Unlike the past week, there have been a number of issues that have occurred this week, so I will discuss a few of them and give my own frank opinion on them. Coming up soon is the Copenhagen summit on climate change, which our PM after all will be attending as will Obama. Canada certainly should be there and would should take climate change more seriously than our PM does, but our actions should be based on our national interest, not what other countries think we should do. Melting ice, possible habitat damage do make it in our national interest to take action, but with a large natural resource industry, a cold climate, and much of the country living in remote rural areas, trying to achieve the cuts that most European countries have committed to is both unrealistic and unreasonable. As a sovereign country, we have every right to decide what is best for our country even if others don't like it. In terms of any agreement, we should keep an open mind and sign it if it serves our national interest while refuse to sign it if does not. Some may say as a country we have a global obligation to take action. I would disagree, our obligation is primarily to our own country. I don't begrudge other countries for putting their national interest first and I think Canada should do the same. Otherwise in sum, I think the current Tory government is doing too little in climate change, but I think what the environmentalists are asking us to do is too much. We need to find some balance in between. Besides, we as individuals can make an impact on our own, dealing with climate change doesn't always have to mean bigger government.
The other summit this week is the Commonwealth one. While I support scrapping the monarchy, I do believe the Commonwealth is still a useful forum for Canada to belong to and go place for dialogue. Recently one of its members, Uganda has brought in a draconian anti-gay law. Besides the fact that the law is absolutely outrageous in every way possible, the question becomes, do we have the right to comment on what is a domestic issue. I would argue in this case we do as this does impact Canada. If any gay person or person who supports gay rights wishes to claim refugee status, we would have no choice but to accept them and as we rightfully should. However, processing refugee claims is very costly and whether they will be a net contributor or a net user of our system varies and unlike skilled immigration where we ensure only those who are net contributors get in, here it is decided based on one having a well founded fear of persecution. On the issue of gay marriage, that is an internal issue and we should stay out of other's countries business on that issue, but this goes beyond a simple policy issue, this is blatant human rights violation. I do fully support gay marriage myself, but realize that attitudes on this vary from country to country. I am not sure what is the best course of action here, but suspension from the Commonwealth to possible sanctions should be considered. Perhaps recalling the ambassador as a sign of protest is one possibility. Another one is to declare the extraterritorality null and void, otherwise if a Ugandan national breaks the law while in Canada, we will not assist in any way shape or form in helping them prosecute them nor we will recognize the law as legitimate.
The other big issue is the Tories plan to pass enabling legislation for the HST, but it will not be a confidence vote. I personally support the HST despite its unpopularity and believe it is the right move. The GST in the early 90s was extremely unpopular, yet had it not been for the GST and NAFTA, it is unlikely we would have been able to balance the budget and enjoy the prosperity and growth we did. However, rises in sales taxes should be offset by cuts in income and corporate taxes as cutting both of those taxes would help encourage economic growth. With large deficits at both the provincial and federal level, I would argue raising sales taxes makes the most sense. In fact I would support raising the GST to 10% to fight the deficit and I also think the Tories move to cut the GST to 5% was a populist and economically unsound move. In addition, the HST won't be a totally bad thing for consumers, in fact in the three Atlantic provinces that adopted it, consumers actually save more. The reason for this is the PST is levied on all goods subject to it regardless of what point in the production chain it is in, whereas the GST and the HST are only levied on the final purchase. This means, the amount one pays indirectly in PST is actually much higher, thus meaning there is a high hidden cost. It is also important to remember 29 out of the 30 OECD countries have a value added tax, the United States being the only one that does not. I would argue introducing one would be a wise move to balance the budget while cutting income and corporate taxes, but thats a different topic. If we want to stay competitive, this is definitely worth doing. In fact most economist estimate it will create around 600,000 jobs in Ontario and 200,000 jobs in British Columbia. For all those claiming a recession is no time to do this, I would argue the exact opposite; with rising unemployment any policy that is sound and creates jobs should be adopted. I hope all parties provincially and federally look at whats right in the long-term not whats popular in the short-term. I can tell you it will hit my wallet, but I also realize I will save on many other items too and I also know that more jobs being created means more consumers and this will mean higher wages and salaries for those employed so I might be hurt by it directly, but indirectly I will benefit as I think most will.
The final issue is the issue of the Afghanistan torture. I don't know the details and think pointing fingers is inappropriate until we get all the facts. However, we should remember, Afghanistan is a hardly a liberal democracy with a stellar human rights record, so this should not come as a surprise. So the question is, why the heck are we there in the first place. This wouldn't prevent the torture from happening, but at least our hands would be clean. If anything, this should just give us more reason to pull out ASAP. I don't condone the Taliban, but unless they attack or threaten us directly we have no reason to be there. As for the terrorist, they are in many countries, in fact more are in Pakistan than Afghanistan yet we wouldn't dare attack them. In the case of fighting terrorism, we should go after the terrorists individually, not the whole country. Also some Western countries have home grown terrorism too. Three of the four London bombers in 2005 where born in the United Kingdom and some of the ones that have threatened the West are nationals of countries such as France, Germany, and Britain, yet we would never attack them and nor should we.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Weekly Bulletin #5
During the past week, a few more polls have come out that show although the rise of the Tory fortunes has ebbed somewhat (they are back in minority territory), the Liberals slide has not abated. A lot can happen between now and the next election, especially considering none of us know when it will occur, but the Liberals have their work cut out if they want to even form a weak minority while a majority is possible but far from certain for the Tories. Even the most optimistic scenario for them would show them only winning a majority by a few seats, thus a solid Tory majority is out of the picture for now. In terms of events this past week, the big one was the prime-minister visiting India.
As a country with more than 1 billion people, a growing middle class, a growing educated population, and a young population, it is a country we can ill afford to ignore. Increased trade and investment between the two countries will undoubtedly benefit both countries at the same time forming any trade or investment agreement can be somewhat tricky. India, despite its growth, is still a developing country. Corruption and weak infrastructure have been cited as major deterrents to Canadian firms investing there and likewise some people express legitimate concern that free trade agreements are only feasible with countries that have similiar wages, which is clearly not the case in India. I support establishing a trade agreement to remove all tariffs on non-sensitive goods between the two countries while gradually reduce tariffs in the more sensitive areas as well as eliminate many of the non-tariff barriers. I also support an investment deal that would grant Canadian and Indian investors full access to all sectors of the economy open to foreign investment. This would not prevent governments from implementing laws regulating investment as long as they applied equally to both domestic and foreign investors and in the case of takeovers and entry of foreign investors, as long as they are no more restrictive than those applied to other foreign investors. Labour mobility would not be appropriate at this time and likewise I support maintaining visas on Indian nationals wishing to visit Canada (and likewise think India has every right to maintain visas on Canadian visitors). At the same time we could do a better job of recognizing foreign credentials and also making it easier for legitimate visitors to obtain visas. That does not mean we automatically recognize foreign credentials, there have been cases of individuals presenting fraudalent ones as well as many Indian universities do not meet the standards required here. However, those who do meet Canadian standards should be able to have their's recognized. Some standardized test would probably be the best solution. Also knowledge of one of the two official languages should be a requirement since I wouldn't want a doctor operating on me who couldn't speak English. And to avoid sounding racist, I believe any person practicing in the medical profession anywhere should speak the local language. Otherwise an English Canadian doctor who cannot speak French shouldn't practice in Quebec.
Still, I believe longer term, more open trade and investment will be good for Canada. Now I know there are two common concerns which many will raise about freer trade with India. The first is we will be flooded with cheap imports. For starters, India is member of the WTO so under WTO rules, Canada must grant most favoured nation status to all WTO members. This means whatever the lowest tariff applied for any good (save those we have free trade agreements with) from any WTO country, this must be applied for good from all WTO countries. In the case of Canada, tariffs on imports from India are already very low to begin with. In fact it is Indian tariffs on Canadian imports that need to come down more than anything. In addition, while cheaper imports may result in some lost jobs, it will create more jobs overall. Canada is an export driven economy so the more export markets we can open, the more jobs we will create. Likewise cheaper imports means consumers have more money left over to buy other goods and services and this will create jobs elsewhere. Through comparative advantage, trade is a win win scenario for both sides, it is not a zero sum game as some like to think. When Canada signed NAFTA, many jobs were lost, but more were created as a result of NAFTA. One can feel individually sorry for those who lost their job, but government policy must be based on what is best for the whole country, not what benefits one individual.
The other concern is offshore outsourcing which is quite prevalent nowadays not just for low skilled jobs like call centres, but even many IT jobs. I know people who have personally lost their jobs due to this in the past year and I am sure many others do. However, this concern should not result in us adopting protectionist measures. For starters, we don't have a free trade agreement with India and neither do Britain or the United States, yet that hasn't slowed or prevented offshore outsourcing, so having more open trade will not affect this one iota. In fact one could argue more open trade would reduce offshore outsourcing since as the standard of living of the average Indian rises, they will demand higher wages and as wages rise, the cost benefits for firms of outsourcing will diminish. Even if their wages are still lower, there is a high cost to set up operations abroad as well as many risks so wages have to be significantly lower for it to be profitable. Besides, if it becomes unprofitable in India, the firms that outsource will just find another location i.e. Nigeria or wherever. The best way to reduce outsourcing for those who oppose it is to not buy from firms who do it. If enough consumers refuse to buy from firms who do it, firms will stop doing it. That is the great thing about the free market, is consumers have the power to influence the behavior of firms so rather than asking the government to clamp down on it, those who oppose it should vote with their wallet. As long as consumers demand lower prices and workers demand higher wages, it won't be possible for firms to meet both demands and stay profitable, thus they will outsource. As with everything, there are cost and benefits and the reality is we would pay more for goods and services if outsourcing didn't occur, so people need to realize, you cannot employ only domestic workers and expect cheaper prices. You want to stop outsourcing, you need to be prepared to pay higher prices. And maybe that is not a bad thing, but people need to be realistic on what can and cannot be done.
Overall, I am glad to see the PM reaching out to India and hopefully China soon. I should note though that despite their differences, the Conservatives, Liberals, and Bloc Quebecois are all generally pro free trade while the NDP and the Greens are still protectionist, so this is not an issue that will determine which party I would vote for as the Liberals and Conservatives are similiar enough on this issue even though this wasn't always the case.
As a country with more than 1 billion people, a growing middle class, a growing educated population, and a young population, it is a country we can ill afford to ignore. Increased trade and investment between the two countries will undoubtedly benefit both countries at the same time forming any trade or investment agreement can be somewhat tricky. India, despite its growth, is still a developing country. Corruption and weak infrastructure have been cited as major deterrents to Canadian firms investing there and likewise some people express legitimate concern that free trade agreements are only feasible with countries that have similiar wages, which is clearly not the case in India. I support establishing a trade agreement to remove all tariffs on non-sensitive goods between the two countries while gradually reduce tariffs in the more sensitive areas as well as eliminate many of the non-tariff barriers. I also support an investment deal that would grant Canadian and Indian investors full access to all sectors of the economy open to foreign investment. This would not prevent governments from implementing laws regulating investment as long as they applied equally to both domestic and foreign investors and in the case of takeovers and entry of foreign investors, as long as they are no more restrictive than those applied to other foreign investors. Labour mobility would not be appropriate at this time and likewise I support maintaining visas on Indian nationals wishing to visit Canada (and likewise think India has every right to maintain visas on Canadian visitors). At the same time we could do a better job of recognizing foreign credentials and also making it easier for legitimate visitors to obtain visas. That does not mean we automatically recognize foreign credentials, there have been cases of individuals presenting fraudalent ones as well as many Indian universities do not meet the standards required here. However, those who do meet Canadian standards should be able to have their's recognized. Some standardized test would probably be the best solution. Also knowledge of one of the two official languages should be a requirement since I wouldn't want a doctor operating on me who couldn't speak English. And to avoid sounding racist, I believe any person practicing in the medical profession anywhere should speak the local language. Otherwise an English Canadian doctor who cannot speak French shouldn't practice in Quebec.
Still, I believe longer term, more open trade and investment will be good for Canada. Now I know there are two common concerns which many will raise about freer trade with India. The first is we will be flooded with cheap imports. For starters, India is member of the WTO so under WTO rules, Canada must grant most favoured nation status to all WTO members. This means whatever the lowest tariff applied for any good (save those we have free trade agreements with) from any WTO country, this must be applied for good from all WTO countries. In the case of Canada, tariffs on imports from India are already very low to begin with. In fact it is Indian tariffs on Canadian imports that need to come down more than anything. In addition, while cheaper imports may result in some lost jobs, it will create more jobs overall. Canada is an export driven economy so the more export markets we can open, the more jobs we will create. Likewise cheaper imports means consumers have more money left over to buy other goods and services and this will create jobs elsewhere. Through comparative advantage, trade is a win win scenario for both sides, it is not a zero sum game as some like to think. When Canada signed NAFTA, many jobs were lost, but more were created as a result of NAFTA. One can feel individually sorry for those who lost their job, but government policy must be based on what is best for the whole country, not what benefits one individual.
The other concern is offshore outsourcing which is quite prevalent nowadays not just for low skilled jobs like call centres, but even many IT jobs. I know people who have personally lost their jobs due to this in the past year and I am sure many others do. However, this concern should not result in us adopting protectionist measures. For starters, we don't have a free trade agreement with India and neither do Britain or the United States, yet that hasn't slowed or prevented offshore outsourcing, so having more open trade will not affect this one iota. In fact one could argue more open trade would reduce offshore outsourcing since as the standard of living of the average Indian rises, they will demand higher wages and as wages rise, the cost benefits for firms of outsourcing will diminish. Even if their wages are still lower, there is a high cost to set up operations abroad as well as many risks so wages have to be significantly lower for it to be profitable. Besides, if it becomes unprofitable in India, the firms that outsource will just find another location i.e. Nigeria or wherever. The best way to reduce outsourcing for those who oppose it is to not buy from firms who do it. If enough consumers refuse to buy from firms who do it, firms will stop doing it. That is the great thing about the free market, is consumers have the power to influence the behavior of firms so rather than asking the government to clamp down on it, those who oppose it should vote with their wallet. As long as consumers demand lower prices and workers demand higher wages, it won't be possible for firms to meet both demands and stay profitable, thus they will outsource. As with everything, there are cost and benefits and the reality is we would pay more for goods and services if outsourcing didn't occur, so people need to realize, you cannot employ only domestic workers and expect cheaper prices. You want to stop outsourcing, you need to be prepared to pay higher prices. And maybe that is not a bad thing, but people need to be realistic on what can and cannot be done.
Overall, I am glad to see the PM reaching out to India and hopefully China soon. I should note though that despite their differences, the Conservatives, Liberals, and Bloc Quebecois are all generally pro free trade while the NDP and the Greens are still protectionist, so this is not an issue that will determine which party I would vote for as the Liberals and Conservatives are similiar enough on this issue even though this wasn't always the case.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Weekly Bulletin #4
This past week a few events happened although still generally pretty quiet. On Monday, was the 20th anniversary of the Berlin Wall coming down. The fall of the Berlin Wall was symbolic in many ways of a much larger change happening throughout Europe. Earlier that year, the first hole in the Iron Curtain was punctured when the barbed wire along the Austrian-Hungarian border was removed. Throughout that year, there were many protests throughout Eastern Europe that helped fuel the end of the Cold War. The Solidarity movement in Poland helped bring communism down there, there was the Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia, while in Romania, their dictator Carcescu was executed by firing squad after being removed from power. This marked the triumph of democracy and freedom over communism and oppression. Not only was a city and country re-united again, a continent that had been needlessly divided was again re-united. Today, many of those countries are now members of NATO and the EU and in fact you can now cross into Eastern Europe since 2007 without having to show your passport or stop at the border as most of those countries are now part of the Schenghen Agreement. Despite this, there are still many parts of the world that suffer from oppression, however hopefully this can give hope to other regions that no matter how oppressed, it is possible to bring about freedom.
On Monday there were four by-elections. A good night for the NDP and Conservatives and a bad one for the Bloc Quebecois and the Liberals. The Tories reclaimed Cumberland-Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley which was really no surprise as this has traditionally been a safe Tory riding, although there was always the question of whether the anger towards Bill Casey's ejection was still hanging over. Their gain of Montmagny-L'Islet-Kamouraska-Riviere du Loup however was a surprise and big news. A few months ago, most pundits said the Tories were all but dead in Quebec, so this shows that they still have some strength in Rural Quebec. However, one should note this is right next door to the Appalaches-Chaudiere region where they already hold four ridings and also the demographic who generally votes Tory in Quebec tend to show up no matter what, thus the lower the turnout, the better they do in Quebec. So this pick-up does not mean they will hold this is in a general election, but still good for them nonetheless. The NDP won solidly in New Westminster-Coquitlam, so if there was any riding the Tories underperformed in, it was here. It also appears the backlash towards the HST might have hurt them somewhat. The NDP also came in second in Cumberland-Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley and Hochelaga, so despite not coming close to winning in either, coming in second is still a step in the right direction for the NDP in both those ridings as traditionally the Liberals usually come in second in both cases. The Bloc Quebecois held Hochelaga as expected, but their loss in Montmagny-L'Islet-Kamouraska-Riviere du Loup is not a good sign. With the separtist issue all but dead, much of the Bloc's votes tend to be more along ideological lines, thus in the case you can see them doing well in the urban left leaning riding, but struggling in the rural centre-right one. Trying to keep all sides of the spectrum united was easy when they were united in their common goal of an independent Quebec, but less so, on other issues. None of these ridings have traditionally voted Liberal, so the Liberals not winning any of them was never the issue, the issue was more how they did in terms of placing and here they did as bad and in some cases worse than Dion did in the past general election. They came in third or fourth in every riding and failed to get over 25% in any one of the ridings and only got over 20% in one of them. This means the Liberals have got a lot of work ahead if they want to return to power. They didn't need to win any of the ridings up for grabs, but a strong second place showing would have at least showed they had the winds in their sail.
On Monday there were four by-elections. A good night for the NDP and Conservatives and a bad one for the Bloc Quebecois and the Liberals. The Tories reclaimed Cumberland-Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley which was really no surprise as this has traditionally been a safe Tory riding, although there was always the question of whether the anger towards Bill Casey's ejection was still hanging over. Their gain of Montmagny-L'Islet-Kamouraska-Riviere du Loup however was a surprise and big news. A few months ago, most pundits said the Tories were all but dead in Quebec, so this shows that they still have some strength in Rural Quebec. However, one should note this is right next door to the Appalaches-Chaudiere region where they already hold four ridings and also the demographic who generally votes Tory in Quebec tend to show up no matter what, thus the lower the turnout, the better they do in Quebec. So this pick-up does not mean they will hold this is in a general election, but still good for them nonetheless. The NDP won solidly in New Westminster-Coquitlam, so if there was any riding the Tories underperformed in, it was here. It also appears the backlash towards the HST might have hurt them somewhat. The NDP also came in second in Cumberland-Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley and Hochelaga, so despite not coming close to winning in either, coming in second is still a step in the right direction for the NDP in both those ridings as traditionally the Liberals usually come in second in both cases. The Bloc Quebecois held Hochelaga as expected, but their loss in Montmagny-L'Islet-Kamouraska-Riviere du Loup is not a good sign. With the separtist issue all but dead, much of the Bloc's votes tend to be more along ideological lines, thus in the case you can see them doing well in the urban left leaning riding, but struggling in the rural centre-right one. Trying to keep all sides of the spectrum united was easy when they were united in their common goal of an independent Quebec, but less so, on other issues. None of these ridings have traditionally voted Liberal, so the Liberals not winning any of them was never the issue, the issue was more how they did in terms of placing and here they did as bad and in some cases worse than Dion did in the past general election. They came in third or fourth in every riding and failed to get over 25% in any one of the ridings and only got over 20% in one of them. This means the Liberals have got a lot of work ahead if they want to return to power. They didn't need to win any of the ridings up for grabs, but a strong second place showing would have at least showed they had the winds in their sail.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Weekly Bulletin #3
In the past few weeks the H1N1 issue has been heating up and it appears there is a shortage of vaccines. After seeing the auditor general's report, it appears both the past Liberals and the present Conservatives have not taken adequate action to deal with a pandemic. The other issue is athletes and CEO's jumping the queue. I have long supported allowing a parallel private system, however I believe in the idea of a separate parallel private system, I do not support people jumping the queue within the public system. It is one thing if one wants to use a private clinic, it is quite another thing to jump the line in the public system. Also, due to the fact this is a life-threatening issue for some, I think those who are not in priority groups should be prohibited from getting the vaccine until all priority groups are vaccinated irrespective or where they go, wealth, and personal connections. Only once the priority groups are vaccinated should non-priority groups be permitted to pay for the vaccine at a separate private clinic.
This week, after 14 years of one of the biggest boondoogles, it appears the gun registry is close to being dismantled. This time, with the Tories being only 9 seats shy of a majority (There are four vacant opposition seats where by-elections will be held tomorrow and the speaker is a Liberal and he only votes in the case of a tie). This issue has unnecessary divided rural and urban Canadians and looking at the vote amongst both the NDP and Liberals, it appears it largely split along rural/urban lines. 5 of the 8 Liberals were for Atlantic Canada which is the only stronghold in rural Canada they still have left, while 6 of the 12 NDP MPs voting for scrapping the gun registry were from Northern Ontario, where it is deeply unpopular despite the centre-left tilt of this region. I support gun control, but if a person is unfit to own one gun, it shouldn't make a difference whether they have one or many. Licencing will still continue to exist, only the registeration which requires you to register each gun will be scrapped. Also, most long gun owners are farmers or hunters and use it for hunting or protecting their livestock from predators. The reality is one couldn't walk down the middle of downtown Toronto with a rifle and not being noticed, while one can easily conceal a handgun so the problem is more with handguns rather than long-guns. Also the problem is not our gun laws, but those south of the border. 90% of guns used for crimes are smuggled in from the United States, so considering we have to face longer line-ups going to the US, I see no reason we cannot beef up our border and start checking more people for importing guns. Any non-Canadian citizen caught illegally importing one should be barred from entering Canada for at least five years while any Canadian caught illegally importing one would have their name entered into a database and would be searched each and everytime they re-enter Canada for the next five years. For the same cost, this would be far more effective.
The auditor general's report came out this week and as usual slammed the government on a few issues. I've already discussed their lack of prepardeness on the H1N1, but I haven't on the guest worker program. When the economy was hot a few years ago, especially in Alberta, a guest worker program was probably needed to fill in the shortages, unfortunately it appears to being abused. This should be only used when a Canadian worker cannot be found, not to substitute Canadian workers and since it appears some companies are using this as a form of cheap labour, I think they need to tighten the rules saying only jobs paying at or above the prevailing market wage for that industry can use this program. It is one thing to fill a job shortage where a Canadian cannot be found, it is quite another thing to use it so one can offer wages no Canadian would accept and therefore use it to drive down wages. It should be noted countries in Europe such as Germany that have used guest worker programs in the past have faced many problems. By contrast, Canadians point system has worked very well and should be the primary method for receiving immigrants. In fact Britain is doing away with the work permits and moving towards a point system much like Canada and Australia, just harder to qualify than in Canada. Tightening this program up would not only benefit Canadians, it would benefit the guest workers themselves in terms of better treatment and less abuse.
Here in Canada, Charles and Camilla are making a visit. While no offence to the royals, I don't believe our head of state should be a foreigner. I believe that would should dump the monarchy and replace the governor general as our head of state. We've been independent of Britain for 142 years so it seems silly to still maintain the monarchy. I support close cooperation with Britain and membership in the Commonwealth as the Commonwealth is a useful forum for different countries around the world to meet. After all India is still in the commonwealth, but does not have the Queen as the head of state and they have only been independent for 62 years.
South of the border, the Republicans won two state governorships in New Jersey and Virginia. While one should be careful about drawing too many conclusions, Virginia had been Republican since 1964 and Obama won it for the first time in 44 years, thus the loss by double digits there is not a good sign, however based on his approval rating in Virginia, I suspect the state would be a toss up. In the case of New Jersey much of this appears more due to the unpopularity of Corzine as I highly doubt Obama would lose New Jersey if an election were called today. Still the fact it went Republican at least shows the potential for it to go Republican under the right conditions. New York 23 however voted Democrat for the first time in over 100 years. In many ways this was due to the split on the right as the Conservative candidate was the more right wing of the two while the Republican one was quite moderate as she supported abortion and same sex marriage. This made her a frequent target of many of the more right wing Republicans eventually causing her to drop out and endorse the Democrat candidate, but her name still appeared on the ballot since she dropped out after the deadline. If anything this is a message to the Republicans to stop trying to push out moderates. Reagan was a conservative, yet he understood a successful big tent party required support from both, however many conservatives today are more interested in an ideologically pure Republican party than winning. Whatever mishaps Obama has faced, if the Republicans continue to swing to the right they will have a tough time making the gains they hope for in next year's midterms and winning back the White House in 2012. Also in Maine, unfortunately the vote to repeal same sex marriage passed. While a disappointment for some, it was fairly close much like in California, not by the massive margins typical in many other states. More importantly opposition is strongest amongst older Americans while support for SSM is strongest amongst young Americans, so this should bode well in the long-term as the older ones die off and more young ones become old enough to vote each election cycle.
Across the Atlantic, it will be the 20 year anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. This was a huge victory for freedom over tyranny and while the transition has had many difficulties, East Germany is undoubtedly better off in a re-united Germany under the market system rather than the communist one. I have actually been to Berlin myself and seen where the wall use to run. The city has changed a lot since, although you can still see a few signs separating East from West Berlin.
Finally here in Canada, we have four by-elections on Monday. By-elections normally have low turnouts and often produced unpredicted results. Anyways my predictions are as follows:
Conservatives win Cumberland-Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley, NDP holds New Westminster-Coquitlam, and Bloc Quebecois holds both of the Quebec by-elections. This would create a final result of 144 seats for the Conservatives in the House of Commons while no change for the other parties relative to what they got last election. I will have more on the results in next week's bulletin.
This week, after 14 years of one of the biggest boondoogles, it appears the gun registry is close to being dismantled. This time, with the Tories being only 9 seats shy of a majority (There are four vacant opposition seats where by-elections will be held tomorrow and the speaker is a Liberal and he only votes in the case of a tie). This issue has unnecessary divided rural and urban Canadians and looking at the vote amongst both the NDP and Liberals, it appears it largely split along rural/urban lines. 5 of the 8 Liberals were for Atlantic Canada which is the only stronghold in rural Canada they still have left, while 6 of the 12 NDP MPs voting for scrapping the gun registry were from Northern Ontario, where it is deeply unpopular despite the centre-left tilt of this region. I support gun control, but if a person is unfit to own one gun, it shouldn't make a difference whether they have one or many. Licencing will still continue to exist, only the registeration which requires you to register each gun will be scrapped. Also, most long gun owners are farmers or hunters and use it for hunting or protecting their livestock from predators. The reality is one couldn't walk down the middle of downtown Toronto with a rifle and not being noticed, while one can easily conceal a handgun so the problem is more with handguns rather than long-guns. Also the problem is not our gun laws, but those south of the border. 90% of guns used for crimes are smuggled in from the United States, so considering we have to face longer line-ups going to the US, I see no reason we cannot beef up our border and start checking more people for importing guns. Any non-Canadian citizen caught illegally importing one should be barred from entering Canada for at least five years while any Canadian caught illegally importing one would have their name entered into a database and would be searched each and everytime they re-enter Canada for the next five years. For the same cost, this would be far more effective.
The auditor general's report came out this week and as usual slammed the government on a few issues. I've already discussed their lack of prepardeness on the H1N1, but I haven't on the guest worker program. When the economy was hot a few years ago, especially in Alberta, a guest worker program was probably needed to fill in the shortages, unfortunately it appears to being abused. This should be only used when a Canadian worker cannot be found, not to substitute Canadian workers and since it appears some companies are using this as a form of cheap labour, I think they need to tighten the rules saying only jobs paying at or above the prevailing market wage for that industry can use this program. It is one thing to fill a job shortage where a Canadian cannot be found, it is quite another thing to use it so one can offer wages no Canadian would accept and therefore use it to drive down wages. It should be noted countries in Europe such as Germany that have used guest worker programs in the past have faced many problems. By contrast, Canadians point system has worked very well and should be the primary method for receiving immigrants. In fact Britain is doing away with the work permits and moving towards a point system much like Canada and Australia, just harder to qualify than in Canada. Tightening this program up would not only benefit Canadians, it would benefit the guest workers themselves in terms of better treatment and less abuse.
Here in Canada, Charles and Camilla are making a visit. While no offence to the royals, I don't believe our head of state should be a foreigner. I believe that would should dump the monarchy and replace the governor general as our head of state. We've been independent of Britain for 142 years so it seems silly to still maintain the monarchy. I support close cooperation with Britain and membership in the Commonwealth as the Commonwealth is a useful forum for different countries around the world to meet. After all India is still in the commonwealth, but does not have the Queen as the head of state and they have only been independent for 62 years.
South of the border, the Republicans won two state governorships in New Jersey and Virginia. While one should be careful about drawing too many conclusions, Virginia had been Republican since 1964 and Obama won it for the first time in 44 years, thus the loss by double digits there is not a good sign, however based on his approval rating in Virginia, I suspect the state would be a toss up. In the case of New Jersey much of this appears more due to the unpopularity of Corzine as I highly doubt Obama would lose New Jersey if an election were called today. Still the fact it went Republican at least shows the potential for it to go Republican under the right conditions. New York 23 however voted Democrat for the first time in over 100 years. In many ways this was due to the split on the right as the Conservative candidate was the more right wing of the two while the Republican one was quite moderate as she supported abortion and same sex marriage. This made her a frequent target of many of the more right wing Republicans eventually causing her to drop out and endorse the Democrat candidate, but her name still appeared on the ballot since she dropped out after the deadline. If anything this is a message to the Republicans to stop trying to push out moderates. Reagan was a conservative, yet he understood a successful big tent party required support from both, however many conservatives today are more interested in an ideologically pure Republican party than winning. Whatever mishaps Obama has faced, if the Republicans continue to swing to the right they will have a tough time making the gains they hope for in next year's midterms and winning back the White House in 2012. Also in Maine, unfortunately the vote to repeal same sex marriage passed. While a disappointment for some, it was fairly close much like in California, not by the massive margins typical in many other states. More importantly opposition is strongest amongst older Americans while support for SSM is strongest amongst young Americans, so this should bode well in the long-term as the older ones die off and more young ones become old enough to vote each election cycle.
Across the Atlantic, it will be the 20 year anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. This was a huge victory for freedom over tyranny and while the transition has had many difficulties, East Germany is undoubtedly better off in a re-united Germany under the market system rather than the communist one. I have actually been to Berlin myself and seen where the wall use to run. The city has changed a lot since, although you can still see a few signs separating East from West Berlin.
Finally here in Canada, we have four by-elections on Monday. By-elections normally have low turnouts and often produced unpredicted results. Anyways my predictions are as follows:
Conservatives win Cumberland-Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley, NDP holds New Westminster-Coquitlam, and Bloc Quebecois holds both of the Quebec by-elections. This would create a final result of 144 seats for the Conservatives in the House of Commons while no change for the other parties relative to what they got last election. I will have more on the results in next week's bulletin.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Weekly Bulletin #2
This weekly bulletin is only on the past week and hopefully I can do one every week from now one I am not out of town. So here are the events that have happened and my personal views
Liberals acquire Peter Donolo as their chief of staff while sacking Ian Davey. This was probably a smart choice as he has actually been part of a winning team and as a pollster up until now I think he understands the reasons the Liberals are struggling in much of the country. With Ignatieff's team all being from Toronto, most had little idea why their message wasn't reasonating elsewhere. You don't win elections by having an inner circle all from your strongest part of the country. You win by appealing to regions where your support is more soft and even ones that don't normally support you. Toronto is probably the most solidy Liberal area in the country, so this about the last place the Liberals need to worry about. If they are in trouble in Toronto, then they must as well forget about winning nationally. That being said Donolo is probably not a name known to 90% of Canadians and also a lot has changed since the 90s, so his appointment won't automatically turn things around for the Liberals. And he still is from Toronto although originally Montreal, mind you both are Liberal strongholds.
Quebec Hydro acquired NB power in a deal between the Quebec and New Brunswick government. I support this deal as it would help pay off the debt of NB Power and also I believe provincial protectionism has no place in a modern united Canada. At the same time privatization would be my preferred option, although to prevent it from coming under foreign control, I would support placing a 25% cap on the percentage of foreign shareholders, requiring the headquarters to remain in Canada, and at least 50% of the board of directors including the CEO would be Canadian. In Canada, already 15-20% of Canadians get their electricity from private companies and in the United States it is over 80% and even in the normally more centre-left Europe, over 50% of electrical utilities are predominately privately owned (many are mixed, so privately owned here means over 50% of shares are not held by any level of government). I do however, hope Quebec Hydro does not take over Emera or Maritime Electric in PEI which are both privately owned unlike NB Power. Also all utility companies should grant open access to all firms much the way telephone companies are required to do the same.
The CRTC blocked the launching of Globavail for wireless plans since most of its financing came from Orascom, which is Egyptian owned thus violating Canada's telecom foreign ownership rules. Our foreign ownership rules on telecommunications are the most restrictive in the OECD, thus while it may prevent domestic companies from foreign takeovers, it leads to less competition and higher prices. I don't support going to the extent of most European countries in terms of removing all foreign ownership restrictions, but I think they could be relaxed and be similiar to that of the United States, New Zealand, Australia, and Japan which all have rules in place to ensure greater competition, but also prevent complete or predominate foreign control of the telecommunication sector. I would support abolishing foreign ownership restrictions for wireless carriers as this would be bring down prices and lead to greater consumer choice, while at the same time maintaining them on ownership of all existing lines in Canada for landlines but allowing foreign companies to build new lines, but not buy existing ones. This would lead to greater competition and lower prices, while at the same time unless maintaining some Canadian control in the telecommunications sector. Also any firm which is over 50% state owned by a foreign government should not be permitted to do business in Canada (i.e. Swisscom in Switzerland and Belgacom in Belgium, both which are over 50% owned by the state). At the same time I believe the CRTC made the right decision as their job is to follow the law, not make it. Those wanting changes should ask their parliamentarians to do so, not the CRTC as parliament not the CRTC makes those decisions.
This week will be the one year anniversary of Obama's victory. While he had a great start, his approval rating is on more shaky grounds today. This is not surprising as he faced a very weak economy and also had to bring together several groups who had little in common. Much of the centre-right vote, voted for him since they were tired of the incompetence of the Bush administration, but many are wary of his expansion of government. Likewise many on the left hoped he could bring in many of the socialistic policies now seen in Western Europe and Canada. Off course, since the overwhelming majority of Americans don't want to go down this path, he has wisely chosen not to, but this has disappointed some on the left. The reality is the United States is still more right wing than it is left wing thus Obama must be careful not to go too far to the left even if it means disappointing some of his supporters. The Republicans have gone too far to the right thus why Obama won much of the moderate vote, but he must be sure not to swing too far to the left if he wishes to retain this. Finally as dismal as his approval ratings are, they are about the same as what Reagan was at this point in his first term and better than what Clinton was at this point in his first term and both went onto win bigger in their second election, so he still has plenty of time to recover. If anything, it will be next year's midterms that will likely hurt the Democrats more than the 2012 presidential election.
Liberals acquire Peter Donolo as their chief of staff while sacking Ian Davey. This was probably a smart choice as he has actually been part of a winning team and as a pollster up until now I think he understands the reasons the Liberals are struggling in much of the country. With Ignatieff's team all being from Toronto, most had little idea why their message wasn't reasonating elsewhere. You don't win elections by having an inner circle all from your strongest part of the country. You win by appealing to regions where your support is more soft and even ones that don't normally support you. Toronto is probably the most solidy Liberal area in the country, so this about the last place the Liberals need to worry about. If they are in trouble in Toronto, then they must as well forget about winning nationally. That being said Donolo is probably not a name known to 90% of Canadians and also a lot has changed since the 90s, so his appointment won't automatically turn things around for the Liberals. And he still is from Toronto although originally Montreal, mind you both are Liberal strongholds.
Quebec Hydro acquired NB power in a deal between the Quebec and New Brunswick government. I support this deal as it would help pay off the debt of NB Power and also I believe provincial protectionism has no place in a modern united Canada. At the same time privatization would be my preferred option, although to prevent it from coming under foreign control, I would support placing a 25% cap on the percentage of foreign shareholders, requiring the headquarters to remain in Canada, and at least 50% of the board of directors including the CEO would be Canadian. In Canada, already 15-20% of Canadians get their electricity from private companies and in the United States it is over 80% and even in the normally more centre-left Europe, over 50% of electrical utilities are predominately privately owned (many are mixed, so privately owned here means over 50% of shares are not held by any level of government). I do however, hope Quebec Hydro does not take over Emera or Maritime Electric in PEI which are both privately owned unlike NB Power. Also all utility companies should grant open access to all firms much the way telephone companies are required to do the same.
The CRTC blocked the launching of Globavail for wireless plans since most of its financing came from Orascom, which is Egyptian owned thus violating Canada's telecom foreign ownership rules. Our foreign ownership rules on telecommunications are the most restrictive in the OECD, thus while it may prevent domestic companies from foreign takeovers, it leads to less competition and higher prices. I don't support going to the extent of most European countries in terms of removing all foreign ownership restrictions, but I think they could be relaxed and be similiar to that of the United States, New Zealand, Australia, and Japan which all have rules in place to ensure greater competition, but also prevent complete or predominate foreign control of the telecommunication sector. I would support abolishing foreign ownership restrictions for wireless carriers as this would be bring down prices and lead to greater consumer choice, while at the same time maintaining them on ownership of all existing lines in Canada for landlines but allowing foreign companies to build new lines, but not buy existing ones. This would lead to greater competition and lower prices, while at the same time unless maintaining some Canadian control in the telecommunications sector. Also any firm which is over 50% state owned by a foreign government should not be permitted to do business in Canada (i.e. Swisscom in Switzerland and Belgacom in Belgium, both which are over 50% owned by the state). At the same time I believe the CRTC made the right decision as their job is to follow the law, not make it. Those wanting changes should ask their parliamentarians to do so, not the CRTC as parliament not the CRTC makes those decisions.
This week will be the one year anniversary of Obama's victory. While he had a great start, his approval rating is on more shaky grounds today. This is not surprising as he faced a very weak economy and also had to bring together several groups who had little in common. Much of the centre-right vote, voted for him since they were tired of the incompetence of the Bush administration, but many are wary of his expansion of government. Likewise many on the left hoped he could bring in many of the socialistic policies now seen in Western Europe and Canada. Off course, since the overwhelming majority of Americans don't want to go down this path, he has wisely chosen not to, but this has disappointed some on the left. The reality is the United States is still more right wing than it is left wing thus Obama must be careful not to go too far to the left even if it means disappointing some of his supporters. The Republicans have gone too far to the right thus why Obama won much of the moderate vote, but he must be sure not to swing too far to the left if he wishes to retain this. Finally as dismal as his approval ratings are, they are about the same as what Reagan was at this point in his first term and better than what Clinton was at this point in his first term and both went onto win bigger in their second election, so he still has plenty of time to recover. If anything, it will be next year's midterms that will likely hurt the Democrats more than the 2012 presidential election.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
