US Retailers Invade Canada: Why?

Big budget U.S. retail chains have big designs on Canada, causing some concern among traditional Canadian retailers.  With slow economic growth south of the border, Canada is an attractive place to set up shop.  With fewer retail outlets to shop and the traditional retailers making money, it makes sense to set up shop in Canada.  Parity with the U.S. dollar provides U.S. retailers a chance to be competitive.

For Canadian consumers this is a win-win situation, but not so much for the manufacturing industry.  Although the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is often shunned by US politicians, there remains very little doubt that it has opened up markets north of the border for US companies.  When the original free trade agreement between Canada and the U.S. was negotiated and eventually ratified by both countries, it became part of an emotional debate in Canada.  Opponents to free trade were fearful that Canada was giving up its sovereign status.  Those in favour of free trade rejected the fears, arguing that it was the only way to move to a healthy market economy.  Full Story @allvoices.com

G8 Summit Camp David - Agreement on the Problem but No Consensus

 G8 Leaders seemed to agree on the problem, but reached no consensus on how to deal with it. 

President Obama hosted the G8 Summit at Camp David in Maryland.  The talks evolved for the most part on the situation in Greece and how to deal with Iran and Syria.  While the official communique attempted to show unity in the approach of G8 leaders, there is a sharp disagreement between those pushing debt and deficit reduction and those that would want to cut back on austerity and provide further stimulus. 

The socialist newly elected President of France, Francois Hollande is pushing stimulus, supported by President Obama and Italian Prime Minister Monti.  On the other side of the issue are German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and UK Prime Minister David Cameron.  Merkel, who lost her major ally, former French President Sarkozy, now has to deal with Hollande on the Greek crisis. 

There is no doubt that President Obama and President Hollande are on the same page when it comes to stimulating the economy.   Merkel on the other hand has to deal with her German electorate, which is tired of bankrolling countries in Europe that have lower retirement ages and lucrative pensions.  One has to wonder if President Obama thinks this is fair? 

Merkel has insisted that the course of the Eurozone remain on debt and deficit reduction.  Merkel said that the the G8 wants send out a unified signal that solid finacing and growth go hand in hand and should not be played against each other.  She said that there were three efforts that can achieve success.  First by consolidating budgets, second through structural reform and in investments for the future.  She said all were united that stimulus programs should not be repeated for the time being.

Prime Minister Harper summed it up this way:

"Fiscal discipline and economic growth go hand and hand. All of our discussions recognize that," Harper said. "Fiscal discipline is not sufficient for economic growth, but it is absolutely necessary."

The joined communique read in part,  "The global economic recovery shows signs of promise, but significant headwinds persist," the G8 leaders said, underlining an imperative "to promote growth and jobs," and affirming their interest in Greece remaining in the eurozone while "respecting its commitments."

 

What that means is that all the leaders had grave concern over the crisis in Europe, especially Greece, but there was really no consensus on how to move ahead.  

NDP Edges Ahead of CPC Amid Oilsands Bashing - Poll

A Harris Decima poll has he New Democrats edging ahead of the Conservatives 34% to 30%, while the Liberals are steady at 20%.  With a 2.2% error margin this is nearly a statistical tie between the Opposition NDP and the governing Conservatives.

The Conservative Party has lost some political capital with its botched figures on F35 fighter jet procurement, the omnibus budget bill, which includes significant change to environmental laws and regulations and the recent privacy bill.  The apparent lack of respect, demonstrated by some members of the Conservative party, of taxpayers money has been perfect fodder for the opposition.

Add to this the unreported real cost of the war in Libya and the NDP is in perfect position to cash in on the fears and  doubts of Canadians.

There is also considerable opposition by environmental groups to oilsands development and Thomas Mulcair, Leader of the Official Opposition jumped right in to condemn the success of resource development.

Although Mulcair said in March that he would never be heard speaking against oilsands development,  he has jumped fully into condemning Harper's resource based policies on the economy as the "Dutch disease," referencing the Netherlands find of natural gas, which caused a decline in that countries economy.

Mulcair, speaking on a CBC radio program last weekend said that the oilsands are artificially inflated the Canadian dollar and hollowing out the country’s manufacturing sector, a similar comment made by Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty earlier this year.

Nothing could be further from the truth.  One only needs to look south of the border, where the manufacturing industry has declined in Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania, despite a lower valued U.S. dollar.  A lot of it has to do with the business environment, burdening regulation and lower labour cost in Asian countries.

Regardless of how one views the oilsands development the remarks were inappropriate from a leader of  a party that aspires to gouvern Canada.   Mulcair, a former liberal member of the Quebec National Assembly should be well aware of federal transfer payments that assure Quebec can afford $7 a day daycare and the lowest tuition fees in the country.  With the ongoing student strikes in Quebec, the Charest government has given in to the students, with the solution being to ask for more transfer payments, funded by revenues from the oilsands.

Mulcair's remarks drew angry remarks from Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall.  Wall called the comments divisive for one that aspires to lead the country and said if Mulcair thinks the oilsands are a disease, he wants to know what the NDP thinks the cure is.  Saskatchewan has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country with the help of resource development of potash, uranium and oil.

Newly elected Alberta Premier Alison Redford also reacted stating that she is not sure if Mulcair's comments were well informed or just his opinion. She continued that she hopes he explains his motivation because she says someone looking to lead the country one day needs to understand just how important the oilsands are to the entire country.

Mulcair's remarks will fare well in southern Ontario, Quebec and probably in British Columbia.  So one has to ask if this is a calculated move that Mulcair made in order to get the edge on the Conservative government.

Mulcair, however, would do well to come out with a vision for the Canadian economy, rather than pitting one part of the country against the other.  It is no secret that the oilsands have played a big part in the recovery from the 2008 recession.  Maybe the NDP leader should rethink his position, after all his party only holds one seat in the prairies.  This is not the way to make friends or influence people.

UK - David Cameron's Conservatives under Siege

With the backdrop of this weekends elections in Greece and France and the newly elected leaders calling for more growth and less austerity, David Camerons' Conservative government has come under siege by public sector unions.  The  unions are opposed to a cutback in salaries, more pension plan contribution and raising the retirement age.  Unions say that 400,000 public sector workers will be on a 24 hour strike today, while the government says it is half of that.  Regardless of the actual figures it is hundreds of thousands that are participating.

Public sector workers participating in the strike are public service employees, National Health Service (NHS), including paramedics, border guards, lecturers and 32,000 policemen. The unions claim that the government is robbing them and its members will have to work longer for a lower pension.

The UK Public Sector Pension Commission released a report in July 2010 that made the case for reforming the pensions, quoting longevity, parity with the private sector and support ration of those plans.


In 1951, most men working in manual jobs would not have lived long enough to claim the
then-new basic state pension. Now, life expectancy for men and women is around 80,
and people reaching the age of 65 are living almost another 20 years on average. In 50
years’ time, life expectancy at 65 could reach 30-35 years. Certainly for individuals who
retire at 60 – not unusual in the public sector – many people could spend longer retired
than working.

Official projections suggest that, in 50 years’ time, it is possible that every person over 65
could be supported by just two people of working age, compared with four today, while there could be only one person of working age to support each dependent person (including children) overall.

The commission identified six main problem  areas with the present arrangement,  Lack of Transparency, Large Unfunded Liabilities, Large Annual Costs, Disparity with the private sector, Inequity within schemes and outsourcing of government services.

The Cameron government, determined to reduce the deficit and debt has adopted the recommendations.  The unions argue that the reform will give the UK the highest pension age in Europe.  The government intends to raise those pensions in line with its state pension eventually, which is 68. 

The unions argue that they shouldn't be required to pay more.  Mark Serwotka, general secretary of the PCS union says:

"We pay more and not a penny goes into anybody's pension fund.  In every major public sector scheme - health, education and the civil service - the majority of trade unions have refused to accept these cuts in their pensions."

Governments in most western economies have come under siege by unions when it comes to cutting entitlements.  Few have had the courage to tackle the problem, especially with minority governments.

Ask yourself, what happens if you keep spending more than you take in for your family budget.  You have to get loans to cover the overspending.  Eventually those loans have to be repaid.  With governments the situation is similar.  Revenues flow from taxes, pension contributions or natural resources.  If those revenues aren't sufficient to cover costs, there are three options,  take out a loan, raise taxes or cut the entitlements.  With overwhelming opposition to entitlement cuts, where is a government to go?  Does it penalize the remaining tax payers?   You be the judge.

Harper Majority One Year Later

How you view the Harper record depends on your political conviction

After leading a minority government since 2005, Prime Minister Stephen Harper won his coveted majority on May 2nd, 2011.  After almost six years of trying to move his agenda on the gun registry, the omnibus crime bill, and opting out of the Kyoto accord forward, there should not have been many surprises for those opposing him of what the Prime Minister would do.  For years there was opposition fillibustering, stalling, threats of a coalition and he list goes on and on.  At one point the Prime Minister prorogued Parliament and used every other parliamentary option to keep his government alive.

While there was a loud outcry from those that opposed his views, the electorate handed the Conservatives a majority, punished the Liberals and especially in Quebec, the New Democrats gained 59 seats, which in the end gave them enough overall seats to form the official opposition.  Essentially the winners in the 2011 election were the Conservative and New Democratic Party.

As we pass the one year mark of Harper's majority, the Liberals are still looking to identify themselves, the New Democrats under their new leader Thomas Mulcair have gained ground.  Latest polls indicate that the NDP is in a statistical tie with Haper's conservatives.

While Harper scrapped the gun registry and eliminated the Canadian Wheat Board, his latest budget also included legislation to speed up environmental reviews and giving the Minister the power to approve environmentally sensitive projects.   Harper has handed Provinces a fate accompli when it comes to health care funding, changing the current formula of 6% annual increase to one that is tied 2% above GDP. 

There has been controversy on back to work legislation for both Air Canada employees and Canada Post.  Needless to say the NDP, a strong supporter of unions, was not too thrilled.   There are the allegations of election meddling with Robo calls, presently being investigated by Elections Canada.  The discrepancy in F35 stealth fighter funding.  The Harper government is being accused of maintaining two sets of books, one for the public and another with the actual cost.

Harper's action plan raised the eligibility age for Old Age Security from 65 to 67 for those 54 and younger, claiming it to be a matter of sustainability.   19,500 jobs are being cut from the public service, while CBC's budget has been reduced by 10%. 

This week the government was accused of preferential treatment for Conrad Black, while denying  a black man, who spend just 30 days in a cook county jail for shooting a policeman and eventually charged and convicted of aggravated assault, entry into Canada.

Depending on where you stand politically, the Harper government has either been a success or a total disaster.


It's the Economy Stupid

The Harper government has focused on the economy, cutting the deficit, keeping corporate taxes low, jobs and family. The government is on target with its economic action plan, which the opposition says is ruining the country.

After one year of a majority government, the country is in relatively good shape, and the government hasn't pushed an agenda on social issues like gay marriage or abortions, just as the Prime Minister promised.

What is clear, is that the burden of the country rests on those that govern and the critique with those in opposition.  Hopefully the debates will become more civil.   What will the second year bring?

Mitt Romney - A Better America Starts Tonight

Mitt Romney made a clean sweep of the Republican primaries in New York, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Delaware and Rhode Island.  His sweep should erase any doubt that he will be the Republican nominee to face President Obama.  In his most compelling speech to date, he talked directly to the American people and promised "A better America starts tonight."

“To all of the thousands of good and decent Americans I’ve met who want nothing more than a better chance, a fighting chance, to all of you I have a simple message.  Hold on a little longer. A better America begins tonight.  Because he has failed, he will run a campaign of diversions and distractions and distortions. That kind of campaign may have worked at another place and in a different time — but not here and not now.  It’s still about the economy, and we’re not stupid.”

"Everywhere I go, Americans are tired of being tired, and many of those who are fortunate enough to have a job are working harder for less," he said.

President Obama and the Democratic Party have run a very divisive campaign, pitching the rich against the poor, creating a war on women, particularly during Rick Santorum's campaign and promising lower college tuition to college students.  His "We Can't Wait" campaign tried to influence the American public to pressure Congress.  What seems never to be mentioned in an Obama campaign message is that  the President had total control of Congress for the first two years of his presidency.  One has to ask when all these issues became important.  Even some dissenting Democrats profess that Obama lacked leadership during his first two years, letting Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi direct the writing of the "Affordable Health Care Act."  Obama now seems to want to fix all those priorities of his 2008 campaign in the last four months in office.  

Unemployment is still above 8%, despite the stimulus, prices at the pumps are out of control.  Tons of money have been wasted in investments to failing green energy companies and the Keystone XL pipeline has been rejected for political reasons to satisfy Obama's green base.  The number of people on food stamps has increased significantly under the President's watch.  Americans are tired of hearing that it is all George W. Bush's fault. 

The Obama campaign challenged Romney's speech with the same old song about Republicans:

“The title for Governor Romney’s speech tonight should have been ‘Back to the Future,’ because he has proposed a return to the same policies that got us into the economic crisis in the first place.  The spokesman argued that the a choice between two candidates, two records, and two visions for the country, he argued Romney “would stack the deck against the middle class, pull the rug out from under growing sectors of our economy like manufacturing and clean energy and promote giveaways to Americans who can afford to lobby for them.”

 

This is the same politics of division rather than defending Obama's record, whose policies have done little to change the economic situation. 

 

The 2012 general election will be a close race and it is Romney's if he can keep his message positive and focused on the economy.  The side issues have done little to help the GOP effort and Romney rightly focused it on the Obama's record and the economy.  Yes it certainly is still the economy and we're not stupid. 

Canada - Durban Agreement and Kyoto

Canada's Environment Minister Peter Kent announced Monday that Canada would legally withdraw from the Kyoto Accord.  The announcement was made after the Minister attended COP 17 in Durban.  Under the accord a country is required to give a year's notice to withdraw.

The announcement has caused a firestorm, especially by opposition parties, the most vocal being Elizabeth May, the Leader of Canada's green party.  She went as far as accusing the Harper government of breaking the law.

"The Kyoto Implementation Act was passed by the House of Commons in 2007 and has royal assent. It requires Canada to continue reporting and doing its job, fulfilling its obligations under the Kyoto Protocol," she said. "I wonder that the prime minister of this country thinks he can withdraw us from an international treaty which was ratified by the House of Commons with no discussion in the House, and violate a domestic law with no discussion in the House."  Source CBC

Kyoto was originally signed by the Chretien Liberal government and despite good intentions nothing was done by the Chretien and Martin liberals to meet the promised targets.  Stephan Dion ran an election campaign based on green values, which were rejected by Canadians and in 2005 Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservatives were first elected as a minority government.  Since May 2011 Harper leads a majority government in the House of Commons.

Canada's economy is closely aligned to the United States, with $1.6 Billion of trade crossing the U.S./Canada border daily.  The United States from the Clinton Administration to the present Obama Administration has not ratified Kyoto and as such is not part of the Kyoto Accord.

The United States, China and Russia are the world's largest CO2 emitters, with the United States emitting over one quarter of the worlds total.  China's contribution is 15%, while Russia emits just under 7%.  Canada on the overall scale emits 2.3% of the worlds carbon, a pittance overall.  Despite this, Greenpeace and other environmental groups, including Elizabeth May and the NDP Energy critic Meghan Leslie keep dumping on the Alberta oil sands and insist that Canada is disgusting.

Peter Kent contends, and rightfully so, that the Kyoto Accord does absolutely nothing to reduce global carbon emission without the inclusion of the US, China, Brazil and South Africa.  Both Canada and the United States have their carbon emission target aligned.  The government has committed to reduce target by 17% by from 2005 levels by 2020.  This is the same commitment mad by the United States. When pressed by Parliament on the decision to leave Kyoto, Prime Minister Harper said that the targets were stupid and made no sense for Canada.

"In terms of climate change, we're pursuing policies domestically and nationally and internationally. We're working for the creation of an international protocol that will include all major emitters," Harper said.
"What this government has never favoured is the protocol that only controls a little bit of global emissions, not enough to actually make any difference but enough to transfer Canadian jobs overseas. And we will never agree to that."

Complying with Kyoto would have cost the Federal Government around $16 Billion, according to Environment Minister Peter Kent.  During a time of slow growth and volatility in the global economy spending that kind of money just doesn't make sense.

Despite the outcry, Canada has agreed to be part of a new accord recommended at Durbin.  That accord will include all of the world's emitters, including China.  The new accord is to be completed by 2015 with implementation by 2020.

In a recent  CTV/Nanos poll only 5% of Canadians saw the environment as a top priority, while a majority of Canadians said it was the economy.

Top Issue Question: What is your most important NATIONAL issue of concern? [Unprompted] (n=1,202)
The numbers in parentheses denote the change from October 24th, 2011 (n=1,202).
Jobs/economy 29.3% (+2.7)
Healthcare 22.8% (-4.8)
Education 6.2% (-1.4)
The environment 4.9% (-1.7)
Debt/deficit 4.2% (+1.1)
Unsure 11.8% (+3.3)

The Harper government was faced with a choice, either continue within the framework of Kyoto and be hypocritical, since no government ever met the targets nor intend to or to work toward a new accord that is all inclusive.  Given the economic situation and the close alignment with the U.S. economy, opting out of Kyoto made ultimate sense.

The federal government is entirely correct to withdraw Canada from the Kyoto Protocol.
If the international climate treaty was ever about saving the planet from global warming, that ceased to be its goal long ago. As demonstrated by the final agreement signed over the weekend at the United Nations climate summit in Durban, South Africa, Kyoto is now mostly about punishing rich countries for being rich and forcing them to pay vast sums — up to $1.6-trillion a year — to the UN for redistribution to poorer nations (after, of course, the UN has taken a healthy cut off the top to support its own wasteful bureaucracy, nepotism, cronyism, incompetence and corruption).  National Post

While I respect the passionate engagement of Elizabeth May, it is time to cut back the rhetoric and start operating within the realm of reality.  The Liberals have no room to talk.  They signed the Kyoto Accord but never intended to meet targets.  As for the NDP "Talk is cheap - Whiskey costs money".

Pie Chart of Global Emissions

Where is the Hope and Change?

During a wide ranging interview with Steve Kroft on CBS' 60 Minutes, President Obama defended his record and said he did not over promise that he always believed that changing the culture of Washington would be a long term project.  He blamed the GOP for intransigence in blocking his policies and reiterated that the more fortunate had to pay their fair share.  On he economy he blamed Bush for the present mess and stated that it would take more than one term, perhaps more than one President to fix it.  In other words, "Hope and Change" could have occurred if it had not been for the big bad GOP blocking him every step along the way.

Asked on the failure of the stimulus, Obama rejected critics that it had not worked and said that it had created or saved millions of jobs and avoided a recession.
"We've gone through an incredibly difficult time in this country. And I would be surprised if the American people felt satisfied right now.  They shouldn't feel satisfied. We've got a lot more work to do in order to get this country and the economy moving in a way that benefits everybody, as opposed to just a few."

While Obama was blaming the GOP for blocking his policies, Steve Kroft reminded the President of the latest polls, in which 75% of Americans thought that the country was moving in the wrong direction and 54% believed that Obama doesn't deserve re-election.  Obama was asked why he should be reelected and rattled off a myriad of accomplishments during his term.  These included, saving this country from a Great Depression and rescuing the auto industry. There's also healthcare reform, financial reforms, ending "don't ask, don't tell" and decimating Al Qaeda, including the death of Osama bin Laden.
Obama said that more work was necessary on the economy and that he was being judged by an ideal and invoked a quote by Vice President Joe Biden, 'Don't judge me against the Almighty, judge me against the alternative.' "
While the President may want to blame the GOP for the failure of the economy, and take some comfort in the recent drop of the unemployment rate from 9 to 8.6%, the reality is that his policies have had a direct impact on the economy.  The House has send close to two dozen bills to the Senate, all of which have been ignored by the Senate.  It seems the latest House bill on the payroll tax reduction extension might face the same fate.  Yet it will be the Republicans that are the bad guys.  Who exactly won't compromise?
Obama started his "We can't Wait" campaign a few weeks ago, signalling what his re-election strategy will be.   Deflect the economic troubles and blame the GOP for the failure of implementing his policies.  The speech on Wednesday at Osawatomie, Kansas kicked off his reelection campaign and strategy, making a clear distinction between his vision (distribution of income) with that of the GOP.  In other words, according to Obama, he defends the middle class, while the GOP defends the rich.  How absurd.
Since last week the payroll tax reduction has been a hot topic in Washington.  The Senate rejected both a Republican and a Democratic bill.  The House, late last week, introduced a new bill, which includes the extension of the payroll tax reduction, an unemployment benefit extensions  and the XL Keystone Pipeline among others.   The Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid said it was going nowhere in the Senate, while Obama said that he would veto any inclusion of the XL Keystone pipeline. According to the GOP the bill not only grants the extension, but also includes job creation initiatives.  The XL Keystone Pipeline is expected to create 20,000 good paying union jobs immediately, while infusing millions of dollars into the economy.
While accusing the GOP of the inability to compromise, the President has demonstrated over and over again that his inability to compromise on any issues have put him in an ideological box, which hampers his ability to lead.   A President's function is to provide a vision for the country and then lead to implement that vision by talking to leaders of both parties.
Message for the President -  The Democrats are not the only ones with good ideas.  Maybe an effort should be made to reach out to Republican leaders with an open mind.  Give up the ideology and implement policies that work for the whole country.   In other words "Lead".

He faulted the GOP for not having “an honest conversation” about the economic policies that caused the nation’s recession and complained that Republicans made a calculated decision to block most of his policies to inflict maximum political damage after he assumed office.
Asked by interviewer Steve Kroft whether he had made too many promises to Americans during his hope-and-change campaign in 2008, Obama insisted that he “always believed that this was a long-term project.”
The president said he knew that “reversing a culture here in Washington dominated by special interests would take more than year, more than two years, more than one term, probably take more than one president.” Washington Post

NDP Leadership Debate - Was it really a Debate or a Policy Forum?

The NDP first leaders' debate, hosted by CTV News Channel,  introduced the NDP leadership candidates for the first time to the Canadian public.  On the stage were, Ottawa MP Paul Dewar, Toronto MP Peggy Nash, Manitoba MP Niki Ashton, Former Party President Brian Topp, Montreal MP Thomas Mulcair and Nova Scotia MP Robert Chisholm will be on stage along with MP Romeo Saganash, B.C. MP Nathan Cullen and Nova Scotia businessman Martin Singh.

All of them agreed on affordable housing, healthcare, environment.  Brian Topp used a little more of a pragmatic approach and advocates that not only does the NDP have to demonstrate what it will do, but also how to do it.   Topp asserted that the NDP can't win an election without doing both. 

The general impression, and all candidates seemed to be on the same page,  they advocated green energy initiatives, including a green grid.   Cap and Trade was mentioned by most candidates, including getting fossil fueled cars out of Canadian cities.  It could have been the top of the agenda of the Green Party.  More government involvement in Canadians lives was also advocated.

Like the Obama Administration they talked about the inequality in the tax system and that the folks on the top should pay their fair share.  Most of the policies advocated more spending, without any of the candidates proposing how this would be paid for, other than taxing the rich.   They pointed to provincial governments to point out that the NDP could manage the economy.

In almost every case they spoke of government intervention.   As an observer I came away with the fact that the markets should not be permitted to operate without government intervention.  It smells of more regulations that would, in my humble opinion, stifle economic growth.

The candidates kept pointing to Europe as an example, well we know where Europe is financially.   Overall no candidate stood out.  If the debate was to point out the failures of the Conservative government to their followers, they succeeded.   While discussing how the Harper government is dividing Canadian society, it seems that dividing the country between the rich and not so rich is a direct copy of Obama's strategy. 

The debate pointed out the progressive agenda of the New Democrats, with all of the candidates on the same page.   Unfortunately, there was no real debate amongst the candidates.  It sounded more like a love in than a debate.   The only minor clash was between Brian Topp and Paul Dewar regarding electricity.   When Dewar talked about a national grid, Topp asked him how to pay for it. 

If the NDP wants to win the hearts and minds of Canadians for their progressive agenda, there needs to be an influx of original ideas and not more of the same old.  In other words, don't tell us what Harper is doing wrong, but tell us what you will do and how it will be paid for.  Convince us that you will not break the bank.  

Jobs/Economy Number One Priority for Canadians

Canada overall, compared to its G8 partners, has fared well during the recent recession.  Although some stimulus money was spend on bailing out the auto industry, Canada's banks needed no help.  The Conservative government is also on track to curtail spending and reducing its deficit.   Regardless, Canada can't function in isolation.  The United States is its number on trading partner and the Obama Administration and Congress have not been able to reduce spending and the debt clock keeps clicking having reach $15 Trillion this month.  With the seemingly unmanageable financial crisis in Europe, Canadians are well aware how volatile the economy is, especially the influence of outside sources.  Jobs and the Economy have overtaken Health Care as the number on issue for Canadians, according to a CTV/Nanos poll. 

Canada held an election in May and for the first time, since first elected in 2005, the Conservative government won a majority.  The New Democratic Party (NDP) overtook the Liberals as the official opposition.  For the first time in Canadian history the Liberal Party has been relegated to third party.  The majority of gains for the NDP came from the Province of Quebec, who rejected the BLOC Quebecois in favor of the NDP. 

The latest Nanos poll seems to indicate that the Liberals have gained ground on the NDP and are now in a statistical tie with the New Democrats.  It should be noted that the NDP is concentrating on a leadership campaign, in a quest to replace Jack Layton, who passed away due to cancer earlier this year.

The poll conducted as a telephone survey of 1202 Canadians between the 16th and 21st of November, concluded that   35.6% of Canadians supported the Conservative Party, while 28.1% supported the Liberals, 27.3%  the NDP and 3.9% the Greens (support for the Bloc Québécois rose marginally to 3.9% nationally and 15.9% in Quebec). 

Stephen Harper retains a clear advantage overall in the Nanos Leadership Index (102.4), while interim Liberal Leader Bob Rae is firmly in second ahead of interim NDP Leader Nycole Turmel, with respective Leadership Index scores of 43.9 and 24.9.

As a national issue of concern, jobs/the economy has surpassed healthcare (jobs/economy 29.3%, healthcare 22.8%).  Nanos Poll

Below is the the Methodology for the poll and additional results:

Methodology Between November 16th and 21st, Nanos Research conducted a random telephone survey of 1,202 Canadians 18 years of age and older. A random telephone survey of 1,202 Canadians is accurate plus or minus 2.8 percentage points, 19 times out of 20. For 938 committed voters, it is accurate plus or minus 3.2 percentage points, 19 times out of 20. Results for October 24th, 2011 are from a random telephone survey of 1,202 Canadians conducted between October 20th and 24th, 2011. A random telephone survey of 1,202 Canadians is accurate plus or minus 2.8 percentage points, 19 times out of 20. For additional data on specific questions you can visit Nanos Research Website.