"One may smile, and smile, and be a villain..."
- Hamlet Act I, scene V

In an election campaign so devoid of attention-grabbing events, Canadian mass media and new media pundits alike have had to work extra hard, digging to find an issue worthy of print.

The early bones the Liberals and NDP tried to get the public to chew on regarding the Harper Conservatives, namely the Bev Oda affair, the alleged cost overruns on the new F-35 fighter jets, and the ridiculous Contempt of Parliament rouse, all proved to be flavorless.

The Conservatives attempt to highlight the dangers of a Liberal/NDP/Bloc coalition was initially effective, but has lost some steam since the radically socialist NDP leapfrogged the Liberals in some polls, which has become the latest tidbit for the hungry media to feed on.

Just when the CBC thought they didn't have anyone on the left to cheer for, here comes smilin' Jack Layton.

The NDP leader has been all over the television since the unexpected rise of his party.  What is odd is the fact that Layton isn't new to the scene.  He is already familiar, his ideas are already well-known.

But the upswing in polling numbers has given the left wing media licence to paint this as a swarm of voters moving to the NDP, which may not be the whole truth.

Federalist Quebec voters who have long looked at the Bloc Quebecois as their voice in Parliament while choosing to ignore the 'separatist' angle have decided to give the last federal party on the list a kick at the can.  They have long memories and continue to reject the Adscam Liberals, and there's just not enough conservative Quebecers to boost Tory fortunes in la belle province.  That leaves the NDP.

I believe it is a case of Quebec voters moving away from the Bloc, and not so much moving to the New Democrats.

The NDP rise could lose much meaning if they don't experience the same lift in Ontario.  Winning that province is the key to winning the government.  While the socialists are enjoying the latest numbers, their popularity is in areas (outside of Quebec) that aren't really surprising: Saskatchewan and British Columbia.

Given the evidence that many who plan to vote for the NDP aren't overly familiar with the policies of the party, it leads one to believe that the party's rise has more to do with Jack Layton's charisma and voter fatigue with the Conservatives and Liberals than it has to do with any great neo-socialist awakening by the Canadian public.

The party has promised an astounding $69 Billion - Billion! - in new spending during this campaign, without any real plan of how to pay the bill.  They have promised to raise taxes, including the corporate tax rate.  While at first blush that may sound appealing to some voters (damn evil corporations!) the truth is it would lead to less investment, less cash flow, and less jobs. 

They promised a Cap and Trade policy, which is a prime example of the unworkability of their platform.  C&P would virtually kill the oil and natural gas industries in Alberta and Saskatchewan, which would dry up a huge portion of the federal government's supply of funds - the very same funds Layton would need to pay for his promises.

As someone wrote in a Letter to the Editor in the Calgary Sun: 

"Seriously? Jack Layton? Do my fellow Canadians understand what his promised corporate tax hike to 19.5% really means to our fragile economic recovery? It means borrowing from Peter to pay Paul. It means in the short term he will generate enough money to pay for all these fancy social programs he has dangled before our eyes but in the long term? In the long term it means job layoffs. It means large deficits we cannot afford to take on...We can’t afford to buy now, pay later. The U.S. tried that and they are still digging themselves out."

Canada found itself living under a Liberal/NDP coalition before.  We suffer from some aftershocks to this day.

Given the fact that Canada is still climbing out from under the global economic meltdown - the damage kept to a minimum by the Harper Conservatives - Canadians would be well advised to remember that it is the steak, not the sizzle, the matters.

An NDP-powered government? Just ask Ontario about the Bob Rae years.

With less than one week remaining until Canadian voters mark their ballots, everyone from the mass media to independent bloggers are releasing numerous polls and playing the 'who is going to get what' guessing game. 

When a party goes up or down on a bar graph, regionally or nationally, there is an endless array of pundits at the ready to explain why.
While it is important to take the varied statistics with a grain of salt - polls, like many other things in life, aren't certain - it is interesting to dig a bit deeper to find the reason for a party's rise or fall.

Over the past few days, I've conducted a little non-scientific polling of my own.  Instead of just asking which party a respondent is planning to vote for, I thought I'd find out the specifics.  I wanted to know the 'why'.  What has contributed to determining the choice?

Just how knowledgeable are Canadian voters?

I asked an equal number of intended voters for each party - no easy task finding a gaggle of leftwing voters in Alberta.  Thank God for Edmonton's Whyte Avenue.

Question: List any 3 items from the platform of the party you intend to vote for.

Intended Conservative voters: 3/3- 60%, 2/3- 27%, 1/3- 13%, 0/3- 0%

Intended Liberal voters: 3/3- 40%, 2/3- 40%, 1/3- 0%, 0/3- 20%

Intended NDP voters: 3/3- 30%, 2/3- 0%, 1/3- 13%, while the remaining voters who intended to mark their ballot for the New Democrats couldn't give even one correct answer - 0/3- 57%

Intended Green voters: 3/3- 0%, 2/3- 0%, 1/3- 50%, 0/3- 50%

To follow up, I asked the simple question: Why are you voting for the party of your choice?

80% of Tory voters' answers were a mix of good governance, support of Harper, and support of party policy.

45% of Liberal responses were a policy/leader blend, while more than 20% were anti-Harper.

71% of NDP voters named Jack Layton as their reasons while also playing the fear card, listing the phantom 'scary Harper' canard.

Most of the Green responses were the usual environmental concerns.

So what, if anything, can be learned from the responses?

To put any weight on this information, you'd have to accept that the further left you go on the political spectrum the less one is informed.  While Conservative voters were more able to name actual policies from their chosen party's platform, those who intended to vote for the NDP or Green party were considerably less familiar with their respective teams agenda.

Both the numbers and informal conversations with all respondents paints the picture that while those on the right of the political spectrum focus more on policy, those on the left are more concerned with personality.

The rise of the NDP fortunes could easily be interpreted as people buying the sizzle over the steak.  Especially in Alberta, where most Layton fans claimed not to know about NDP ideas such as Cap and Trade - the proposed regulation of our energy sector which would cause a huge negative impact on both the provincial and national economies.

They seem to be voting for Layton the character, not Layton the politician, whereas Conservative voters look at substance and find the Tory plan acceptable whether or not they like leader Stephen Harper personally. 

Conservative voters seem to be voting for something, while Dippers give the impression they are voting against something.

So does this little survey mean anything?  Are right wing Canadians more informed that their leftist counterparts?  Are the priorities different for each group?  Do NDP supporters vote through emotion whereas Conservative supporters vote through the spectrum of knowledge?

The answer, taken with that grain of salt, seems to be yes.

Notes, thoughts, and all things relevant as we enter the final phase of the campaign in the Election Nobody Wanted©...

But does he like poutine? - Jack Layton and his NDP have enjoyed a bit of a surge in Quebec as the latest poll numbers show his radical leftwing party leading the pack in la belle province, even pulling ahead of the single-province Bloc Quebecois. (I explain why here).  If the numbers hold up on election day, who would really benefit?  The Conservatives.  Quebec has long been a tough nut to crack for Stephen Harper, and a Tory breakthrough doesn't seem likely this time around either.  But with the Quebec vote split between the Bloc traitors and the New Democrats, it allows the Conservatives to focus their attention on the rest of Canada.  While some wonder if big numbers in Quebec will translate into a once-unthinkable rise of the NDP to the level of Official Opposition, the real question is whether or not removing Quebec as a factor will result in a Harper majority.

Self-inflicted Votes - I wonder if those who work in Canada's energy sector who plan to vote for the Liberals or the NDP realize they are endangering their own careers.  Both leftwing parties have versions of the potentially economy-damaging Cap and Trade programs.  The C&P idea would severely hamper investment in the oil sands, which would lead to job losses.  While it would be easy for some to write that off as an 'Alberta issue', it is worth noting that more people in Ontario work in oil sands-related jobs than for the big 3 auto makers combined.

Get Your Tory Straight - One of the latest Liberal television ads tries to condemn the Harper government by using footage of the infamous ducks-stuck-in-a-tailing-pond incident.  A terrible accident, to be sure.  The problem with this ad isn't just that it happened several years ago, but that the federal Conservatives had nothing to do with it.  The blame - if there is any to be handed out - goes to the company involved (Syncrude) and to the Alberta government of milquetoast Ed Stelmach.  Maybe Michael Ignatieff thought no one would notice?  Maybe he thought people were to dumb to notice?

Gang Green - Federal Green party leader Elizabeth May visited Alberta this past week.  If this is the first you've heard about it, you are not alone.  Other than her failed fight to be included in the televised Leader's Debates, not much has been heard from the Greens.  I get the feeling the majority of Green votes will be from people who feel compelled to exercise their democratic right to vote but are not sold on the big parties, and not from out-and-out Green party supporters.

Bottom Left to Bloc - Can you imagine the frenzy currently happening at Bloc Quebecois election headquarters these days?  With the separatist party in unfamiliar territory (trailing in their own province), what was once a comfort zone has suddenly become unstable.  Perhaps it was inevitable that a one-issue party would lose steam when that one issue, separation, is not on the minds of most Quebecers.

Iraq, Therefore I Am - This election campaign has been unique in that it is the politician trying to become the Prime Minister, and not the incumbent P.M., seemingly caught in perpetual defensive mode.  At the worst possible time for Michael Ignatieff word leaks out that he was involved with the Bush administration in the pre-planning stage for the invasion of Iraq.  His denial came fast and furious, and has caused Iggy to do more flip-flopping than one would see at a Calgary Stampede breakfast.  His well-known support of the American invasion has long caused a rift in the Liberal ranks, especially with the leftwing section of his party.  To be fair, Ignatieff's role was that of helping to develop strategy that would reduce the number of civilian casualties, but to some Liberals and some voters, pro-Iraq war is pro-Iraq war.

Who Pays the Bill? - Jack Layton has promised billions and billions in new programs if he were to be elected - shudder! - Prime Minister.  His anti-oil, anti-Alberta plans would severely reduce a major source of federal funding.  So how, exactly, would he pay for all these wonderful ideas?  Jack?  Hello? 

The Sun Also Rises - The new, national Sun News Network launched this week, putting an end to the duopoly the CBC and CTV (CBC-lite) have enjoyed for decades.  The early feedback?  It's about time.  Not only do Canadians get to experience political news and opinion untarnished by the pseudo-intellectual Toronto elite, they experience true, nation-wide points of view.  A network with Ezra Levant, Charles Adler, Theo Caldwell, et al, and no hour-long David Suzuki tributes?  Consider me an avid viewer.

The Election Nobody Wanted© has followed the expected script, hitting all the usual issues in the attempt to bring some life into the moribund campaign.

Lately, we have been witness to some rather outrageous statements and video clips from the party leaders.  Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff, who began the campaign in a battle with Stephen Harper for the Prime Minister's chair, has now been forced to switch gears and instead must now spend his energy just trying to get more votes than his predecessor Stephane Dion, and perhaps even trying to keep the Liberals ahead of the NDP.  If he fails to achieve that goal, he will surely be laughed out of Canada all the way back to Harvard.

Conservative leader Stephen Harper has, for now, dropped the coalition bogeyman from his speeches and has dusted off the old, tired Quebec separation issue.  His latest reason why Canadians should give his party their long sought majority is because without it, he stresses, Quebec will once again be on the road to independence.  A fair tactic, but moot to the many Canadians who have had it with the 'threats' of separation.  More and more voters are of the opinion that if Quebec wants to leave, then let them leave and let's move on.

Then we have the resident bridesmaid, NDP leader Jack Layton.  Never one to put substance over image, Taliban Jack gave what could be the comedic statement of the campaign when he declared that Quebec subsidizes Alberta's oil sands.  Oil - and by extension Alberta - has long been the evil force of Conferederation in Jack's eyes. 

The media was buzzing last week with poll numbers showing a substantial NDP rise in la belle province, and it's easy to see why.

For the most part, Quebecers are a leftwing bunch.  When it comes to choosing a federalist option, they look at the Liberals and they still see the ghost of Adscam.  As the low level of support shows, Ignatieff has failed miserably to exorcise that demon. 

Quebecer's opposition to the Conservatives is two fold: first, Quebec voters are not conservative in general; second, Stephen Harper is too 'Albertan'.  Rarely, if ever, will a national leader who is perceived to be too Western Canadian get any support from the French (even though Harper was born in Ontario).

So that leaves Jack Layton, leader of a far-left socialist party (a plus), who was born in Quebec (plus again), and looks at everything through the unfocused lens of environmentalism (double-plus).  Proving his ability to read the crowd, Layton has spun a wicked tale of hard-done-by Quebecers getting screwed by Alberta.  Simply, he is telling Quebecers exactly what they want to hear and what they are used to hearing.

It further proves that Quebec is, for lack of a better term, the provincial equivalent of a whore.  They'll stick around as long as the money continues to flow in their direction.  But the province has a tinge of prima donna mixed in, always demanding more and threatening to withdraw it's 'favors' if it's needs (read: wants) aren't met.  Except in this case, it's the whore that does the screwing.

How stereotypically french.

There could be some truth to Layton's statement.  The $75 per Quebecer per year he says goes to support the lifeblood of the Canadian economy could very well be an accurate claim.  Also accurate is the fact that Albertans pay between $3500 and $4500 per person per year in Equalization and transfer payment to the federal government - money that gets funneled to Quebec to pay for their coveted social programs.

Naturally, Layton chooses to leave that rather significant piece of honesty out of his speeches. 

A $75 investment for a $4500 return?  I'd take that deal any day.

Article first published as Canada's Election Could Impact the U.S. Economy on Blogcritics -


To say that the outcome of the current Canadian federal election campaign could have a direct effect on the United States would be an understatement.

Under Prime Minister Stephen Harper's minority Conservative government, Canada's economy has endured the global economic crash with less damage and is recovering faster than any other G8/G20 nation.

But all of that could be for naught depending on the election outcome.

In a minority situation, the opposition parties have a larger number of combined seats than the sitting government, which makes it a tenuous situation. Harper deserves credit for keeping his party in power as long as he did - longer than any minority government in our nation's history - given the fact the other three national parties are all on the political left.

So far, the campaign has been the usual list of promises and soundbites. Promises of more jobs, a stable economy, more money to health care and education fill the platforms of all parties involved.

There is one policy put forth by the left wing parties, however, that could potentially devastate the Canadian economy. It's repercussions would spill over the border and leave it's mark on our neighbor to the south.

I'm sure Americans are familiar with the concept of Cap and Trade. Both the small 'l' Liberals and the far-left socialist New Democrats have versions of it in their respective platforms.

Basically, it amounts to more and higher taxes on our energy sector by having the federal government assume greater control. It would directly impact the jewel of Canada's oil industry: the Alberta oil sands.

At a time when the United States is looking for reliable sources of oil and natural gas that don't involve dealing with terror-sponsoring nations, the enviroNazi-vilified oil sands is a sound and ethical source of black gold from America's closest ally and neighbor.

When you cut through the Greenpeace hysteria and lies you will find the most safe, secure and abundant source of crude.

If Canadians decide to lean to the left, that well could dry up quickly. Not only would that put the U.S. in a position of having to continue its dealings with unsavory nations, but the economic ramifications of such a mistake would surely impact the entire North American economy.

The truth is, Canada has tried this before. In the late 1970's, quasi-communist P.M. Pierre Trudeau believe the best way to deal with a floundering economy was to nationalize our oil industry with something called the National Energy Program. In reality, it was nothing more than a thinly-veiled attempt by Ottawa to raid Alberta's economy. It was a program of wealth distribution, plain and simple.

Not only did the NEP turn out to be the expected failure, it destroyed the Albertan economy to the point that it took the oil-producing province more than a decade of tough cuts and rollbacks to recover. The negative impact hit other regions of Canada as well, as most of the nation's revered social programs were funded by Western Canada's oil revenues.

Fast forward to today, and we see the Liberals have not learned from their past mistakes and are proposing what amounts to be the NEP II. This time the left's favorite excuse for everything they do, the environment, is the explanation.

May 2nd is election day. The failure of Canadians to return Stephen Harper's Conservatives to power with a majority could very well signal the beginning of another disastrous attack on Alberta.

With the economies of our two nations so deeply intertwined, the shock-waves would reach all the way to Washington D.C.

I have previously written about one of my favorite spots on the internet that I visit for political chit chat and information, Freedominion.com.  The site is especially interesting during the buzz of a federal election campaign.

However, lately there has been some troubling active threads and comments on the 'Voice of Prinipled Conservatism' regarding support, or lack thereof, of Stephen Harper's Tories.

P.M. Stephen Harper

Topic threads such as 'If FDers aren't voting for CPC (Conservatives) then who are you voting for?' are filled with comments about right wingers entertaining the idea of voting for the Green Party or, unbelievably, the Liberals out of protest against what they perceive to be the Harper government's lack of true conservatism.

Citing everything from the Conservative's failure to take tough enough stands on issues like abortion and free speech, some members of the FD site have unleashed scathing attacks on the P.M. that far out-gun anything we have seen by the actual opposition parties.

As I've said before, no ideology attacks itself more often and with such conviction as conservatives.

While I can fully appreciate the possibility that Harper's five year reign as PM has left a sour taste in the mouths of many far-right/social conservatives, one must look back at the previous half-decade realistically.

It is true the Harper government has not put social issues on their agenda and has, at certain times, had to work with one or more of the leftwing parties in order to get bills passed.  If he hadn't, Canadians would have been going back to the polls sooner than now and likely more often.

Given the fact that Free Dominion has been a coveted target by Canada's unofficial thought-cop Richard Warman who, armed with the infamous Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, has made a habit of launching lawsuits against members and the site itself for perceived 'offensive statements', and given the truth that the Harper government has yet to kill the fatally flawed Section (or the CHRA altogether), it's only natural that some would hesitate to publicly support the current government.

But we must put things into perspective.  It may be true that there isn't an actual national socially conservative party.  It may also be true that Harper has fallen short of meeting the expectations some on the right had when his party finally unseated the awful Liberals.  After all, Harper is an old-time Reformer.  Some may have expected, albeit unrealistically, that he would be able to somehow impliment some of the old Reform party policies while governing in a minority situation.

I have been told by some on FD that without free speech, all other rights and freedoms melt away, and that is why they cannot support the current Harper Conservatives.  I have no dispute with that theory.  Hell, if it wasn't for the protection I get from the freedom to speak my mind, I could have easily been the target of some frivilous lawsuit.

However, the election brings with it the first real possiblity of a Conservative majority since the days of Brian Mulroney.  Will things be different if Harper is given the opportunity to rule without the shackles of having to constantly negotiate and make concessions with one or more of the other parties?  One would assume so.

Also, there are some issues outside of the free speech debate that one should not overlook.  Both the Liberals and New Democrats have included versions of Cap and Trade in their respective platforms.  While this may not be of high importance to those living in Ontario or Newfoundland, to the West - specifically Alberta - this policy is of equal importance and poses just as much danger as an attack on freedom.

If Stephen Harper fails to achieve a majority victory on May 2nd, the result could spell disaster for the province.  Even a minority Tory victory would leave open the real possiblilty of an opposition coaliton to seize power, and pass the economically devastating policy.

Devastating not only to Alberta, but the entire nation.

Albertans suffered through Trudeau's National Energy Program.  We will not let that happen again.  We cannot let that happen again.  It would certainly lead to a deepening of regional divisions and this time may actually lead to a legitimate Albertan/Western separatist movement.

I do question whether these few individuals on Free Dominion are looking through too narrow a scope.  It is highly doubtful that Canada will ever get to experience a truly socially conservative government that would meet the expectations of some on the far right.  I understand the quandry: they feel obligated to exercise their democratic right to vote, yet are unable to support any of the national parties, including the Conservatives.  Unfortunate, to be sure.

But instead of handing the Liberals, New Democrats, or (gulp!) Green party an undeserved vote, I would suggest the time honored traditon of spoiling a ballot.  It would fulfill the need to protest without adding to the risk of an Ignatieff-led government. 

Surely no one who claims to be on the right, Harper fan or not, wants that.

The first Leader's Debate of the Election Nobody Wanted© just finished up, and it made me wish I had stock in a coffee company.  Caffeine sales must be through the roof.

Except for a few verbal slaps between NDP leader Jack 'kill the oil sands' Layton and Liberal pooh-bah Michael 'wherever I lay my hat is my home' Ignatieff, the two-hour visual feast unfolded pretty much as expected with the leaders of the three leftwing parties attacking the Stephen Harper government, even when debating amongst themselves.

So in case you missed it (I wouldn't blame you at all), here's my grades for each party leader based on tonight's performance:

Jack Layton, NDP - Socialists are so cute! It's easy to be glib and promise the moon when you will never achieve the rank of Prime Minister. Layton spent more time throwing out attacks (mostly personal) than he did explaining not only his party's platform but details of how to achieve their goals. To me, Layton seemed more focused on landing a great sound bite than he did convincing Canadians to vote for his party. Good thing for him no one mentioned the fact that his promises would have to be paid for by raiding Alberta's economy. Honestly, I can’t see what other people like about this guy. He has ‘snake’ written all over him. Grade- C+

Michael Ignatieff, Liberals - He came off stoic, almost wooden. Like Layton, he spent most of his time attacking Harper. Also like Layton, his attempts to damage Harper's image fell flat. It didn't help that many of the Conservative policies he was condemning were ones he and his party had actually supported. His repeated support for corporate tax hikes - which have roundly been condemned by economic experts as potentially harmful to investment and jobs - was a bad move. When I watched him speak, I couldn't help but wonder why this American is running to lead Canada. I doubt he convinced anyone to switch their intended votes to him. At least he’ll get his wife’s vote. Oh, wait… Grade- D

Gilles Duceppe, Bloc Quebecois - Why the hell is this guy included in the debate? He is the leader of a single-province party whose sole purpose is to separate Quebec from Canada. Why would anyone who doesn't live in Baie Comeau or Trois Riviere give a crap what this Marxist has to say? Whoever forms the next majority should immediately pass a law requiring a federal party to run candidates in a minimum number of provinces. Grade- D+

Stephen Harper, Conservatives - He stayed on script and didn't really ever stoop down to the level of the others. Being at the helm of the longest surviving minority government in our history, plus the fact that he has steered the nation through the global economic crash to the praise of other G8 and G20 nations, gave Harper an advantage right from the start. When the other leaders threw allegations of dishonesty and scandal like the Bev Oda issue and the cost of new fighter jets and the G8/G20 (aka: issues average Canadians don't care about), he brushed them off without breaking stride. He coolly and calmly took the machine-gun personal attacks without looking rattled and by far gave the impression that he was the most qualified to be our leader. This guy is truly a Teflon Prime Minister. Harper spent much of his time correcting false statements made by the other participants and, more than the others, managed to explain his party’s platform. Not a perfect performance (at times I wish he would have slid into the gutter with Layton and Iggy), but far and away the winner of the show. Grade – A-

Next up is the French language debate. To see my comprehensive review of that debate, just click ‘refresh’ on your browser. It’s bound to be just as excruciatingly exciting.

Imagine if you will...

January 2012

• The Liberal/NDP/Bloc coalition is in its sixth month of governing Canada after stealing power way from the minority Conservative government.  PM Michael Ignatieff along with federal Finance Minister Bob Rae pass their coveted 'Cap and Trade' policy.
• Alberta Premier Ted Morton, waiting as long as he could after winning the Progressive Conservative leadership contest so that Albertans could "...become familiar with the new direction of the party", finally bows to growing public pressure and calls a provinical election.

March

• The Cap and Trade policy comes into effect.  Tensions and public conflict between Ottawa and Alberta intensify.  Impact on Alberta's economy begins, as major oil and energy companies abandon plans for investment in the oilsands.  The province's financial stability begins to weaken.  Provinical unemployment numbers start to climb. 

April

• Citing examples of mismanagement and misteps by previous administrations, Albertan voters prove they have lost faith in their current regime and reject Morton's assertion that he and his P.C. government are the best choice to defend Alberta's economic interests against further erosion from the federal coalition government.  Alberta elects Danielle Smith's Wildrose Alliance party, marking the first change in Alberta's government since 1971.

May

• Alberta feels economic strain not felt since the days of Trudeau's NEP.  This time, the province is joined by Saskatchewan in suffering the effects of federal control of the oil patch.  War of words between Premier Smith and Prime Minister Ignatieff heats up.

July

• Alberta's economy sinks deeper. Provincial unemployment at near-record high. Growing pro-independence/separatist sentiment in the province.  Wildrose government enacts certain measures to stem the bleeding.  Ignatieff maintains the C&P is "...beneficial to Canadians in general...", especially from an environmental point of view.  Regional divisions grow.  Premier Smith moves to institute certain aspects of the 'Firewall' agenda.

September

• Premiers of Alberta, Saskatchewan, British Columbia, and Manitoba meet to discuss strategy in dealing with economic fallout.  Meeting culminates with an agreed list of suggestions (demands?) to be sent to Ottawa.  Anti-federal government rallies begin to occur at the Legislature grounds in Edmonton.

December

• Unemployment in Alberta reaches new levels.  Provincial economy a mess.  Unprecidented number of Albertans believe Premier Smith should give federal government an ultimatum: end the Cap and Trade or Albertans will hold a referendum on independence.

January 2013

• Major cracks start to appear in federal coalition, as disagreement over direction of government as well as the bottoming out of the federal economy cause fractures.

February

• Leading an unworkable government and under pressure from a sliding national economy, P.M. Ignatieff announces the collapse of the coalition agreement.  A new federal election is called.

April

• Conservatives led by (?) win overwhelming majority.  The first action by the new government is to kill the Cap and Trade policy.  Alberta's economy begins it's climb out of the abyss.  Michael Ignatieff buys a plane ticket to Cambridge, Massachusetts and resumes career at Harvard.

A Conservative majority victory on May 2nd could avoid all of this - except for the part about the Wildrose Alliance becoming the next goverment of Alberta.  That is expected no matter what happens in Ottawa.

Michael Ignatieff's latest policy announcement has signalled his intent to follow the strategy of his Liberal predecessors Jean Chretien and Pierre Trudeau: target Alberta to win the rest of Canada.

And he's gone back to the Trudeau era to do it.

In an eerily Jack Laytonesque show of bravery, Ignatieff hesitated until he was almost as far away from Alberta as he could be before dropping his biggest bomb of the race.  The latest Liberal platform announcement unveiled a revampled edition of the long-favorite leftwing gem, a cap-and-trade program.

Albertans might remember it better by its former name: the National Energy Program.

Pierre Trudeau was successful in his quest to rape the Albertan economy in order to fulfill his need to oversee nationalized wealth distribution in the late 1970's-early '80's.  Back then, the tools of misdirection used by the Liberals was the oil shortage and the bad economy.  Seizing the opportunity to use a crisis to further his agenda, Trudeau exacerbated a West-East rift that still lingers to this day.

After bitter words and some drastic action by then Alberta Premier Lougheed, Trudeau ended up victorious in the end.  While the rest of the nation saw Lougheed and Trudeau clink glasses of champagne, Albertans saw their Premier grab his ankles for a quasi-communist Prime Minister.

The NEP plan was a flop, of course.  It didn't come close to accomplishing the stated objectives, and instead devastated the Alberta economy, and by extension, our community.  It took more than a decade of deep cuts, cutbacks, and sacrifice by Albertans to finally dig our way out of the hole.

This time around, Ignatieff and his Liberals will use the environmental card, using Green Guilt to full advantage in order to push their socialist agenda. 

No one should be fooled.  No matter how much spin the Liberals try to play, a cap and trade policy will have the same effect as the NEP did on the Alberta economy: devastation.

It's so obvious, even our current lame-duck premier sees it.

If Michael Ignatieff is as intelligent as we are led to believe, he must realize any attack on Alberta's oil sands will reopen long-healing national scars. 

Not everyone in Alberta would oppose Ignatieff's cap and trade policy, however.  The separatists would be giddy beyond belief.

The Election Nobody Wanted© is well underway, and as was expected for an election that was called for no reason, the campaign has so far been without any major issues.

The Conservatives have yet to have their 'GST' moment, the PR splash to get a buzz going.  The last time around, the Tories were still relatively new to power and unveiled a list of campaign promises that were new and different from what the other parties were offering.  Perhaps hampering Team Harper is that the public already knows many of the platform promises since they were taken out of the defeated budget which set the campaign in motion.

Other Conservative promises involve the expansion of already-existing programs.  It isn't a lack of ideas that they are dealing with, but a situation where what they have been doing has been for the most part effective.  So far, their message has been they will stay the course.

This has caused a headache for the opposition parties looking to unseat the Conservatives.  The Liberals have spent most of their time scrambling to find an issue to exploit, yet to their chagrin nothing seems to have stuck.  The alleged cost overrun of the F-35 fighter jets, the Bev Oda 'affair', the politician-made 'contempt of Parliament',...nothing has inflicted any real damage to Tory armour.

Even today, when Canadians think of political scandal they think 'Adscam', not 'Bev Oda'.

Leader Michael Ignatieff has switched methods over the past couple of days, laying out Liberal policy on issues such as health care, daycare, and his vow to put 'vets ahead of jets'.  But when economists are already condemning the Liberal plan as economically unworkable - meaning more or higher taxes to pay for the bag of Grit goodies - it takes the wind out of the sails.  Iggy bringing up the dead-horse Cap and Trade idea is an example of self-inflicted fumbling.  If you're trying to break the Conservative foundation in Alberta, the last thing you do is act proud of a program which would hammer Alberta's oil industry.  Without a huge game-breaker, Ignatieff would be advised to start looking at flight schedules back to Harvard.

The New Democrats are playing this election as they have for years: promising the moon, expensive platform announcements in areas such as the environment and social programs, attack the oil industry (but not during the campaign launch in Edmonton - better to wait and do that in Quebec.).  Given that the NDP will never, ever form a national government, you can tell they really have the 'nothing to lose' mindset.  Unabashed socialist promises, t.v. ads attacking Harper over health care (it doesn't matter to the Dippers that health care is a provincial issue), and a steel determination to exude the benefits of far-left ideology.  Nothing ever changes with them.

There really hasn't been anything buzzworthy in Election 2011.  Boring would be a more accurate description.  When such ultra-important issues such as arguing over a one on one debate (are the Liberals really trying to turn this into an 'election over a debate'?), Green leader Elizabeth May whining once again about being left out of nationally televised leaders chinwags, or the 'surprise' that a CBC online quiz telling you who you should vote for comes up with a default 'Liberal' answer are the top headline grabbers, you know you've got a snooze fest.

All this is just one more reason I'd like to see Harper's Conservatives claim a majority victory on May 2nd.  It would save us from having to go through this again for a while.

NDP leader Jack Layton launched his Election Nobody Wanted© campaign in Edmonton.  No words passed his lips regarding his plans for our oil sands.  Yesterday in Quebec, enjoying the long distance from Alberta, Layton announced his plans to destroy our province's economic lifeblood.

Referring to our oil sands by it's negative slang 'tar sands' and calling it 'dirty', he announced that "...not one public dollar will go" to the industry.  While others question how he would expect to pay for all of his socialist election promises without Albertan oil money, not to mention why he didn't have the courage to lay out this plan in Edmonton, I have a different question.  I doubt he would have the balls to answer this one honestly as well:  Why does Jack Layton hate Alberta?

Next thing you know, he'll be encroaching on provincial jurisdiction with outrageous health care promises.  Oh, wait...never mind.