Bravo, Mme. Jean

It's not often that I give any recognition to the Governor General aside from when we are forced to pay for the jaunts he/she takes around the world to spread the good word about our great country, but today, I am leading the standing ovation for our Governor General for putting our democracy first and allowing the prorogation of Canada's Parliament until January 26th.

Our national nightmare of a coalition government supported by separatists will likely not happen and we can all be thankful for that. Radical Jack will find another possible suitor to latch on to and abandon the Liberals in the middle of the night. The NDP already flip-flopped on Afghanistan to sign the coalition, they will just as easily flip-flop again on this or any other issue to get out if it means they can have influence. Our separatist friends the Bloc can go back to being irrelevant outside of Quebec and find another way to subvert the nation's progress. As for the Liberals? Hey, do you think it is easy to make video tapes? Back to the drawing board for the former natural governing party. Good luck paying for your convention and we'll see you in the next election, if you can make it on time.

Parliament needed to be suspended so the democratically elected government could prepare a proper budget with smart economic spending without the spectre of a coup by the Three Stooges coalition. Let's face it, this week has been quite possibly the most exciting and exasperating week in Canadian political history since the October Crisis. The business of the nation took a backseat to the coalition, the government response, and the intrigue of PMSH's meeting with the GG this morning. With some stability brought by proroging Parliament, the government can get back to governing and restoring some economic confidence at a time when we badly need it.

So, in a roundabout way, I'm pleased with the Governor General's move today. She did the prudent thing and brought stability to the situation so the government can focus on the issues at hand. If only the Opposition coalition members were so keen to make a difference in our nation's economy. As the Prime Minister said today, there will need to be some trustbuilding to make this Parliament work. That will only happen if the Opposition abandons its banana republic-like coalition plan and puts Canadians first.

God help us

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/11/30/canada-coalition.html

If this indeed happens, I give it 3 months before we have another election and the Liberal/socialist/separatist coalition gets hammered by angry voters who had their voices ignored by self-interested, greedy Opposition parties.

Democracy in Canada will reach its lowest point in history if our next Prime Minister comes from this ramshackle group of parties with their conflicting platforms and selfish leaders.

I didn't vote for this, did you? Did anyone? Didn't think so.

Debunking the coalition talk before it gets out of hand

Doubtless you've heard about the latest attempts by Canada's Opposition parties to attempt a power grab and topple the Conservative minority Parliament a mere 6 weeks after a plurality of Canadians voted for a new, stronger government under PMSH. Frankly, the Opposition is acting irresponsibly and setting Canada on a potentially disastrous course, but hey, what else is new? When Jack Layton, the political prostitute he is, gets a whiff of power, he will move Hell on Earth to further his socialist agenda. A coalition government of any kind cannot, and would never, work in Canada and we would be fools to even attempt forming one.

Coalitions work in small countries where the political parties in question can co-operate, and also govern with the appropriate amount of public support. A coalition in Canada would require the following toxic stew of parties to form a government: the leader-less Liberals with a lame duck Stephane Dion who was soundly beaten in the last election, the socialist NDP under 'Radical Jack' Layton (who could be finance minister *head smack*) who would see to it that our country is plunged into a massive structural deficit that our grandchildren would be lucky to see paid off, and the separatist Bloc Quebecois with Gilles Duceppe holding the balance of power. Imagine, a party hell-bent on tearing Canada apart holding the keys to the Kingdom. Worried yet? Throw in a couple of Independent members and there you have it, a shaky coalition lead by Prime Minister Stephane Dion. Say that out loud and you will understand how absurd it really is.

Less than two months ago, Canadians dealt the Liberal Party a crushing defeat, their lowest share of the vote since Confederation, and now those same voters may have to stomach a scenario they so strongly rejected. Democracy at its finest, folks, where your votes don't mean a thing in the face of self-interested, and defeated, backroom political hacks who think they are entitled to run the country. PMSH said it loud and clear last night, "Stéphane Dion does not have the right to take power without an election." If the Liberals and NDP are so confident that their political philandering can stand up to the test of an election, they should topple the government legitimately and face the wrath of Canadian voters, who would be forced to the polls for the fourth time in eight years.

Our country is better than this. Voters elected a stronger Conservative government because they believed in the strength of the party's economic plan and sound, stable leadership. These virtues may be difficult for a Liberal or NDPer to stomach, but the fact of the matter is that in times of global uncertainty, Canadians need a government with a clear plan and a single mindset to move our country forward. I don't want another election, you probably don't want one either. What I fear more than another election is a coalition government cobbled together by a lame duck, a socialist, and somebody who hates the idea of the Canada we stand for. The Opposition, of which my MP is part of, is acting out of self-interest and greed if they try to seize power through a backroom deal. Canadians deserve better. I urge everyone to think long and hard about the consequences of a coalition, or another election, and stand up for Canadian democracy. The Conservative Party won the right to govern thanks to the voters of Canada. Their voices, your voices, should be the ones determining our nation's course.

I welcome your input.

Winnipeg Part Deux (Act 1)

Couldn't bring myself to file an entry last night as I was enjoying the hospitality of the Western provinces. They hosted a huge event, 'Party Prairie Style', and took over one of Downtown Winnipeg's few good bars called Tavern United.

Attended a couple of very informative sessions yesterday afternoon, including the Building Relationships (fundraising) seminar put on by RMG Marketing. RMG has partnered with the Conservative Party since the beginning and they handle the party's fundraising campaigns. Picked up some valuable advice and tips for future campaigning and how to build a war chest for Hamilton Mountain.

Also spent some time at an economic forum put on by Tony Clement (Industry), Gail Shea (Fisheries), Lisa Raitt (Natural Resources), and John Baird (Transportation and Infrastructure). Canada is well served by having these 4 individuals handle such important portfolios as we head through tough economic times. They are bright, focussed, and determined to chart a positive course for Canada.

Off for the flight home...

Winnipeg Part One

Well, it's not called Winter-peg for nothing folks. The temperature is a balmy zero degrees and there is plenty of snow left from a storm last weekend, typical for this time of year in the Gateway to the West. Also, the intersection of Portage and Main, definitely the windiest corner in Canada.

Day One of the Convention saw the registration open at around 12:15 and the entrance of Prime Minister Stephen Harper and wife Laureen to pick up their badges (because they really need them, you know). Yours truly had a handshake and quick chat with the PM, photos to follow. Even better, I brought my copy of Harper's Team and the PM actually stopped and signed it for me. Yes, the man is cool.

Hit the Hospitality Suite of Conservative Party President Don Plett last night with Hamilton Mountain candidate Terry Anderson and had a 15 minute cocktail and talk with Doug Finley, National Campaign Director. He is Canada's top campaign manager and after talking with him, it's easy to see why. Mr. Finley is a smart, strategic guy but also takes time to learn about each and every riding, the candidate, and what's going on on the ground. If he continues as National Campaign Director, Hamilton Mountain can expect to see the party's resources invested in the riding.

Opening Ceremonies with Prime Minister Harper as the keynote speaker in an hour. More hospitality to follow...

The Return of the Blog

After a sabbatical that included the Federal Election and full-time work, A Swing from the Hammer will be back in full force this week as I travel to Winnipeg for the Conservative Party National Convention. I may not be able to live blog, but I will strive to deliver a nightly blog entry. Check my Facebook page for photos as well.

My thanks to my frequent readers (Matt MacDonald, this means you buddy!) With the fall session of Parliament starting on November 17th, I will be blogging regularly once more. The priorities of life have been ahead of blogging but now that both Canadian and US elections have taken place, I'll have some time to fingers to keyboard.

-AB

Letter to the Editor

Taking a vacation from my summer vacation for just a moment. Hopefully you're all enjoying a carbon tax-free summer.

Just submitted this to the Hamilton Mountain News. We shall see if it is published in this week's edition.

Conservatives the only party with Canada's environmental and economic future in mind

Editor,

All three main federal parties agree on the need for action on the environment but the only party offering a realistic plan is the Conservative Party. While the Liberal candidate and his leader stubbornly cling to the notion of a carbon tax as the cure-all to Canada's climate change dilemma, the governing Conservatives have already taken action through, amongst other initiatives, funding carbon capture and storage in Saskatchewan via the federal budget, which the Liberals supported in absentia, and by Prime Minister Stephen Harper taking a lead role at last month's G8 Summit to create a post-Kyoto environmental accord.

Truth be told, the carbon tax is not an environmental plan and Mountain residents have seen through this from the beginning. Not only do they not trust the Liberal party to keep its 'revenue neutral' promise, but the lack of clear targets for greenhouse gas reductions raises concerns. How will the carbon tax truly decrease our GHG output? What targets has Mr. Dion set? How can a tax on consumption be revenue neutral? If we have learned anything from past consumption taxes, it is that Canadians will not change their habits in spite of punitive government measures.

The Conservative Party took the lead on climate change during last fall's Throne Speech, which the Liberals again supported, outlining measures to reduce GHGs by a minimum 20% by 2020. Further down the road, we can expect reductions of 60% in gradual, measured declines that will not hurt everyday Canadians and without force-feeding a carbon tax. The Conservative Party has also cut the GST from 7% to 6% to 5% and delivered real income tax cuts without levying new taxes against consumption.

Mr. Dion's plan also takes a very political turn when he starts talking about how to get the provinces to agree to the carbon tax. He and his caucus have been talking about politically motivated side deals in British Columbia and Nova Scotia and his Ontario MP's have freely admitted the carbon tax will hurt everyday Canadians and, as Ken Boshkoff, MP Thunder Bay-Rainy River put it, "transfer wealth from the oil patch to the rest of the country." Mr. Dion is not Pierre Trudeau, but his carbon tax will be a divisive policy. Canada's federation is strong, but with a carbon tax, the national unity debate will rear its ugly head again. If the Mountain Liberal candidate wants to be critical of those playing politics in the environmental debate, he should be honest with voters and question his leader, not compliment him for such a punitive policy.

The Liberal Party has banked its electoral fortunes on the carbon tax at a time when fuel prices are at a record high, groceries are increasingly more expensive, and Canadians are just coming around to mass transit. Adding a tax to carbon will drive the costs of natural gas and fuel even higher, increase our cost of living, and offer no incentive to use public transit. The Conservatives, through income tax cuts, tax credits for transit users and increased infrastructure funding, have already addressed these priorities, again, without raising taxes.

Carbon taxing will be permanent and damaging to Canada. For every group that has spoken in favour of it, there are even more who speak out against Dion's plan. The agriculture sector, shipping and trucking, the corporate sector, and yes, even the NDP, all believe that a new tax is not the answer. Committing future governments to realistic GHG reduction targets is a far more sensible policy than the carbon tax, which will be permanent and force future policymakers into a decision-making corner. The Conservative plan offers policy flexibility but maintains hard target dates for GHG reduction.

Canadians know better than to trust the Liberal leader when he makes his case for the carbon tax. It is the height of hypocrisy for Mr. Dion to criticize the government's environmental record when the Liberal Party, with he as Environment Minister, oversaw Canada's GHG output rise at its highest levels ever. Their talk then led to no action on climate change, what makes now any different? Canadians want real action and the Conservative Party is the only party getting things done for all of us.

Alex Buck, Hon. B.A.
Secretary, Hamilton Mountain Conservative EDA

Carbon Tax: Our national nightmare

Heading into the summer, Canada's politicians tend to recede from the headlines and head out on BBQ tours in their respective ridings. While there should have been an election by now, the Liberals were content to stall until they could unveil their campaign's main plan: a carbon tax. Folks, this plan leads down a very expensive and treacherous path with no clear goal in sight. Stephane Dion will be hanging his hat on a carbon tax during the next election, despite backing away from a carbon tax during the last Liberal leadership race. Quite simply, a carbon tax spells certain defeat for the Liberals, propelling the Conservative Party to a deserved majority.

A carbon tax is punitive, not revenue neutral, and will cost every Canadian hundreds of thousands of dollars annually, regardless of income or status. The Conservative government has been using every opportunity to give hardworking Canadians a break and put more money in citizen's pockets at a time when the economy is shaky at best. What the Liberal carbon tax does is effectively take that money back and throw it into government coffers and Liberal-friendly groups. Canadians deserve better but the Liberals think otherwise.

Carbon taxes would not help the environment, as the Liberals claim. Despite astronomically higher prices for fossil fuels such as gasoline and heating oil, Canadians aren't likely to consume less. Consider that even now, when gas prices are averaging above $1.20 per litre, people are still buying as much gas as they did before. Canada is a cold-weather country and most people require diesel and heating oil to power furnaces in their homes. The carbon tax would punish people, particularly in low-income and older homes, where these systems are prevalent.

For those who decide to change their driving habits and way of life because of the carbon tax, public transit would be the most practical means of getting around. The Liberals must, then, deal with this problem: how to exempt public transit from the carbon tax. Fuel costs will obviously rise for transit providers who, as usual, will pass those cost increases onto consumers. When the cost of transit rises, ridership almost always decreases, further harming the environment and adding to gridlock on the roads. The environment, then, would not see any real positive change because of the Liberal carbon tax.

As has been reported in various news outlets, the Liberals have made numerous campaign pledges that already total more than $60 billion of new government spending. The carbon tax is a convenient way to start paying for those promises, but it makes a small dent overall. Any claim that the carbon tax will be "revenue-neutral" is dishonest as there is no such thing as a neutral tax. What the tax is is a simple revenue grab that will ultimately end up paying off the national debt, not funding social programs as claimed.

If you ask Canadians what they prefer more out of these two choices: more money in their pockets in the form of tax cuts or a high tax and spend government, the answer will always be for more money in their pockets. The Liberal carbon tax will punish Canadians for buying everyday consumer goods at a time when they should be getting money back from their government. Perhaps Stephane "Do you think it is easy to make priorities" Dion has learned how to actually make priorities. It's unfortunate he is so out of touch with Canadians that he is planning a carbon tax program. Any Liberal plan that includes a punitive carbon tax should be met with many questions and skepticism of its real goals. The Conservative government listens to Canadians and acts in the best interests of hardworking, everyday people who play by the rules. Giving people their hard-earned money back in the form of tax cuts is a real solution for all Canadians.

Vindication

Today, the RCMP ended their investigation into the so-called Cadman Affair. The evidence, or lack thereof, pointed to one conclusion: no charges laid.

For all of the Opposition's attacks on the Conservative Party and the Prime Minister, they have now been proven inaccurate and wrong all along. The Ministers that had to answer the frivolous claims made by Stephane Dion, Ken Dryden, Michael Igatieff, Gilles Duceppe, Jack Layton et al day after day have stuck to the truth and now the RCMP has backed them with no charges laid.

Yet again, the Opposition parties have seen an imaginary scandal fall apart before their eyes because it is simply untrue. The Conservative government denied any wrongdoing and now the RCMP has found that there isn't enough evidence to lay any charges, thus closing this mini-fiasco.

Now the Opposition owes the Prime Minister and Conservative Party an apology. If they had any honour, they would issue a full apology and retract their many false statements.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080516.wcadman0516/BNStory/National/home

NDP Propaganda at its finest

Even though it's exam time, I couldn't help but notice two nuggets of NDP propaganda, released by Hamilton Mountain's MP Chris Charlton, that prove exactly why that party will never form a national government. The first will be addressed here and the other will be in a later post. It's bad enough this riding is saddled with an NDP MP as is, here's hoping that changes when voters choose the 'right' candidate in Conservative Terry Anderson in the upcoming election.

Exhibit A for the jury is a media release that came out late Tuesday night and was picked up by some of Hamilton's radio stations Wednesday morning. Charlton's simplistic argument was that gas prices are too high and there should be an "oil and gas ombudsman" (but not an ombudswoman? Hmmm.) responsible for investigating consumer complaints about the industry and its players. To that I say poppycock. At first glance, this position assumes that it is permissible for a government agent to be involved in the free market, a view that only left-leaning people can properly have. Consumers are not stupid, they know that the price of gas is high and it is impossible to do anything about it. As is the case with every other consumer good, the price has risen over the years yet people still buy gas in increasing volumes. If you really want to send a message to oil and gas companies, start riding a bike or taking mass transit. It's not that hard to figure out.

On top of this, Charlton does not offer any sort of costing for this position. An effective ombuds would likely require a budget of hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not into the one million-plus level. So, let's get this straight, not only does Charlton think gas prices are too high, but she also proposes hosing taxpayers some more by having them pay for an ombuds office! Frivolous waste of money. It's also the height of hypocrisy for the NDP to gripe about how high gas prices are when they actively support carbon taxing, a practice that would easily raise prices some more. You think $1.20 a litre is high? Just imagine when prices go north of $1.75 a litre if we implemented a carbon tax plan. That ombuds office sure would be busy!

Another obvious problem with this ombuds proposal is that that person would be absolutely powerless to make any change in the price of oil and gas. How effective is an oversight body when they cannot implement their own recommendations? Issuing an annual report would be an act of futility. Here's a sample of the contents, "The price of oil and gas has gone up 25% in the last fiscal year. This office has received 10 million complaints and delivered zero solutions. Oh, and our budget has increased at a faster rate than the price of oil so we hope you all pay your taxes this year. Sincerely, The Oil and Gas Ombuds Office." Such a patently absurd waste of taxpayer dollars.

The NDP and Ms. Charlton can propose things such as an oil and gas ombuds is only because of the simple fact that they are the fourth party, with ever-decreasing popularity, and will never form a national government. Their pet projects such as this demonstrate the short-sighted nature of NDP policies and the general disregard for hard-working Canadians and their money.

NDP Propaganda at its finest, part deux

Exhibit B is far less complex, but never-the-less worthy of putting into balance.

In Thursday's mail I received a postcard from MP Charlton with the headline 'Credit cards: are you getting gouged?' Of course, a highly rhetorical question, but not for the reasons the NDP would like you to believe.

Once again in this proposal, Charlton and her party have proposed an intrusion into the free market, specifically at the big banks, long-time giants in their own right. Their plan entails capping the interest rates on credit cards at 5% over prime, bringing interest down to around 10%. Additionally, the plan calls for interest being charged only on amounts owing, not additional interest. If you believe in the regulation of private business by government, this proposal is fine and dandy. However, for those who know better, this plan is nothing more than another shameless attempt by the NDP to gain some exposure.

The only people to be held responsible for high credit card debts are those who spend themselves into debt in the first place. Debt is bad news for anyone, but at the end of the day, responsibility must be placed on the consumer for their own actions. If you can't afford to keep a credit card, cut it up. It's not a difficult thing to do. What this NDP proposal says to the educated folk is that people would be able to spend even more because their interest rates will be lower. So much for actually helping people work their way out of debt. The NDP plan would drive people under even further. When that happens, what will the NDP do? Call for another ombuds office to receive complaints about high debt?

Folks, what both of these proposals show is that the NDP will say anything and do anything to keep their message in the media. With the party losing relevance every time voters go to the polls and former high-profile members jumping ship, the NDP do not have a sustainable future. To that end, Hamilton Mountain voters ought to think long and hard about what sort of representation they want from their MP. Party rhetoric and unrealistic promises that fall well short of actually helping people or real action and sustainable solutions that only the Conservative Party offer. Here's hoping voters make the right choice.

Abandoning their constituents: The Opposition's betrayal of Immigrants

Ottawa’s latest controversy surrounds the new immigration reforms that have been proposed by Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Diane Finley. While debate in the House has been taking place for the last two weeks, the Opposition has kicked up the rhetoric and threatened to vote against the budget implementation bill that contains these reforms, thus triggering an election. Their strategy is short-sighted and does a disservice to immigrants across Canada and those looking to come here.

The heart of this policy is that the Immigration Minister would be allowed to move certain identified groups of immigrants to the front of the queue and have their applications processed faster. To give you an idea of how long that list is now, it takes upwards of six years to file an application and have it processed in order to legally come to Canada. The number of people waiting is over 800,000. That is simply unacceptable for any nation, particularly Canada, where multi-culturalism is seen as a national touchstone. By the way, under the Liberal government, the waiting list ballooned from about 130,000 in 1993 to the current 800,000-plus.

Canada needs immigrants to arrive in an efficient, smart way and the new immigration bill allows that to happen. The country’s labour market is on the verge of being desperately short of skilled labourers to fill some of its most important jobs. Canada’s rate of replacement has historically been lower than the world average and this trend will only continue as the population further ages. Additionally, the reforms, if passed, will bring families together faster, which is a basic right and totally fair. Opposition members should be ashamed for not supporting this motion that would bring more families to Canada to enjoy some of the highest standards of living in the world. Minister Finley’s plan to clear the backlog of immigrants waiting to have their applications processed is practical and smart and will be a benefit to Canada as a whole.

The fact that these reforms are being written into a budget implementation bill is not only smart policy but a good tactic of the Conservative government. For policies as important as this, including them in confidence motions allows the government to give them priority in debate and inform the public of its intentions. Minister Finley’s proposals involve spending public money and are part of the country’s larger economic plan, both of which are traditionally part of the government’s budget regardless of party. These reforms are not out of the ordinary and are hardly being rammed through the vote process, despite what the Opposition would have the public believe.

Obviously, the Opposition has been doing everything short of accusing the Government of racism in their criticism of this new plan. Official criticism is that the Minister will “cherry-pick” (Judy Sgro, Liberal) immigrants based on discriminatory standards. As well, the Opposition seems to think that this plan will deny immigrants the opportunity to get into Canada altogether, which couldn’t be further from the truth. A sensible, smart Minister would not abuse their powers as the Opposition accuses. It would not only be illegal, but a terribly unpopular political move to tamper with Immigration policy to benefit the Minister or their friends. In today’s era of higher scrutiny of government, any sort of illegal activities are uncovered and brought to the public’s attention, bringing about changes and electoral defeat (the Liberal party should be familiar with that).

The NDP, as usual, have pledged to vote against this bill even before it is introduced in the House. While this trend is nothing new, it should be very disturbing to Canadians and particularly immigrants, who the NDP claim as their own constituents. In this situation, the NDP are again abandoning their core supporters and are not standing up for their own beliefs. The fact that they do not have the courage to stand by their policies to help everyday Canadians reflects their lack of identity as a whole. For those Hamilton Mountain voters who read this blog, Chris Charlton plans to vote against this plan. Contact her office and demand an explanation because she is abandoning her own constituents on a very important issue.

I can understand that the Opposition parties are upset about this bill, particularly because they did not introduce it on their own. Minister Finley’s immigration reforms further demonstrate that the Conservative Party is looking out for the interests of all Canadians, including those who are potential citizens. The Hamilton Mountain Conservative candidate, Terry Anderson, is committed to working on behalf of residents and on issues such as this, will have an effective voice in government to ensure that smart, sensible plans such as these immigration reforms are passed.

By-Elections, By the Numbers

Yesterday's four federal by-elections produced mixed results across the board, but there are several prevailing themes to be noted here. The Liberals easily won, as expected, in Toronto Centre and Willowdale giving Bob Rae (more on him later) and Martha Hall-Findlay, respectively, their seats in the House of Commons. In Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River (DMCR), a geographically huge riding in northern Saskatchewan, Conservative Rob Clarke trounced a Dion appointee, Joan Beatty, by just over 1700 votes after Liberal internal polling saw the riding as a 'tie'. They may want to check those numbers again. As for Vancouver-Quadra, a traditional Liberal stronghold in its own right, the Liberal candidate, Joyce Murray, beat Conservative Deborah Meredith by only 151 votes. A win is a win, but when the Liberal candidate won in the last general election by over 12000 votes, this by-election win seems a bit hollow. The gains made by the Conservatives in this affluent, multi-cultural, urban riding show the party's growing strength amongst Canadians who want lower taxes, a cleaner environment, and a strong government in Ottawa.

The raw numbers for headlines are that the Liberals won three seats and the Conservatives won one. If you go inside the numbers, however, several facts present themselves:

1) The Liberals held all four of these seats before last night and emerged only holding three so they did in fact lose a seat in the House.
2) Two of the Liberal wins were by star candidates in stronghold ridings. Anything less than a 40% Liberal share of the vote would be unacceptable. Indeed, both candidates were above 60%.
3) Stephane Dion is still winless with handpicked candidates running in by-elections. As was the case in Outremont last fall, Dion's strategy fell flat with opposition from both inside the Liberal party and, of course, the good voters of DMCR. His judgment ought to be called into question by the party as he has cost the Liberals precious seats in Opposition.
4) Sticking with Stephane, now that Bob Rae is in caucus, Dion will be surrounded by ambitious, if not hawkish, colleagues who want his job. If Dion cannot rally party support and start to make some serious gains in the House or in by-elections to come, he may find himself out of the leadership before the next general election.
5) Finally, briefly, the NDP performed miserably in all four by-elections and, in fact, was locked in tight races with the Green Party in the urban ridings. The party that once was on the fringe of Canadian politics has indeed arrived and will chip votes away from the NDP in future elections. A welcomed sight for those who want to see fewer NDPers in the House. Not bad for a "nuisance" party, as Hamilton Mountain's NDP MP calls them (yes, Chris Charlton actually said that).

Stephane Dion called yesterday a "great day for Liberals". He couldn't be more wrong. Yesterday was a great day for Bob Rae, who can now keep a watchful eye on Dion in the House and plot another leadership run. It was also a great day for Conservatives as they gained a seat, but also put the Liberals on notice in Vancouver-Quadra and I would expect that, given the strong result, Deborah Meredith will be back for another shot at it in the next election because she will probably win. If winning two seats that your party was expected to take and barely squeaking out a victory in another is a "great day", the Liberals have obviously peaked and have nowhere to go but down.

Another sobering note for the Liberals, despite their wins yesterday, is that the Conservative Party is showing consistent strength with the voters and recent controversies have done little to break the government's momentum. Today's Globe and Mail/Strategic Council Poll shows the Conservatives with 38% support and the Liberals at 27%. If an election were held today, the Conservatives would be very close to winning a majority government, something that Canada needs during the current economic uncertainty. Yesterday's by-elections may embolden Stephane Dion to topple the government, but he should think twice, and maybe three times, before making that move. The hollow Liberal victories will not carry over to a general election.

RESP Bill: Governing from the Opposition Benches

Don't feel stupid if you don't know what I'm talking about here. In fact, the way the Liberals, Bloc, and NDP forced the new Registered Education Savings Plan proposal through the House of Commons last week left many people dumbfounded and wondering just what the bill was all about. By attempting to govern from the opposition benches, the Liberals, Bloc, and NDP are circumventing not only the privilege of the Finance Minister to set budgetary policy, but are also going against the Constitution and the will of the people who voted them into Opposition in the first place.

Liberal MP Dan McTeague (Pickering-Scarborough East), he of the gas price crusade, introduced a bill last Thursday afternoon as a Private Members matter. With the support of his Liberal caucus, the Bloc, and NDP, the bill passed as those three parties combined have a numerical advantage over the minority Conservative government. The bill, at its core, is designed to allow Canadians who want to contribute to a RESP to receive an income tax deduction for up to $5,000 for each child based on the contribution level. Don't forget, this is on top of the regular tax shelter that Canadians receive for investing in an RESP. Financially, this plan is costly. Even Liberal estimates are around $900 million but a more realistic figure is probably closer to $1.5 billion because, frankly, what Canadian wouldn't mind taking advantage of keeping some of their money from the government at tax time? The RESP system is already a tax shelter for Canadians, the McTeague bill just creates another opportunity to duck the tax man.

As is usually the case, the wealthy benefit the most from this RESP proposal because they contribute the most to their children's education savings plan as a way to avoid paying taxes. The country's revenue is projected to fall as the economy slows in the next couple of years and McTeague's plan would drive government spending into deficit territory and that is unacceptable. While the Liberals may be famous for 'tax and spend' policies, this 'no tax and spend' plan is fiscally irresponsible and will hurt the country in the long run. Even the Canadian Taxpayers Federation disagrees with the McTeague bill, and they've been the most vocal supporters for lower taxes for years.

Politically, there are two ways to look at this plan. The government spin from Finance Minister Jim Flaherty is that this proposal is a "tax cut for the wealthy" and "runs the risk of putting the balanced budget of our government into a Liberal deficit". His assessment is bang-on, but I bring a different look to it. What McTeague did was unconstitutional. He violated the government's right and privilege to set budget and monetary policy. The bill also shows that the Opposition is trying to govern from its side of the House and that is not their job. Opposition MP's are in opposition for a reason: their party was not elected as the government. Their job is to oppose the government, not set its policy. Additionally, for the other Opposition parties to go along with this proposal is simply for political reasons. The NDP cannot say they support giving the rich a tax break with a straight face. Jack Layton and his caucus ought to be embarrassed for capitulating to the whims of Liberals after spending weeks attacking them in the House. Their agenda is simply to bring down the government and if they want an election, so be it. I'm sure they will enjoy losing several of their seats (including Hamilton Mountain) over issues such as this. Similarly for the Bloc, this RESP proposal does nothing to support their policies except to harm the Canadian state.

In essence, what I'm saying here is that the Opposition parties have abandoned their own good judgment and moral authority in attempting to govern from their side of the House on this issue. Canadians don't vote members into Opposition because they want them to govern. The RESP plan is a political ploy and nothing more. Accordingly, the government has said that they will write this bill into a budget amendment, automatically making it a confidence motion. If the Liberals continue to support this bill, they will go against their earlier plan to vote for the budget, a glaring contradiction and damaging to any election chances. The NDP, having already said they will vote against the budget, will support the RESP bill, continuing their contradictory plan of supporting a tax break for the rich. The Liberals attempt to govern from Opposition will ultimately keep them from governing at all under the incompetent Stephane Dion (who, conveniently, wasn't in the House when the vote was taken but was obviously aware of it) and further demonstrate that the only party capable of managing the nation's finances is the Conservative Party.

Rolling Up the Rim to Win...

It's been a big week here at 'A Swing from the Hammer', starting with my outstanding Letter to the Editor on Monday, continuing with the NDP response on Wednesday. Couple that with a busy stretch of school work and you've got a spent Alex. That said, there are only 4 weeks of school left, then exams, then onto June 12th convocation. Bring it on.

In other news, the annual rite of passage, Tim Hortons 'Roll Up the Rim to Win' contest is in full-swing. While I'm still waiting for the cup that wins me a GPS system, I'd just like to point out that as of 10:42 Friday evening, my winning percentage is a robust 60%. That's right: 3 for 5. At this rate, I win more than the Toronto Maple Leafs (not that it's particularly difficult to do that).

Quiet weekend on the politics front as there are no major announcements coming up and no confidence motions that could torpedo the government. A brief reprieve then.

Enjoy the pummeling of snow we're supposed to get this Saturday.

-AB

'The Letter' Fallout

Before I get into the substance of my article, a couple of things to take care of...

1) The genius that was my letter to the editor was all mine, I repeat, all mine.

2) I have received unanimous support across the board, from people of all parties, about the letter's contents. Even a staunch NDP supporter was impressed with the quality of my argument and the points I raised.

With that out of the way, I also want to thank the Hamilton Spectator for placing me 'above the fold' as the lead letter on Monday. Always good to get that exposure.

In today's Spectator, there is a rebuttal from none other than Chris Charlton, MP, Hamilton Mountain (or at least someone from her office). Interesting that there would finally be a comment attributed to her about the budget seeing as she didn't have anything to say last Wednesday when all local MP's (even her NDP colleagues) offered their thoughts. I've posted a link to the letter below for reference.

http://www.thespec.com/Opinions/LettertotheEditor/article/334947

Now, allow me to rebut this sorry rebuttal...

It remains irresponsible of the NDP to have voted against the budget and its contents because there are many provisions, including what I listed in my original letter, that are clearly beneficial to Hamilton. I also maintain that their opposition is unrepresentative of the constituents' views, especially when Ms. Charlton says that her office sent out a pre-budget survey. Hello, my house never received this survey and I would like to hear from people who didn't receive their's either.

Ms. Charlton's letter is loaded with the standard NDP rhetoric and short on true solutions for Hamiltonians. Consider the quote, "Working families want decent-paying jobs, access to education and training...". Well, the budget includes an extension of tax breaks to manufacturers who want to buy new, modern, 'green' equipment in order to maintain their competitive advantage and keep their employers working instead of having to cut jobs. The budget also makes a considerable investment in education and training, rolling out the new Canada Student Grant to replace the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation. There is more money for students to receive and the new CSG program makes it easier for students to get that money. The previous CMSF was shown to be ineffective in encouraging more people to study at a post-secondary level and the funding formula was unpredictable at best. Hamilton's NDP MP's, in voting against this as part of the budget, are effectively saying that they do not support making it easier for students who need assistance to get it.

Yet another part of Ms. Charlton's missive, that about "concrete action on the environment" is worth taking a second look. The budget is investing $250 million for the Automotive Innovation Fund that will be used to develop new, 'greener' vehicles with high fuel efficiency. In addition, the budget commits $500 million to public transit infrastructure nationwide. Anyone with half a brain will tell you that putting more money into transit to make it more efficient and user-friendly will get people out of their cars and onto buses, subways, and light-rail. What is more concrete than taking cars off the road and lowering carbon dioxide emissions? To top it off, the NDP voted against the new 'carbon capture' program in Saskatchewan (so much for loyalty to the home province), plus a new federal program to start pricing carbon and create a carbon trading system. Quite simply, there is very concrete action on the environment in this budget, yet the NDP have voted against it.

The argument Ms. Charlton makes about the Guaranteed Income Supplement for Seniors is more NDP rhetoric. Instead of proposing a solution to low-income seniors, the NDP have just voted against raising their GIS exemption. Not to mention, the budget also lowers income tax for the lowest earners in Canada, some of which may be seniors. Rather than putting that money back in seniors' pockets, the NDP are voting against this budget and basically taking money from those who truly need it.

Interestingly, Ms. Charlton actually acknowledged a point of my letter in stating, "while the gas tax extension is welcome, it doesn't begin to address the country's $121-billion infrastructure deficit...". May as well lob a softball down the middle to hammer out of the park. Canada's cities are responsible for managing their own funds. They are the creation of provincial governments and therefore are out of federal jurisdiction. The fact that many of Canada's cities are incapable of balancing their budgets is the result of their own mismanagement. Anyone who pays attention to the plight of Toronto, Hamilton, Calgary, Vancouver, et al knows the extent of their problems and the budget addresses them by providing permanent gas tax money. Ontario cities ought to be particularly insulted by Ms. Charlton's claims considering how the Rae NDP government, in which Ms. Charlton was a civil servant and her husband was an MPP, left them near-bankrupt after 5 years of complete financial mismanagement. Canadian cities can rely on permanent gas tax money and plan for future infrastructure projects, knowing that money will be there. The NDP felt otherwise and voted against the budget.

Finally, nobody can disagree with the benefits of paying down the national debt, not even Ms. Charlton, who doesn't have it in her to admit that the budget fulfills legal obligation to pay down the debt. I indicated this in my original letter but she conveniently ignored it. Heavens the Conservatives are seen to help Canadians, right Ms. Charlton? The budget includes so many provisions that help everyday Canadians from all walks of life. Even long-haul truckers, a group that the NDP frequently court for votes, are now able to write-off up to 80% of their food receipts on the road. That is an increase from the previous 50%. It's the little things such as that which prove just how narrow-minded the NDP's interests really are. Oh, just to remind you, they voted against that proposal as well.

Canadians are overtaxed and deserve better from their government. The 2008 federal budget is smart, well-planned, and addresses the nation's real priorities, not the pet projects of the NDP. If Ms. Charlton and her caucus colleagues are that offended by what the budget does for Canadians and Hamiltonians alike, that is their decision. The voting public ought to be offended as well and will show their feelings at the ballot box when they elect a Conservative majority government.

-AB

A letter to the editor

The following letter will appear in The Hamilton Spectator on Monday, March 3rd. Published here for your reading pleasure...

Editor,

Re: Flaherty fails to deliver

The local NDP MP's opposition to this year's federal budget is irresponsible and unrepresentative of constituents' views, given some of its provisions.

In voting against the budget, the NDP are voting against permanent $32 million dollar gas tax payments for Hamilton, money this city desperately needs. They are voting against providing more money to hire police officers. Finally, they are voting against raising Seniors' Guaranteed Income Supplement exemptions to $3500. Is there something fundamentally wrong with these commitments that the MP's feel compelled to vote against?

This year's budget, while lean on handing out unaffordable 'pork' financial commitments, is appropriate for the economic uncertainty that currently plagues the country. The government is also legally bound to pay down the federal debt and this budget fulfills that obligation without diverting funds from other programs. Ontarians should know all too well how poor fiscal management during an economic downturn can quickly create a financial disaster thanks to the NDP government of the early 1990's.

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty delivered a smart, no-risk budget that secures Canada's fiscal stability as we wade through tough economic times. The fact that Hamilton's NDP MP's are voting against this budget should show city voters just how their representatives feel about spending responsibly or spending with the intention of going into a deficit situation. I, for one, would rather short-term spending restraint and look forward to future prosperity rather than incurring a long-term, crippling deficit.

Regards,

-Alex Buck, Hamilton

Would be interested in comments on here. Start the discussion...

Christmas in February

Yesterday was Christmas morning for politics and sports watchers like myself with the 2008 Federal Budget being announced on the same day as the NHL Trading Deadline. While my interest in the NHL has waned in recent years, the Trade Deadline is still an exciting part of the NHL season as blanket media coverage (at least in Canada) hypes the event to election-like proportions.

And now for something completely different...politics! The Federal Budget is always a government's most important annual document and aside from the Throne Speech, is the determinant of policy for the next year. People who manage their own finances know all too well how difficult it is to keep track of the numbers, where revenue is coming from, and where it should go. Now, imagine that on a macro-level, national scale. The Federal Budget is always a thorough, well-planned document designed to give taxpayers value for their money while maintaining the government's books.

That said, with the economy heading for an uncertain 12 months, yesterday's Budget urged fiscal restraint and prepared the country for whatever transpires in the near future. I have no problems with this budget as it addresses the nation's needs and ensures that the cupboard will not be bare, despite what critics may say. It is always interesting to hear the opposition's take on the budget, especially the Bloc and NDP, when one considers that they have never tabled a national budget of their own (and we all know how the NDP managed Ontario's finances in the early 1990's). The fact that the Liberals supported the budget tells me that they're not ready for an election. Indeed, they only have 2/3 of their candidates nominated and are behind in fund-raising so an election now would be a losing proposition.

I will turn to the NDP and their opposition of this budget. As readers know, my riding is represented by an NDP MP as are 2 others in Hamilton. Their opposition to the budget is unacceptable. Indeed, they even came out before the budget and said they would vote against it. I thought the whole idea of electing MP's was so they could go to Ottawa and represent their constituent's views. Stating that you are voting against something before it is even tabled is not representing people at all.

When looking at what the NDP are going to vote against, one wonders what brain they are thinking with. After saying that they would stand up for seniors, the NDP are voting against extending the Seniors' Guaranteed Income Supplement, despite my local MP, Chris Charlton, saying that she supports the GIS. They are also voting against making the 1 cent federal gas tax payment to cities (to be used for infrastructure projects) permanent, despite campaigning for improving infrastructure. The budget also extends student grants for post-secondary students from middle income backgrounds to the tune of $430 million 4 years from now. Also for students: a continuation of the textbook tax credit, more money for research, and a significant scholarship for graduates of PhD programs. NDP MP's are voting against all of these program, even though they apparently stand for higher quality post-secondary education. Also, the NDP have voted against the new savings account that allows Canadians to contribute up to $5000 annually, which is sensible for all income brackets, completely tax-free. Instead of supporting fiscal responsibility for its own constituents, the NDP are saying that Canadians shouldn't be prudent with their money and just spend, perhaps into debt. How appropriate, the NDP telling people to spend, spend, spend when they don't have the means to sustain it. If anyone is curious about how the NDP would manage the nation's finances, their questions have been answered in this budget.

The people of Hamilton deserve better than this from their 3 NDP MP's. At a time when the nation's economic outlook is uncertain, the NDP are voting against a responsible budget that offers incentives to Canadians who are equally responsible with their own money. Their lack of representation on issues such as the 2008 Federal Budget smacks of hypocrisy when the most recent party propaganda leads with the headline 'Representation You Can Count On'. Hamilton Mountain cannot count on the NDP for effective representation and should vote against Chris Charlton in the next election.

Live from Arizona...

From what I hear it's cold, windy, and all-around miserable in Hamilton this week. As I'm in sunny, warm Arizona, I felt compelled to write a short bit on the US Presidential race.

Frequent readers will note that I was a supporter of Gov. Mitt Romney prior to him ending his bid for the White House two weeks ago. While I was disappointed, the writing was on the wall that he did not have a legitimate shot at winning this fall and it was in his best interests to step aside. Be that as it may, the presumptive GOP candidate became Sen. John McCain of, hello, Arizona. Here I am in the heart of McCain country, his bastion of liberal-Republican support. When I look at a lot of the people in this state, it's easy to see why they support Sen. McCain. He is older than most candidates, has children in the military, is a veteran himself, and speaks to middle of the road American values. That is all fine and dandy, but look at the flip side...

This morning I made a trip to Wal-Mart for groceries and there were literally dozens of seniors (70 years of age and up) that were working. Working! In their 70's! Something is wrong with that picture. These folks cannot even afford their prescription drugs yet are pointing people in the direction of the pharmacy. Even the greeter at the front door was sitting in a wheelchair and was obviously in poor health. Why are these people working? Their pensions are woefully inadequate and cannot cover basic expenses. So much for being the greatest country in the world.

You're probably wondering what this has to do with Sen. McCain. Here it is: Sen. McCain would continue to pour billions of dollars into Iraq while his own constituents starve and wonder when their 401(k)'s will ever be enough to live on. Seniors deserve the dignity of a good retirement after working hard for decades. Frankly, as a Conservative and Republican, I find it embarrassing that the GOP will line up behind Sen. McCain this November and trumpet his qualities. He may be a National Security hawk, but the economy is by far the most important issue facing the US right now and he does not have a clue how it works or how to manage a budget.

Americans would be well served to steer clear of Sen. McCain and choose Sen. Barack Obama for 4 years. While this is not an endorsement of support, I do believe that Sen. Obama can be a competent President and keep the seat warm for 2012 when Mitt Romney can take another run for the White House. At least then, Gov. Romney won't be fighting liberals from all sides in his bid to be the President.

I'll be back north of the 49th on Saturday. Until then...

Holding them to account: The NDP

An interesting bit of serendipity struck me on Tuesday that I feel compelled to blog about. Apologies for taking a couple of days to post this, had midterm exams on Wednesday and earlier this morning.

Tuesday afternoon, Parliament moved to pass the Tackling Violent Crime Act (TVCA) onto the Senate for long-awaited approval and passage into law. While this process should have been completed months ago, the Liberal-dominated Senate stalled the legislation until Prime Minister Harper and Justice Minister Rob Nicholson forced the issue into a confidence motion. A smart, cagey political move on their behalf. Regardless of political party, I think everyone should be on side with tougher legislation on violent crime.

The Liberals refused to vote on this bill, instead making a spectacle of their dissent and marching out of the House of Commons. Shame. Their classless, weak-kneed approach to such an important issue speaks volumes about their policies and inability to see past their own rhetoric in order to pass a fundamental piece of legislation. Are these really the people you want governing the nation?

My issue is with the NDP, as usual. They voted against this bill, the only party to officially do so. While I give them credit for at least standing up and voting, it is beyond comprehension why they would disapprove of tougher crime laws. Violent crime is violent crime no matter what ideology you subscribe to. Children deserve the protection of raising the age of consent to 16. Gun crimes are heinous and serve no purpose but to harm our society and should be treated with the utmost strength of the law. Apparently the NDP feel differently. That is the true shame in all of this.

Now on to my blog topic, holding the NDP to account. On the same day that the NDP voted against the TVCA, I received in the mail a piece of pre-campaign literature from the NDP MP of my Hamilton Mountain riding, Chris Charlton. While littered with standard NDP propaganda, I found a glaring contradiction within. On the front page is a photo of Charlton with a Hamilton Police officer at a fundraising dinner, ironically entitled 'Officers Need Assistance'. Yes, Ms. Charlton, officers do need assistance. Through tougher legislation on violent crimes, police officers would be able to do their jobs and take dangerous criminals off of our streets. Instead, the NDP and Ms. Charlton voted against the Tackling Violent Crimes Act. That is not assisting officers, Crown Attorneys, and society at all.

Then, inside the newsletter is an outright lie about Charlton's support for tougher crime legislation. "I was proud to support bills in the House which imposed mandatory minimum penalties for firearms crimes, raised the age of sexual consent from 14 to 16 years, and placed the onus on those accused of firearms offences to prove why they should receive bail." That is a complete falsehood. Well done, Ms. Charlton. You voted against the Tacking Violent Crimes Act.

Now, with a federal election looming, the challenge is for Hamilton Mountain voters to expose Ms. Charlton for who she really is: a dishonest, ineffective MP who does not represent the views of her constituents and goes as far as to insult people's intelligence in order to get herself elected.

After this past week, I'm glad I'll be in Arizona for the next 7 days to relax and be recharged for the election because I promise to go all-out to ensure that Chris Charlton is not re-elected.

-AB

Happy Trails, Mitt

Alas, my only horse in the race for the White House in '08 dropped out earlier today. Mitt Romney 'suspended' his bid for President. As a supporter of Gov. Romney, I couldn't be more disappointed. Gov. Romney offered a true conservative alternative to the moderate, near liberal, style of Sen. John McCain (now the clear GOP front-runner) and would have been an excellent President.

For those who criticized his lack of experience on National Security, they seem to be forgetting that the President can nominate the best and brightest to serve in his Cabinet and not sacrifice any experience or judgment on a particular front. John F. Kennedy had Robert McNamara, Richard Nixon had Henry Kissinger, even George W. Bush had Donald Rumsfeld, all talented individuals who had an active hand in National Security and foreign policy. Gov. Romney is no fool, he would appoint a competent Cabinet and eventually learn the ropes of foreign affairs before too long.

All of this said, American voters will now choose 1 of 3 centrist candidates in the upcoming election. Senators John McCain, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama are by no means on the extreme ends of the political spectrum and perhaps represent a larger changing of the guard in the United States. Only time will tell just what that change means for the nation and the world.

From Super Sunday to Super Tuesday

As I continue to bask in the glory of victory from Super Bowl XLII (yes, I'm a Giants fan), I have been reminded by a certain, serious blogger (hello, Matt MacDonald) that my blogging needs to continue or else...

So, in the name of personal security, here I am.

Allow me to take this opportunity to say that Bill Belichick is the least classy individual on the face of the Earth. Worse than Bill Clinton (more on him shortly). 'The Hoodie', as he will be called, carries himself with as much class and grace as Jack Layton, and it's not much. He is an embarrassment to the NFL and coaches everywhere for his cheating, distasteful mannerisms on the sideline and off the field. From Spygate to the post-game handshake at the Super Bowl, The Hoodie demonstrated his inability to accept losing and be a man this season. Instead, he's a low-life punk, no better than some of the players he is supposed to lead. But hey, nobody's perfect, especially when they get beat by the New York Football Giants!!!!

I digress...

Now, to Super Tuesday. Those who know me are aware of my firm support for Governor Mitt Romney. He's a true conservative who knows how to lead and run an economy. If anyone has looked at the Business section of their local paper lately, they will know just how bad it is in the US of A. Frankly, a 71 year old moderate Republican with little domestic experience and questionable Senate record (that's you, Senator John McCain), should not be President of the United States. There are bigger problems in the world than the Middle East, namely why there are more Americans without health insurance than the entire population of Canada, and the price of gas and food continues to rise uncontrollably, that require a President with a handle on the economy. Governor Romney gets my vote (if I had one in the US, of course) and would be an ideal President.

As for the Democrats, if I had to choose between Senator Clinton or Senator Obama, the choice is not close. Barack Obama is a hands-down better candidate and would be a solid President. For many of the reasons that I've listed for Governor Romney, Senator Obama is miles ahead of Clinton. His policy on health-care is manageable and sensible, unlike the universal Medicare program that Clinton has been pushing since 1992. Take the hint, Hillary, people want to choose their own health-care program.

Also, the thought of another Clinton in the White House should make everyone shudder. The world has been through 20 years of Bush Sr.(4)-Clinton (8)-Bush Jr.(8) and another 4 under Hillary Clinton would be more of the same. She is nothing more than an extension of her morally bankrupt, sleazy husband and his policies. The Clinton name has been associated with controversy and scandal at every level of politics and professional life. How Bill Clinton did not end up in jail after the Whitewater scandal makes one wonder who he paid off. In addition, the leader of the free world must be someone who sets an example and offers more than just a charming, folksy smile and says nice things to voters.

Strong policy usually wins the day and the strongest candidates emerge from the pack eventually. This blog endorses Senator Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney as the Democratic and Republican nominees for President. Governor Romney would be the best overall choice for the United States in this November's general election.