Monday Morning Links

Content goes here.

- Brian Topp sums up the choices facing Canadian voters as the election campaign winds down to its final week:

Anything can happen in politics. But what we may be in for in the last week of this campaign is the unusual sight of three leaders – Mr. Harper, Mr. Ignatieff, and Mr. Duceppe – focused on attacking the NDP.

And the increasingly familiar sight of Jack Layton shrugging off these attacks, and offering Canadians something they are clearly looking for – some hope, some optimism, some unity, some relief from angry and divisive politics.

A choice between three angry, threatened men and a relaxed, smiling, positive national leader – in some ways, the only real national leader running in this election.

As I was saying a few weeks ago, this might just work out surprisingly well.

- James Laxer notes the absurdity of Stephen Harper trying to run on national unity even as he deliberately inflames regional tensions:

Now we’ve seen everything---Stephen Harper, who only a few years ago counseled Albertans to build “firewalls” around their province to protect it from Canada, has proclaimed himself the indispensable champion of national unity. Without him at the helm of a majority government, this one-time quasi-Alberta separatist would have us believe there will be no one to protect the country from a new round of sovereignist upheaval in Quebec.

In fact, I’d be surprised if Parti Quebecois leader Pauline Marois didn't regard a Harper majority government as one of the essential “winning conditions” for a sovereignty referendum should she succeed in becoming premier of Quebec in the next provincial election.
...
Nothing would fire up the engines of the aging Quebec sovereignists more than a Harper majority. They would make the case that Harper’s Canada is remote from Quebec and everything the Quebecois aspire to.
...
The truly hopeful development in Quebec during this election campaign has been the stunning rise in Jack Layton’s standing in the province.

For six federal election campaigns in a row, the Bloc Quebecois has been dominant in Quebec. Now the Quebecois are turning in huge numbers to the NDP, embracing a progressive federalist party that could give them a voice in governing the country. Layton’s breakthrough in Quebec has the potential to change the landscape of Canadian politics.

- Miss Vicky fact-checks Kathleen Petty's attempt to paint a national childcare program as unaffordable.

- And finally, Erin points out why the Cons' wanton tax slashing figures to do plenty of damage on the provincial level in addition to limiting the ability of the federal government to act:

Provincial income tax generally applies to income as defined by federal tax rules. Shifting income to a spouse in a lower tax bracket or into a TFSA reduces both federal and provincial revenues.

It would be constitutionally possible, but practically difficult, for provinces to disallow income splitting for provincial tax purposes or to tax investment gains realized inside TFSAs. Provincial governments would not be obliged to create provincial credits for fitness and arts spending eligible for the promised federal credits. However, provinces set a precedent of doing so with the children’s fitness credit.
...
The additional cost of doubling the (TFSA) threshold would be below $3 billion because fewer people could afford to contribute $10,000. However, the three Conservative promises could easily punch a $5-billion hole in the federal budget.

How much would they cost the provinces? Provincial income tax generates about two-thirds as much revenue as federal income tax.

Top marginal rates are especially important for income splitting and TFSAs, which disproportionately benefit high-income Canadians. Outside of Quebec, top provincial tax rates are about half of the top federal rate.

The upshot is that federal Conservative promises could easily reduce combined provincial tax revenues by between $2 billion and $3 billion per year.