furious with Mr. Chrétien, who left this time-bomb behind him. Either because he was worried about his legacy being tarred by the sponsorship scandal, or because of rancour against me – only he can answer that question – he delayed the publication of the Auditor-General’s report until I replaced him at 24 Sussex Dr.”

This is hardly news to anyone who has watched Canadian politics with just half an eye open. Mr. Chrétien was a consummate tactician, and Mr. Martin’s interpretation of the events then is spot-on. Mr. Chrétien never wanted his former finance minister to succeed, even if it meant sacrificing his own party. In addition, always concerned about his “legacy”, Mr. Chrétien wanted to put as much distance as possible between himself and a colossal scandal, for which he was clearly and ultimately responsible (as well as for a host of other large-scale scandals before that).

Poor Mr. Martin did not stand a chance. Once the Adscam floodgates had swung wide open, there was no way he and his party would stay in power for too long. Mr. Chrétien’s plan worked beautifully: Mr. Martin’s political career ended up being a shipwreck, but the Liberal Party suffered tremendous damage as well.

In many ways, it is an enormous shame, because Mr. Martin could have become an extremely competent and even popular prime minister. Even in Alberta, where “only a dead federal Liberal is a good federal Liberal” has been the order of the day for decades, Mr. Martin’s popularity numbers were extremely high on taking over from Mr. Chrétien. But those quickly evaporated once the Adscam fallout hit the fan.

After the hell Mr. Martin has been put through by his former boss, it is not surprising that he is trying to find joy in activities outside of Canadian politics – such as aid to Africa and similar projects – and even said in a newspaper interview that “politics sucks”.

Mr. Martin is doubtless a much happier man today, doing what he truly cares for and loves. Now that he has laid to rest the ghosts of a turbulent political past in his cathartic book, he will be able to move on and surely excel at anything he puts his mind to.

If Mr. Harper comes up with his own new plan for the economy, he could be accused of improvising and will undercut his campaign, during which he has accused Mr. Dion of making up policy as he goes along. If he doesn’t acknowledge the Canadian economy is vulnerable and fails to offer a solution, he may be accused of a “what-me-worry” attitude, the kind of approach that appears to have hurt him in the wake of the debate.

Newsflash: There is no solution to be offered up by government. This is a crisis brought on by human behaviour, such as greed, and the only thing to do is to ride it out with as steady a hand on government as possible.

The crisis now affecting global markets was caused by nothing short of sheer stupidity, with one average American summing it up better than any of the Goldman Sachs economists and analysts:

“You can’t give an $8-an-hour worker a $500,000 home.”

Nor is this a time for experiments, as NDP candidate Tom King has explained:

“Here’s one little story,” he tells the captivated audience in his baritone campfire voice. It’s about Stéphane Dion’s “revenue neutral” Green Shift program. “I’m reminded of a guy with a horse,” he says. “He feeds that horse hay on one end, then walks to the other end and checks to see if he gets the same amount of hay out — and in the same form.”

If there’s anything we have learned, it’s “It’s the economy, stupid”. But equally important is: “Keep it simple, stupid.”

When Layton speaks of cancelling the corporate tax cuts, Harper immediately counters that it would be insane to saddle companies with an extra $50 billion in the current economic climate. Maybe this take is overly simplistic, but I doubt that the reversal of the cuts would result in companies being slammed with $50 billion.

Here’s why:

No matter what the tax rate, companies have a variety of options and tricks to reduce their taxable income – more so than any personal income taxpayer, a lot more, in fact.

My thinking is that if corporate tax rates are somewhat higher – or, in this case, remain what they were before the promised tax cuts – companies would be more inclined to spend in tax-deductible expenses so as to reduce their tax liabilities.

Additional expenditure on research and development comes to mind, better and more state-of-the-art equipment, or training and professional development for employees, etc. As a matter of fact, they may even be inclined to make charitable donations or endowments to the arts.

I understand, of course, that in our globalized economy each country tries to attract business by offering competitive corporate tax rates. The question that should be addressed, I think, is this: Can we create more jobs and more business opportunities through somewhat higher taxes that would act as an incentive for companies to spend more, or would the bottom line results be more favourable if companies’ tax burden were reduced?

I am not an economist, but maybe an economist out there has crunched those numbers. It would be interesting to find out.

My own experience has taught me that there does seem to be an elevated willingness to spend on various business-related, and thus tax-deductible, items when one is faced with the prospect of a considerable tax bill so as to reduce it by as much as possible.

I’ll give an example from everyday business: My local Boston Pizza outlet has been hit hard by the smoking ban. The restaurant used to consist of two restaurants separated from each other – the pub and smoking restaurant on one side, and the family restaurant on the other. The real moneymaker used to be the former, which was always filled to the rafters, whereas the latter was usually quite empty.

Since the smoking ban, the pub side has easily seen a drop in business by at least 50 per cent.

Now, this is not a tax per se, but it is still a burden imposed by government, so it still has the same effect on business.

Faced with a colossal drop in business, the restaurant has decided to undergo full and extensive remodelling, to the point where the entire restaurant has been gutted on the inside before it is completely rebuilt from scratch.

Based on what I assume this remodelling to cost, it is not hard to figure out that the restaurant will not only eliminate its losses, but actually make money from the tax-deductible remodelling costs.

To put it in very simple terms: “You, the government, have screwed us over with your smoking ban, so now we’ll make a major investment in our business that will be so steep that we’ll end up getting money back on our tax return, rather than us paying money to Revenue Canada.”

Again, this is extremely oversimplified to make it more illustrative. In general, though, this is how it works as far as I can tell.

With companies being reluctant to spend money – with spending money equalling jobs, better research, more and innovative products, etc. – it might make sense to actually kill those $50 billion in tax cuts, as Layton proposes.

I don’t think that companies would be hit by an additional $50 billion as a result; it will likely be just a fraction of that at the end of the day.

We have also heard the argument be raised quite often that when companies have to pay high corporate tax rates, the government’s revenue from corporate taxes actually falls – i.e., the higher the tax, the more companies spend to reduce their tax liabilities. In other words, as I tried to explain, higher corporate taxes actually help to keep the money in circulation. Lower taxes, by contrast, benefit the government and its revenue from taxes, but not the economy as such.

But should this really be the objective? We need to crank up the economy and the market, rather than Ottawa’s “tax machine”. So what if Ottawa’s tax revenue is reduced as a result of higher corporate taxes? Ottawa already gets too many tax dollars as is, which is why the federal government keeps creating spending programs that are self-perpetuating in the sense of requiring ever more tax revenue over the years and decades to cover their rising and exorbitant administrative costs. As I have always said, government must learn to do more with less – like any good hockey/soccer mom.

Even if the $50 billion in corporate tax cuts are reversed, the tax rate will still be below the U.S. rate, so Canada would continue to remain competitive. And, above all, tax cuts in Canada must benefit personal income taxpayers first and foremost – this is the bottom line.

Since I don’t live in her Edmonton riding, I won’t be able to vote for her personally, but the good news is that a Liberal, daveberta, has now announced that he’ll be voting for her:

After some long and difficult thinking, I have decided that I will be voting for Edmonton-Strathcona NDP candidate Linda Duncan.

It seems that Linda’s momentum is growing, and she may even have a real chance of winning the riding – yes, in a province where all 28 seats are currently held by Conservatives. If anyone can pull it off, it’s Linda. Go, Linda, go.

Such a balance, however, will differ from country to country, because such a reform must take into account a country’s history and traditions – after all, where would the average Scandinavian be if his beloved Nanny State were to be taken away from him?

Liberal leader Stéphane Dion let the cat out of the bag during the televised leaders’ debates when he spoke of a “central” government, a strong government and the need for people to believe not only in government but in strong government. Mr. Dion’s lifelong dedication to Marxism as part of his academic work and career has apparently rubbed off a bit too much.

First of all, a central government would not work in Canada, and it would also contravene the very principles of federalism. The same would be true of “strong” government, which in Mr. Dion’s parlance is simply the same as a centralized, authoritarian government that tells everyone what to do.

Second, in his almost tearful appeal for people to believe in government – as if government were some sort of divine being that Canadians had to worship and pray to several times a day – Mr. Dion put government ahead of people and their interests. All power emanates from the people, not some artificial and lifeless construct that is the federal government in Ottawa. What he should have said, if anything at all, is that government must believe in stronger and more independent people who are capable of taking responsibility for their own actions. An overbearing government that relieves people of their responsibilities will invariably create a society of irresponsible freaks – welcome to modern-day Canada!

The greater the reach of government, the less efficient and less effective it becomes. Each new spending program requires expensive administration, which means an ever growing number of civil servants. Civil servants are not exactly known to be efficient workers, and as soon as more of them become involved, the more expensive things become for taxpayers and the more likely it is that those programs will never achieve their stated goals.

The car-parts manufacturer Frank Stronach once explained in an interview on TV in his native Austria that civil servants were the root of all evil in government and that they should all be fired to ensure a smooth and efficient system. Seeing how in Canada most everything that goes through the civil service turns to naught, one cannot help agreeing with Mr. Stronach.

Liberals like Mr. Dion have a natural affinity for big, strong and centralized government. Their friends, cronies and supporters are regularly rewarded for their good services with patronage appointments to a civil service post – no wonder today’s civil servants are almost all Liberals, with the attendant liberal, i.e., lax, attitude to work ethics.

Government is supposed to be a means to an end. For Liberals, and others who advocate Big Government, government has become an end in and unto itself, devoid of any real purpose. This is why Canadian households now shoulder one of the highest tax burdens in the industrialized world and have to part with 45% of their household income.

Government, specifically the federal government in Ottawa, must become leaner and learn to do more with less, by focusing on its main areas of jurisdiction, such as health care or, say, food safety. There will still be plenty of government to go around, but taxpayers will get a much better deal – as long as the federal government recognizes that it is a servant to the people, rather than the other way round, sticks to its knitting and stays out of provincial jurisdiction.

If Mr. Dion were a true liberal in the traditional and classical sense of the word, he would know better than to ask Canadians to worship at the shrine of government. A real liberal would never utter the words “strong” and “central” in combination with “government”.

Consequently, each party has held steady in the various polls, more or less, with Liberal leader Stéphane Dion finding it next to impossible to shed his negative image.

The televised debates, therefore, likely matter a lot less in this campaign than in any other. In fact, the debates are the least crucial factor determining the outcome of elections. The only exception came in the last election when out of sheer desperation, then-prime minister Paul Martin decided to make up new policy on the fly, vowing that he would scrap the notwithstanding clause from the constitution. It was then that his fate was sealed.

Jeffrey Simpson, of the Globe and Mail, notes in his column today that the debate format is inherently unfair and wrong – he calls it “lop-sided” and says that Harper “did as well as he could” under these circumstances:

One after another, the four opposition party leaders blasted Mr. Harper who, under the four-against-one format, was given relatively limited time to reply to the onslaught.

Predictably, the opposition leaders were mostly warm and cuddly about each other, while they were fierce about Mr. Harper. How any prime minister could emerge with a fair shake in such a one-sided arrangement wherein critics gets many, many more minutes than the incumbent remains a pressing question after last night’s gang-up.

The debate raised an issue no one wishes to address: how can any prime minister (leave Mr. Harper out of the question) get a fair debate under the circumstances that prevailed last night, wherein the leaders of small parties such as Green Leader Elizabeth May and Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe get equal billing with the leader of a party with three or four times as many voters?

Simpson also observed that the opposition leaders, acting in unison, resorted to distorting and lying about the facts in order to score imaginary points against the prime minister (emphasis added):

Unemployment is actually at one of its lowest levels in decades. But Mr. Layton, Ms. May and Mr. Duceppe were all over the Prime Minister for copying U.S. President George W. Bush’s economic policies. To these false charges, Mr. Harper replied that Canada’s economic situation was almost entirely different. Canada’s budget was in surplus, the economy was creating jobs, its banking system was properly capitalized, and its debt ratio was declining.

These discernible facts, however, did not deter the opposition attackers from portraying the Canadian economy as deeply fragile, led by a prime minister who was adopting a “laissez-faire” attitude and was showing no awareness of the impending and actual crisis.

On the environment, as in the economy, the gang of four claimed Mr. Harper’s greenhouse-gas emissions plan was too weak. On cultural policy, the gang of four all agreed that the Conservative government had made unacceptable cuts, to which Mr. Harper replied correctly that the overall cultural budget of the federal government has risen.

Voters must be getting sick and tired of the lies dished up by the opposition all the time. Everyone with two eyes and half-working brain knows that Harper is no Bush. Everyone knows that Canada is not America – yes, we are indeed quite different on many levels.

What’s even more sickening to voters concerned about the current global economic uncertainty is the constant talking-down of Canada’s economy by Dion, who seems to pray every day for a major disaster to strike Canada, so that he can benefit from it somehow. It wouldn’t be surprising if Dion’s ongoing negativity about Canada were somehow responsible for the recent downturn of Canada’s stock and commodities markets. Say it long and often enough, and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Canadians should be deeply offended by Dion’s dumping on Canada and its economic health.

While the other opposition leaders engaged in distortions and falsehoods, Bloc Québécois leader Gilles Duceppe gets a perfect score of 100% on honesty:

It was Mr. Duceppe who declared the winner of the election in the middle of the debate. When one question asked what the candidates would do first as prime minister, Mr. Duceppe replied: “I know I won’t be prime minister. And three of you won’t be prime minister, either,” he said, waving a hand toward Mr. Dion, Mr. Layton and Ms. May. “Some of you know it, but you don’t say it.”

He recently wrote yet another anti-NDP column, which was so disrespectful of NDP leader Jack Layton that it caught the attention of the Progressive Economics Forum.

My comment to the Forum was this:

There used to be a time when I believed in that dichotomy of right v. left. But then I realized there is really only right v. wrong, or reasonable/commonsensical v. unreasonable/foolish. Tony Blair, for example, put it in similar terms when he addressed a Calgary audience last year (and yours truly was fortunate enough to be included in that number). Simpson may still think in these old terms, e.g., when he suggests that the NDP move to the centre.

Well, here’s the way I see it, comparing current Liberals and NDP:

The NDP has an infinitely more reasonable/commonsensical/practical, etc. platform than the Liberals. What is more, the NDP has a leader who knows what people want and need and who knows how to connect with people — something the Liberals can only dream of.

In other news — this arrived in my inbox earlier this evening:

I would like to invite you to join our Debate Night in Calgary at the Pinoy Village Restaurant & Lounge this Thursday, October 2,  Candidates, volunteers, and staff will be watching the English Debates starting at 6:30pm to 9pm. This promises to be a relaxing evening to socialize with fellow NDPers and cheer on Jack as he takes on Stephen Harper.

Looking for volunteers to join me in organizing a media event on the NDP’s plan to ensure a head start for kids by investing in a Canada wide Child Care and Early learning plan, develop a Children’s Nutrition initiative to support and expand provincial and local programs that provide healthy meals to school children, as well as phase in a new child benefit system for families.

Volunteers are needed to help with identifying a location for the media event, identify people willing to speak in support of the NDP’s plan, as well as identify families willing to join us in support of the plan. Your help and suggestions would be greatly appreciated and make this event a great sucess.
Please join our Facebook group to show your support to end child poverty once and for all by voting for a new direction with Jack Layton as Prime Minister.

You can join our group Calgary New Democrat Supporters to end Child Poverty in Canada
www.new.facebook.com/group.php?gid=27231914356

Here’s the proper address of the restaurant: 3132-26 St. NE

The media, and certain bloggers, are wasting their time dissecting Harper’s “Howard speech“, just as they are wasting their time chasing after speeches that Dion lifted from David Suzuki (it was much worse when Dion stole a company’s name to use for his Green Shift plan).

The only blogger – a Liberal no less – who had anything smart to say about this nonsense was Red Tory (as I wrote yesterday)

[I]t really is a measure of the Liberals’ desperation. Is this actually the best the LPC can come up with… “a debate about a five year-old speech that was delivered three Parliaments ago, two elections ago, when the prime minister was the leader of a party that no longer exists”? Quite pathetic really.

So, get on with it, talk about the excessive tax burden in this country, the economy, education and health care, but don’t waste voters’ time with such utter nonsense.

Other than that, though, the election campaign has been dragging on and on, turning on gaffes and wild accusations that have absolutely nothing to do with what voters are concerned about.

So, we saw a puffin drop its excrement on a political leader’s shoulder. Big deal.

Some candidates have had to resign over controversial statements, conduct or blog posts in the past. Big deal.

Now one of the oldest lies is being peddled yet again – no one cares, because everyone knows it’s not even close to the truth. Big deal.

Here’s a newsflash: the election will not fundamentally improve the situation of Canada. The best we can hope for is to slog along as we have for the last two and a half years – and essentially any stretch of time before that.

These guys will continue as before, tossing chump change at us and making us believe they’re giving us actual tax cuts.

These nutters are about to embark on an extensive and far-reaching social(ist) experiment. They tell us it’ll work. What if it doesn’t work? Will they just say, “Oops, we’re so sorry. Won’t happen again. Promise.”?

These clowns here want to run the same experiment, just a slightly improved one from the previous one.

This little party is partying like never before and telling us that we should all gather around the kitchen table.

All the while, one last holdout clinging to the past has not realized yet that the next sovereignty movement will emerge from the West. Difference between the old and the new? The latter will prevail one day.

So, are you prepared to take a look at this poll? Are you sitting down? Hold on to your chair, mouse, keyboard and monitor, because what this poll is about to reveal to you is going to blow you away (very much like getting caught in the slipstream of the TARDIS, I should say):

Sixty-three per cent of respondents said they view the Liberal party as dishonest; 80 per cent as stale; 63 per cent as phoney; 67 per cent as risky; and 66 per cent as “out of touch with Canadians like you.”

The Conservative party didn’t fare much better: 55 per cent viewed the party as dishonest; 63 per cent as stale; 56 per cent as phoney; and 58 per cent as risky.

[...] Meanwhile, the feeling toward the NDP was mostly positive with the large majority of respondents viewing it as fair, honest, compassionate and genuine. However, those surveyed said the NDP was risky.

It was the Green party that received the best rating. Sixty-nine per cent of respondents found them fresh; 74 per cent as fair, 75 per cent as honest; 77 per cent as compassionate; and 65 per cent as genuine.

Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.