This will be my last post for 2009 as I will not be posting next week due to the Christmas Holidays, but will return on the first Sunday of the New Year. The Copenhagen Summit wrapped up and while a draft deal was made, it has no binding targets and still falls short of what many want. I am glad the deal did not go through since although I believe we need to take action, trying to get a deal at an international level which is acceptable Canada is naive. This idea that we have much influence as some like to claim is simply not true. United States, European Union, India, and China are the big players and we are just a small fish in the pond so no matter how constructive we tried to be, our ability to shape a deal is very limited. Also people need to stop pretending countries are doing this out of their own goodwill. Every country does what is best for the national interest, not what is best for the world and the national interest of others may not coincide with ours. When considers how difficult it is to get 10 provinces to agree, then just imagine how difficult it is to get 192 countries to agree who are not only more numerous but the differences are far starker than the differences between our provinces. I believe we need to deal with the issues of climate change, however we should not sign any deal that involves a wealth transfer to the developing world or one that unnecessary infringes on our national sovereignty. Trying to be liked by the world does not mean abdicating our national interest. We should always do what is best for Canada irrespective of what others think. Any deal we sign should include everyone do their fair share, not unnecessary burden us while let others off the hook like Kyoto did and it should also not infringe on our sovereignty. This can be achieved through two methods, which are having a termination clause not exceeding 1 year much as NAFTA has a 6 month termination clause or allowing countries to retaliate through tariffs on Canadian imports much the way the WTO does. Granting the United Nations the power to fine Canada or override our laws is not acceptable and should be not be allowed under any circumstance no matter how noble the cause is. Likewise we give enough in foreign aid and considering the track record of many of the third world dictators in terms of how they use the money received, we are right to say that not one red cent will go to other countries to help them combat climate change. That money should stay in Canada for the benefit of all Canadians. However, failure to get a deal does not condemn us to inaction. California has taken a lead role on the environment even when the federal government wasn't and likewise British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec have all been taking action even in the absence of the federal government, so we can do the same. And unlike Harper advocates, we should never blindly follow the United States. Blindly following any international organization or foreign country should not be done regardless of the reasoning. As mentioned before, our government should have called a national conference with a meeting of all 13 premiers, the mayors of the cities, business, environmental groups, labour, and all other concerned groups. Oil producing provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan have legitimate concerns that taking action would cause too much economic harm while likewise Ontario and Quebec feel they are having to pick up the slack for others. A national conference could help resolve those differences that would benefit both sides. Finally to end things off, regardless of what one thinks of our government, we should never bash our country abroad. I will always be a proud Canadian and no matter who is in power, my view that Canada is the greatest nation on the face of this earth is unwavering.
The other issue is Ontario is looking at privatizing some crown corporations to deal with the deficit. Privatizing simply to reduce the deficit is a lame excuse, but privatizing crown corporations because they can be done better by the private sector than public sector makes perfect sense and should be looked at regardless of the fiscal situation. While many opponents are quick to point to the bad experiences such as the Highway 407 or British Rail in Britain, they forget many have been successes. Prior to 1995, CN Rail was a money losing inefficient crown corporation. Since privatization, it has grown to be one of the largest railways in North America and has in fact taken over several American railroads. While many Canadians complain about our industries being bought up by foreigners, this is an example of a Canadian success story who has bought up many foreign companies. This means privatization doesn't have to be a failure if done properly. Also some complain government will lose revenue due to this, but they forget crown corporations don't pay corporate taxes whereas once privatized they will and this will make up for much of the loss revenue and if they grow enough, it may even bring the government in more revenue not less. Anyways here is my view on the four being looked at.
1. LCBO - Government should be responsible for regulating and taxing the sale of alcohol, but not for the retail and distribution. Thus they should sell the retail and distribution side while keep the regulation side. However, the sale should be done on a store by store basis rather than replacing a government monopoly with a private monopoly. In addition to this, we should allow the sale of alcohol in grocery stores and gas stations as Quebec, most US states, and much of the rest of the developed world does. Our liquor laws are about 50 years out of date and should be updated. Easier access to alcohol doesn't necessarily mean more abuse. France, Germany, and Spain all have far easier access than Ontario, yet because having alcohol is a social thing, not to get drunk, they have fewer problems with alcoholism.
2. OLG - They should sell the casinos while lottery I am not sure whether to sell this or not. There is no reason for the government to be in the business of selling lottery tickets, but if used as a source of revenue, I guess I am okay with it.
3. Ontario Power Generation - We should sell off individual generating facilities to create greater competition, but not sell it off as one piece and likewise there may be some facilities that are best to not be sold enough. Privatizing it does not mean the replacements will be less environmentally friendly. In Germany, most of their electrical generation is done by the private sector, yet they have a huge wind energy sector and are quite green in their electrical production. Likewise in Denmark, generation use to be done almost exclusively by state owned generators, yet today much of the greenest forms of electrical production come from privately owned ones rather than state owned ones.
4. Hydro One - Sell but regulate, however probably better to only partially sell as this would raise some cash without relinquishing control. EDF in France had 30% of its shares floated on the stock exchange to raise cash, yet 70% is still owned by the French government thus maintaining Control. Enel in Italy and Endesa in Spain are predominately privately owned but the government still is the largest shareholder while in Britain, the government sold all shares, but retained a golden share thus not totally relinquishing control . Any of these three methods can be used. Likewise here in Canada, Petro-Canada was under mixed ownership for 14 years as the first shares were floated on the stock exchange in 1991, but the sale was not completed until 2005 when the government sold its remaining shares. So mixed ownership is maybe an idea with considering in the short-term and only full privatization if this works well. Otherwise a first, only float a minority of shares, if this works well, reduce the government holdings below 50% but still continue to hold shares and only if this works well sell outright. At the same time since it has a monopoly and is a form of infrastructure, it should be required to stay under Canadian ownership. I don't mind if a private company from another province such as ATCO in Alberta or Fortis out of Newfoundland buys it nor do I mind if another province's crown corporation such as Hydro-Quebec buys it, but it should not be sold off to foreigners. The requirement should be that the headquarters must remain in Canada (but they can be in another province), at least 50% + 1 of the board of directors must be Canadian, if privately held, 50% + 1 shares must be held by Canadians, while if floated on the stock exchange, no foreigner should be allowed to own more than 10% (The combined total would have no limit) and all preferred shareholders must be Canadian. I generally oppose most restrictions on foreign ownership, but this is a case where it makes sense. I do however totally oppose any restrictions that give Ontario residents or firms preference over those from other provinces.
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Weekly Bulletin #8
Here is my eighth weekly update based on the events this past week. The torture issue in Afghanistan seems to have more information coming out that the government either knew or had warnings torture may have been occurring. Until a full investigation is done, one cannot say for sure one way or another, but based on Afghanistan's human rights track record, it seems quite plausible it did happen. Off course this brings the question once again as to why are we there. I don't know how much could have been done to prevent this other than not being there as this is not a country with a stellar human rights record and this was bound to happen eventually.
This weekend kicks of the Copenhagen climate summit. Those who believe in global warming are demanding more aggressive targets with penalties for non-compliance while the skeptics argue global warming is a hoax and this is all about a socialist wealth transfer scheme. I believe global warming is real and the skeptics argue against it more because it goes against their ideology. By the same time I think alarmists are exaggerating its impact greatly. When one considers the large carbon footprint delegates made just to get there, I think the question should be asked, if they are so concerned about the environment, why can't they hold the conference via satellite conferencing. Also, negotiating treaties at an international level is often difficult to do due to diverging interests between countries. Which brings me to the question that maybe Canada should focus less on getting an international agreement and more on establishing a national plan. Having a similiar meeting between provincial and municipal leaders with the federal government would be far more effective in achieving real results than an international one which is made up of mostly countries that don't care one bit about our country and its impact. Another issue is why isn't the idea discussed of adapting since this might be less costly and can certainly be done as humans advance in technology. I am not opposed to us signing an agreement, but only if it serves our national interest. Yes, not signing one would damage our international reputation, but we should never apologize for wanting to protect our sovereignty or putting our national interest first. If others don't like the fact we want to remain an independent country and not surrender our sovereignty to international organizations that is their problem, not ours. I believe that we need a stronger federal government, which means less power for the provinces and less power for international organizations. Greater provincial autonomy undermines our ability to remain as a united country and international organizations undermine our ability to make decisions independently. While it is true the loss of sovereignty would be minimal at first, lets remember the EU was the same way 50 years ago, yet today the EU almost resembles a nation state in its own right in many ways. We should not go down this path. In addition each country is unique and its makes more sense to recognize this and allow them to solve problems based on this. We are a country with a huge landmass and a cold climate which does not apply to many others and this no doubt makes it harder to reduce GHG's than for some others. Also the tar sands may be a frequent target by many in both Canada and abroad, but the wealth generated from this not only benefits Alberta, it benefits all of Canada in terms of more jobs, more tax revenue which can be used to pay for many of our programs. After all, many Canadians nowadays don't just search for jobs in their own province, but search throughout Canada, so any new jobs created in any region benefits all of Canada. Likewise, all Canadians pay taxes towards programs that benefit all of Canada, not just their own province. That is not say we should find ways to diversify Alberta's economy and make oil production cleaner, but shutting it down is just plain stupid. Besides a second National Energy Program would likely cause Alberta to leave Canada altogether and for those on the left who think this is a good thing (some believe it would mean fewer right wing governments) think again. Many of the social programs those want on the left would be more difficult to fund without Alberta. I oppose Canada sending money to developing countries to deal with climate change. This money should stay in Canada for the benefit of all Canadians. If countries are serious about dealing with climate change the developed ones should invest the money in their own country to deal with global warming and developing ones should learn to deal with the resources they have instead of always relying on developed ones for money. In terms of emissions rising in Alberta, while British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec having more aggressive targets, I agree this is an issue, but this is why we should have a national conference to deal with this as at an international level, no one cares what each province does, they only care what the country does at a whole. This doesn't mean we shouldn't attend Copenhagen, but we should have had a national one first and the national one should determine our action plan and if the international one compliments this, all the better, but if it doesn't we should use the national one. Now this doesn't mean I am a denier or a skeptic. In fact I would support a national cap and trade system or even a carbon tax, provided the carbon tax was offset by income and corporate tax cuts elsewhere. These could all go along ways to reduce our GHG's. Likewise, I think we need to re-assess our view that Canada needs population growth. While some environmentalists think we can have more people if we just lived more sustainably, the reality is population growth while make GHG reductions more difficult. This means we should not see our lower birth rate as a bad thing, but rather as a positive. Also, it might be to consider scaling back our immigration levels and longer term focus on zero population growth, rather than continuously increasing our population. That is not say I think we should reduce our immigration levels, I am simply pointing out those who want us to dramatically reduce GHG's be near impossible level yet want our population to grow significantly (i.e. the Green Party and some in the NDP and Liberals) are being totally unrealistic.
To end this off, today Houston elected their first openly gay mayor. While a politician's sexual orientation shouldn't matter, the reality is in much of the world today and almost everywhere historically, one could not get elected if they were gay even if all their policies were good. The fact it happened in a rather conservative city makes it even more impressive. After all, this would be non-news if it happened in San Francisco where most of the population is quite supportive of gay rights, but definitely in a normally conservative city like Houston.
This weekend kicks of the Copenhagen climate summit. Those who believe in global warming are demanding more aggressive targets with penalties for non-compliance while the skeptics argue global warming is a hoax and this is all about a socialist wealth transfer scheme. I believe global warming is real and the skeptics argue against it more because it goes against their ideology. By the same time I think alarmists are exaggerating its impact greatly. When one considers the large carbon footprint delegates made just to get there, I think the question should be asked, if they are so concerned about the environment, why can't they hold the conference via satellite conferencing. Also, negotiating treaties at an international level is often difficult to do due to diverging interests between countries. Which brings me to the question that maybe Canada should focus less on getting an international agreement and more on establishing a national plan. Having a similiar meeting between provincial and municipal leaders with the federal government would be far more effective in achieving real results than an international one which is made up of mostly countries that don't care one bit about our country and its impact. Another issue is why isn't the idea discussed of adapting since this might be less costly and can certainly be done as humans advance in technology. I am not opposed to us signing an agreement, but only if it serves our national interest. Yes, not signing one would damage our international reputation, but we should never apologize for wanting to protect our sovereignty or putting our national interest first. If others don't like the fact we want to remain an independent country and not surrender our sovereignty to international organizations that is their problem, not ours. I believe that we need a stronger federal government, which means less power for the provinces and less power for international organizations. Greater provincial autonomy undermines our ability to remain as a united country and international organizations undermine our ability to make decisions independently. While it is true the loss of sovereignty would be minimal at first, lets remember the EU was the same way 50 years ago, yet today the EU almost resembles a nation state in its own right in many ways. We should not go down this path. In addition each country is unique and its makes more sense to recognize this and allow them to solve problems based on this. We are a country with a huge landmass and a cold climate which does not apply to many others and this no doubt makes it harder to reduce GHG's than for some others. Also the tar sands may be a frequent target by many in both Canada and abroad, but the wealth generated from this not only benefits Alberta, it benefits all of Canada in terms of more jobs, more tax revenue which can be used to pay for many of our programs. After all, many Canadians nowadays don't just search for jobs in their own province, but search throughout Canada, so any new jobs created in any region benefits all of Canada. Likewise, all Canadians pay taxes towards programs that benefit all of Canada, not just their own province. That is not say we should find ways to diversify Alberta's economy and make oil production cleaner, but shutting it down is just plain stupid. Besides a second National Energy Program would likely cause Alberta to leave Canada altogether and for those on the left who think this is a good thing (some believe it would mean fewer right wing governments) think again. Many of the social programs those want on the left would be more difficult to fund without Alberta. I oppose Canada sending money to developing countries to deal with climate change. This money should stay in Canada for the benefit of all Canadians. If countries are serious about dealing with climate change the developed ones should invest the money in their own country to deal with global warming and developing ones should learn to deal with the resources they have instead of always relying on developed ones for money. In terms of emissions rising in Alberta, while British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec having more aggressive targets, I agree this is an issue, but this is why we should have a national conference to deal with this as at an international level, no one cares what each province does, they only care what the country does at a whole. This doesn't mean we shouldn't attend Copenhagen, but we should have had a national one first and the national one should determine our action plan and if the international one compliments this, all the better, but if it doesn't we should use the national one. Now this doesn't mean I am a denier or a skeptic. In fact I would support a national cap and trade system or even a carbon tax, provided the carbon tax was offset by income and corporate tax cuts elsewhere. These could all go along ways to reduce our GHG's. Likewise, I think we need to re-assess our view that Canada needs population growth. While some environmentalists think we can have more people if we just lived more sustainably, the reality is population growth while make GHG reductions more difficult. This means we should not see our lower birth rate as a bad thing, but rather as a positive. Also, it might be to consider scaling back our immigration levels and longer term focus on zero population growth, rather than continuously increasing our population. That is not say I think we should reduce our immigration levels, I am simply pointing out those who want us to dramatically reduce GHG's be near impossible level yet want our population to grow significantly (i.e. the Green Party and some in the NDP and Liberals) are being totally unrealistic.
To end this off, today Houston elected their first openly gay mayor. While a politician's sexual orientation shouldn't matter, the reality is in much of the world today and almost everywhere historically, one could not get elected if they were gay even if all their policies were good. The fact it happened in a rather conservative city makes it even more impressive. After all, this would be non-news if it happened in San Francisco where most of the population is quite supportive of gay rights, but definitely in a normally conservative city like Houston.
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Weekly Bulletin #7
This week there are a fair number of things that have happened, however three of them stick out the most, which are the HST debate, Harper's trip to China and our relations there, and finally the Copenhagen summit.
As mentioned in last week's post, I fully support the HST and wish the Ontario PCs and NDP would stop playing politics and look at what is best for Ontario. Likewise I was glad to see the Liberals endorse the HST federally, even though it would have been politically convenient to oppose it. While it is true the Tories encouraged both BC and Ontario to adopt the HST, both provinces could have said no, but both said yes realizing it would benefit them economically.
On the case of Harper's trip to China, much was made about his rebuke. There is no doubt under Harper we have neglected a very important relationship, however the answer is not to get cozy with them as some argue. Our relation with China is a difficult one that we have to find the right balance between ensuring Canada has access to one of the largest and fastest growing markets, but we don't become a pushover to them. We should certainly do more to trying promote our products in China, especially one's with strong potential (i.e. automobiles, lumber). When it comes to imports, I have no problem with low tariffs on Chinese imports, but we should have the right to impose tariffs on their imports when they manipulate their currency as for free trade to work, there has to be a level playing field. In the case of a more liberalized investment regime, this must be done with extreme caution. Unlike the EU, US, or India, a large chunk of Chinese firms are state owned and may be used for political purposes. Any liberalization of investment between both countries should be reserved to firms which the state owns less than 50% of the shares and this would also likewise apply to Canadian firms investing in China. Anytime a firm is over 50% state owned by the Chinese, we have the right to review and if not in our national interest block outright. On the case of human rights, I don't support China's practices, but they are hardly unique to China. Besides it is largely an internal issue and no country likes other countries sticking their noses in their domestic affairs so quite understandable their irritation with Harper.
The final issue is the Copenhagen summit. This comes right after the climategate scandal where a hacker hacked into the East Anglia University CRU computers and found evidence we have no been hearing the whole story. I don't want to jump on this until I hear all the details. Science in every issue is always evolving and nothing is ever 100% certain, although I do believe that global warming does exist and that humans at least are contributing to some extent. The question governments though have to tackle is which has a higher cost: taking action to combat climate change or adapting to a changing climate. I don't know the answer to this, but we should discuss the pros and cons for both. This is not an issue that should be considered case closed, in fact debates on every issue are essential in a healthy democracy and also important to adopting the best policies. I also think Canada should focus on taking action at a domestic level and not worry too much about what others are doing. We should not blindly follow the EU like some on the left want as we have a much larger land mass, with a colder climate, more resources, and a more sparsely populated country so meeting the same cuts they want would be far more costly and harmful to us than them. Likewise we should not blindly follow the United States as Harper wishes. Our economy may be closely tied, but we are still a sovereign country and should adopt what climate change policy is best for us. After all, British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec have taken much stronger action on climate change than Alberta, yet that hasn't resulted in those three economies being hurt despite the fact they are in the same country. My other beef with past climate change agreements is the 1990 baseline year. Since Kyoto Protocol, was signed in 1997, 1997 would seem the most logical for the baseline year, after all what is so special about 1990. I think the real reason 1990 was chosen was nothing to do with combatting global warming, but chosen since that was the year Germany re-united and the iron curtain fell and many of the inefficient communist factories in Eastern Europe closed down, thus causing a massive drop in GHG's in the few following years, but not beyond. Otherwise choosing this year made it the least painless for the EU to make its targets. Also some like Germany experienced target reductions beyond what Kyoto asked, but Spain and Greece both had emissions rise further than Canada. The only reason they aren't penalized as the EU negotiated targets as one unit, rather than 15 separate (there were 15 countries in 1997). Also we should not be required to send money to developing countries to deal with climate change. Money spent on this should stay in Canada for the benefit of Canadians. If a deal is reached and it serves Canada's national interest, we should sign it irrespective of whether the Americans do or don't, while if doesn't serve our national interest we should not sign it irrespective of what other countries do and irrespective of how it affects our international reputation. We should never apologize for defending our national interest even if others don't like it.
As mentioned in last week's post, I fully support the HST and wish the Ontario PCs and NDP would stop playing politics and look at what is best for Ontario. Likewise I was glad to see the Liberals endorse the HST federally, even though it would have been politically convenient to oppose it. While it is true the Tories encouraged both BC and Ontario to adopt the HST, both provinces could have said no, but both said yes realizing it would benefit them economically.
On the case of Harper's trip to China, much was made about his rebuke. There is no doubt under Harper we have neglected a very important relationship, however the answer is not to get cozy with them as some argue. Our relation with China is a difficult one that we have to find the right balance between ensuring Canada has access to one of the largest and fastest growing markets, but we don't become a pushover to them. We should certainly do more to trying promote our products in China, especially one's with strong potential (i.e. automobiles, lumber). When it comes to imports, I have no problem with low tariffs on Chinese imports, but we should have the right to impose tariffs on their imports when they manipulate their currency as for free trade to work, there has to be a level playing field. In the case of a more liberalized investment regime, this must be done with extreme caution. Unlike the EU, US, or India, a large chunk of Chinese firms are state owned and may be used for political purposes. Any liberalization of investment between both countries should be reserved to firms which the state owns less than 50% of the shares and this would also likewise apply to Canadian firms investing in China. Anytime a firm is over 50% state owned by the Chinese, we have the right to review and if not in our national interest block outright. On the case of human rights, I don't support China's practices, but they are hardly unique to China. Besides it is largely an internal issue and no country likes other countries sticking their noses in their domestic affairs so quite understandable their irritation with Harper.
The final issue is the Copenhagen summit. This comes right after the climategate scandal where a hacker hacked into the East Anglia University CRU computers and found evidence we have no been hearing the whole story. I don't want to jump on this until I hear all the details. Science in every issue is always evolving and nothing is ever 100% certain, although I do believe that global warming does exist and that humans at least are contributing to some extent. The question governments though have to tackle is which has a higher cost: taking action to combat climate change or adapting to a changing climate. I don't know the answer to this, but we should discuss the pros and cons for both. This is not an issue that should be considered case closed, in fact debates on every issue are essential in a healthy democracy and also important to adopting the best policies. I also think Canada should focus on taking action at a domestic level and not worry too much about what others are doing. We should not blindly follow the EU like some on the left want as we have a much larger land mass, with a colder climate, more resources, and a more sparsely populated country so meeting the same cuts they want would be far more costly and harmful to us than them. Likewise we should not blindly follow the United States as Harper wishes. Our economy may be closely tied, but we are still a sovereign country and should adopt what climate change policy is best for us. After all, British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec have taken much stronger action on climate change than Alberta, yet that hasn't resulted in those three economies being hurt despite the fact they are in the same country. My other beef with past climate change agreements is the 1990 baseline year. Since Kyoto Protocol, was signed in 1997, 1997 would seem the most logical for the baseline year, after all what is so special about 1990. I think the real reason 1990 was chosen was nothing to do with combatting global warming, but chosen since that was the year Germany re-united and the iron curtain fell and many of the inefficient communist factories in Eastern Europe closed down, thus causing a massive drop in GHG's in the few following years, but not beyond. Otherwise choosing this year made it the least painless for the EU to make its targets. Also some like Germany experienced target reductions beyond what Kyoto asked, but Spain and Greece both had emissions rise further than Canada. The only reason they aren't penalized as the EU negotiated targets as one unit, rather than 15 separate (there were 15 countries in 1997). Also we should not be required to send money to developing countries to deal with climate change. Money spent on this should stay in Canada for the benefit of Canadians. If a deal is reached and it serves Canada's national interest, we should sign it irrespective of whether the Americans do or don't, while if doesn't serve our national interest we should not sign it irrespective of what other countries do and irrespective of how it affects our international reputation. We should never apologize for defending our national interest even if others don't like it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
