Weekly Bulletin #12

This week there were three issues that I would like to focus on. The first is the rallies against proroguing parliament, the Republican pick up of a Massachusetts senate seat, and finally the ongoing crisis in Haiti due to the aftermath of the earthquake.

Yesterday there were several rallies against the prime-minister proroguing parliament until March 2nd across the country. While there is debate on whether they were a success or a failure, I would say they were a modest success. They were large enough that it would be foolish for the prime-minister to completely write them off, but at the same time nowhere near as large as some protests such as the ones against the Iraq War. They were non-partisan in the sense they had people from every party including some non-political types and even a few disgruntled Conservatives, but partisan in the sense the crowd was not a mirror image of the Canadian electorate. Last election, 38% of Canadians voted Conservative, while at these rallies I suspect the number was closer to 10% if not lower. That being said, the anti-Coalition rallies were no more representative as around 80% of them were probably people who voted Conservative. Off course, nowadays almost every political rally will have a tilt towards one side of the spectrum or one particular party so I would not say it was a failure due to the fact the majority there were Liberal, NDP, and Green voters (and Bloc Quebecois in the Quebec rallies). I am simply pointing out having a truly non-partisan one that mirrors the Canadian electorate is pretty unlikely irrespective of the issue. Some say we need legislation to restrict the PM's power to prorogue. I would argue we do not since no PM will prorogue recklessly if they know voters will punish them. If Harper loses the next election or wins a reduced minority and this is the primary reason for that happening, than no future PM will try to prorogue in similiar circumstances. By contrast, if he wins a similiar size minority or a majority, then he will probably do this again as will future PMs. No doubt the reasons for proroguing were flimsy and the government's justification has only hardened public opinion against it, however as mentioned earlier, I don't agree with prorogation, but it is not something I get too upset about either. Ultimately whichever party has the best platform for dealing with the economic recovery and bringing down our deficit is the one I will vote for. Besides, while trying to restrict the PM's power would be a good idea, one must not go too far. In the United States, they have plenty of checks and balances, but also it is very difficult to get anything done or at the very least almost every bill is so different than its original intent that it is difficult to achieve anything one sets out to do. Perhaps having the PM's power reduced to what the British PM has would be better as proroguing is less common, MPs are more free to speak out and vote against their party, and their tends to be less hostility towards those from other parties. I should also add, although slightly unrelated, I do hope in the next budget the government realizes the deficit is a structural one and takes serious action to eliminate it and if they don't hopefully the Liberals have a realistic proposal. Neither party today has given a realistic plan for eliminating the deficit. My proposal would be to raise the GST back to 7%, hold off on any future tax cuts until the budget is balanced, major spending cuts for all discretionary spending, and freeze all other spending. Also eliminate as many civil service jobs as possible being instituting a hiring freeze whereby when one retires or leaves voluntarily, they are replaced internally or the position is not replaced at all. In addition, I would consider privatizing as many money losing enterprises as possible. All groups need to be told loud and clear, there will be no spending increases until the budget is balanced in any part of the government whatsoever. The only debate is whether to freeze spending or cut spending for each department.

Last Tuesday, Scott Brown of the Republicans defeated Martha Coakley of the Democrats in a bid to replaced the late Ted Kennedy. Besides being an upset, this is quite significant as Massachusetts is not a swing state, but rather one of the most liberal states so a Republican win here, however win spins it shows how far Obama has fallen from a year ago. No doubt Martha Coakley was a weak candidate and thus a stronger candidate may have pulled off a narrow Democrat victory, but in a state like Massachusetts, anything under 60% for the Democrats is a sign of trouble, so this definitely shows Obama is losing popularity. The good news for Obama is he has until 2012 before facing re-election so he has plenty of time to turn things around. By then the economy will likely have recovered, but also with large losses expected in the Midterms in November, Obama will be able to take a more centrist approach much like Clinton did after 1994. Much of the liberal wing of the Democrats has been pushing hard for Obama to take a more liberal approach than most Americans are comfortable with, however with fewer seats in congress he will be able to easily ignore this group. Many point to Canada and Europe as places that take a more liberal approach as they advocate and have in many ways been just as if not more successful. But this misses the point; most Americans don't know or care much about what other countries do. The fact they are the only industrialized country without universal health care is not something that is likely to sway a lot of Americans. In addition, Obama would have been better to start making spending cuts elsewhere before trying to introduce health care reforms as this would have made it harder to tag him as a big government socialist politician. Also one must remember the circumstances when Canada introduced universal health care are much different than the US today. The US faces a massive deficit even without universal health care and when one considers the start up costs, this would just increase it further. By contrast, Canada had no deficit when universal health care was introduced and has many times balanced the budget since and also maintained, contrary to popular opinion, overall taxation levels at or only slightly higher than the United States. In addition, the health insurance industry is a huge industry that employs thousands if not millions of Americans and provides a huge tax base for the US government. By contrast, in Canada in the 60s, the health insurance industry was small and mostly foreign owned so the losses from putting it out of business or reducing its business were more than offset by the gains to the millions of Canadians who had free health care. Finally, Canada has always been and always will be more socialistic than the US. We have never had a fear of big government the way Americans do. It is not just about right or wrong here, it is about values of the country and universal health care is a cornerstone of Canadian values while universal health care in many ways goes against American values of rugged individualism and limited government as opposed to responsible government, common good, and compassion. Never mind, Massachusetts more or less already has what Obama is proposing so having to pay for it once at the state level and again federally was undoubtedly unpopular. As much as Canadians love universal health care, I doubt they would like the idea of having to pay for it once provincially and then again federally. It makes sense to have it done by only one level of government, not through duplication.

Finally moving to international news, there is the ongoing aftermath of the earthquake in Haiti. The death toll is far worse than many expected and has literally destroyed the country. Even one former Liberal MP, Serge Marcil, was tragically killed in the earthquake as well as many Canadians, especially in Montreal's large Haitian community have probably lost relatives or friends. I have donated and I would encourage all others to donate, even if it is a small amount. A few dollars from everyone will add up to a lot. I also support the government not just providing money, but also sending technical expertise to help with the re-building as well as help ensure the buildings are earthquake proof to help reduce the casualties should another one occur in the future. In addition I support Canada adopting children who were orphaned as a result of an earthquake. This won't be a burden to our system as they will live with a Canadian family and having grown up here, they will probably go on to be outstanding citizens who contribute greatly to this country. In terms of refugees, I support Canada taking its fair share, but no more. I would also support making it easier to sponsor relatives who were directly affected and have family living in Canada. Despite, my view that our family re-unification rules are too lax, I do think we can make an exception on humanitarian grounds in this case.