This week there have been only a few major events, which I will discuss below. Harper made five more appointments to the senate giving the Tories a plurality. While not a big deal for me, I personally think the senate should be abolished. Besides being un-elected, it is just another layer of bureaucracy and doesn't seem necessary as all provinces have uniceremeal legislatures so I don't see why we cannot federally. However, since this would require a constitutional amendment, the best thing would be to appoint only independents and the senate would make recommendations, but if the House of Commons choose to ignore them, the senate would not try to block or override the legislation.
This week both major political parties discussed the issue of dealing with the increasing deficit. Personally, I feel both are not taking it seriously enough. Raising the GST by two points as well as major spending cuts is what is necessary to balance the budget and we should take action to try to balance it within 3 years rather than wait longer. My proposal would be to freeze spending in all departments and then to review everything and make spending cuts where possible. An overall spending reduction of 5-10% should be done, not restrained growth, but an actual cut. The GST should be raised back to 7% while all other taxes should be frozen at their current levels until the budget is balanced. The Liberals discuss job creation which is important, but this should primarily come from the private sector, not a larger public sector. Large public sectors do not create more jobs long-term, in fact they crowd out jobs in the private sector and lead to higher unemployment rates. Countries such as France who have large public sectors have generally had much higher unemployment rates, so we should avoid going down this path. Instead the focus should be on trying to create a more competitive and stronger economy which in turn will create more jobs.
This week was the deadline to submit our climate plan to the UN. I think the government is dead wrong on blindly following the United States. We are a sovereign country and although we are closely tied economically, we should make our environmental plans based on our own interests not the Americans. But by the same token, we should blindly follow the EU, UN, or give what various third world countries want. We need to develop our own plan for dealing with the environment based on our national interests. I believe global warming is occurring and humans play at least a partial role, but I think the threat and the extent of human involvement is greatly exaggerated. I for one think the IPCC prediction of warming between 1.4C to 5.8C over the next century is totally exaggerated and that 1.4C is probably the high end, not the low end. In the last century, we warmed by 0.7C so I don't get why they are positive we will warm by twice as much considering our technology is cleaner today, people are more environmentally conscious, never mind the fact most developed countries have birth rates below the replacement level so I think it is quite possible the earth's population will be less not more in 2100. In addition I believe the earth was warmer during the medieval warm period and noticeably cooler during the Little Ice Age, so some of the warming but not all is natural.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Sunday, January 24, 2010
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.
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.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Weekly Bulletin #11
The big news recently is Harper's decision to Prorogue parliament. I personally don't support this as the reasons for doing this seem kind of flimsy, but it is not something I get too worked up over. After all, parliament wasn't suppose to return until January 25th, so we are only talking about one month and the actual scheduled sitting days was around 15, so there will be plenty of opportunities for the opposition to hold the government to account and even bring them down if they feel they no longer have the confidence. In addition, this does not mean MPs won't be working. Constituency work is just as if not more important than the work done in Ottawa. MPs should already be back at work and hopefully will continue to work through February. The Liberals are right to be upset about parliament being prorogued, but going back to Ottawa when the house is closed seems counter-productive. Instead each Liberal MP should have their constituency office open and be at work there and also hold at least one town hall meeting a week. At the end of the day though, politicians will continue to do this as long as the public lets them get away with it and when the public doesn't then they will stop.
This past week, Haiti was struck by a strong earthquake. We don't know the total casualties, but it will likely be bad. Our government should help evacuate all Canadians stranded there as well as offer direct assistance to Haiti. I generally am reluctant to support foreign aid since too often it ends up in the hands of foreign dictators, but since this was a natural disaster and one they don't have the money to help themselves, I believe we should help out here. Also, in the re-building phase, hopefully we can work with the locals on making sure structures are better able to withstand both earthquakes and hurricanes so as when the next disaster strikes, the death toll is not as bad since this likely won't be the last natural disaster they ever experience.
On the international front, Portugal has legalized same sex marriage which is quite significant since it is a Catholic and socially conservative country. Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, and Norway are all fairly socially liberal so same-sex marriage was not too controversial in any of those and likewise even Spain, despite being heavily Catholic, is very secular and also quite heavily urbanized too. By contrast, Portugal is probably the most socially conservative country to date to legalize same sex marriage and more socially conservative than many European countries such as Germany, Britain, and France which still haven't legalized it thus why this is so significant. In Western Europe, only Greece, Italy, and Ireland are as socially conservative as Portugal.
The first half of January has been unusually cold in some parts of the world. Be it severe frost and snow in Northern Florida, Snow cover for 2-4 weeks in Britain (where anything more than a couple of days is unusual) or extreme cold and heavy snow in Northern China, some will ask if global warming is really happening. I believe global warming is occurring but at a much slower pace than many of the alarmist predict. I don't buy the idea one bit that the earth will be 6 degrees celcius warmer in one century since we only warmed up 0.7 degrees in the past 100 years so I have no idea where they get the six degrees from. After all, our population probably won't grow as much as some think since most developed countries already have birth rates below replacement level and it only reasons that as developing countries standards of living rise, their birth rates will fall. In fact most demographers predict the Earth's population will max out at 2050 and then begin to decline. In addition, the world's climate has always been changing and always will be. During medieval times, Europe was about 3 degrees warmer than today while in the 1600s which was the middle of the Little Ice Age, Europe was about 2 degrees colder. The Thames River frequently froze over, the Canals in Netherlands were frozen for several weeks not just a few days, the Canals in Venice often froze over and snow as far south as Portugal was not unheard of. By contrast during the Middle Ages, wine grapes could grow in Britain, temperatures in Scandinavia were mild enough to grow many crops that no longer grow there. In fact, it is believed the milder weather is why the Vikings reached Newfoundland and the cooling that caused them to abandon their settlements. So while I believe we should take action on global warming, we should not get too hysterical. Likewise one abnormally cold winter doesn't disprove global warming nor does one unusually warm year prove it. I accept the science behind it, but believe many ignore other factors that influence climate as GHG's are not the only thing that influence climate, wind directions, ocean currents have just as big an impact if not more so.
This past week, Haiti was struck by a strong earthquake. We don't know the total casualties, but it will likely be bad. Our government should help evacuate all Canadians stranded there as well as offer direct assistance to Haiti. I generally am reluctant to support foreign aid since too often it ends up in the hands of foreign dictators, but since this was a natural disaster and one they don't have the money to help themselves, I believe we should help out here. Also, in the re-building phase, hopefully we can work with the locals on making sure structures are better able to withstand both earthquakes and hurricanes so as when the next disaster strikes, the death toll is not as bad since this likely won't be the last natural disaster they ever experience.
On the international front, Portugal has legalized same sex marriage which is quite significant since it is a Catholic and socially conservative country. Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, and Norway are all fairly socially liberal so same-sex marriage was not too controversial in any of those and likewise even Spain, despite being heavily Catholic, is very secular and also quite heavily urbanized too. By contrast, Portugal is probably the most socially conservative country to date to legalize same sex marriage and more socially conservative than many European countries such as Germany, Britain, and France which still haven't legalized it thus why this is so significant. In Western Europe, only Greece, Italy, and Ireland are as socially conservative as Portugal.
The first half of January has been unusually cold in some parts of the world. Be it severe frost and snow in Northern Florida, Snow cover for 2-4 weeks in Britain (where anything more than a couple of days is unusual) or extreme cold and heavy snow in Northern China, some will ask if global warming is really happening. I believe global warming is occurring but at a much slower pace than many of the alarmist predict. I don't buy the idea one bit that the earth will be 6 degrees celcius warmer in one century since we only warmed up 0.7 degrees in the past 100 years so I have no idea where they get the six degrees from. After all, our population probably won't grow as much as some think since most developed countries already have birth rates below replacement level and it only reasons that as developing countries standards of living rise, their birth rates will fall. In fact most demographers predict the Earth's population will max out at 2050 and then begin to decline. In addition, the world's climate has always been changing and always will be. During medieval times, Europe was about 3 degrees warmer than today while in the 1600s which was the middle of the Little Ice Age, Europe was about 2 degrees colder. The Thames River frequently froze over, the Canals in Netherlands were frozen for several weeks not just a few days, the Canals in Venice often froze over and snow as far south as Portugal was not unheard of. By contrast during the Middle Ages, wine grapes could grow in Britain, temperatures in Scandinavia were mild enough to grow many crops that no longer grow there. In fact, it is believed the milder weather is why the Vikings reached Newfoundland and the cooling that caused them to abandon their settlements. So while I believe we should take action on global warming, we should not get too hysterical. Likewise one abnormally cold winter doesn't disprove global warming nor does one unusually warm year prove it. I accept the science behind it, but believe many ignore other factors that influence climate as GHG's are not the only thing that influence climate, wind directions, ocean currents have just as big an impact if not more so.
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Weekly Bulletin #10
My first blog of 2010, so I thought I would start off with a recap of recent events and then some predictions of what I think will happen this year.
Harper's decision to prorogue parliament was one I disagree with although in reality we are talking about only 1 month of parliament missed as well as I suspect the PM will be at the Olympics held in the latter half of February. My problem here is that all bills that have not yet cleared the senate will have to be re-introduced and this seems like a waste of time. It would have been better to return on January 25th and then perhaps not schedule any sessions during the Olympics.
Also, it appears that the US and some other countries are tightening up airport security in reaction to the failed terrorist attempt on Christmas on a Northwest Airlines flight from Amsterdam to Detroit. Security is in my opinion already tight enough as no amount of tightening can prevent a terrorist attack entirely. Besides, in this case, I think the blame should not go at the airport security but rather at those who gave the suspected terrorist a visa to visit the United States. Considering this guy was on a terrorist watch list and had no return ticket, how the heck did he manage to get a visa to visit the United States. All Nigerian nationals are required to get a visa to visit the United States and before boarding any plane, by law, they must check that every passenger has the required documents necessary to board the plane, so if anything needs to be tightened up, it should be the issuing of visas. Otherwise they should more thoroughly screen people before issuing visas. I hope Canada doesn't follow in tightening our airport security. If anything we should start clamping down on bogus refugees and those illegally immigrating here. There are few problems with those who immigrate here legally, were born here, or come here as a legitimate tourist, so it makes sense to focus on where the problem lies.
Here are a few of my predictions for 2010 in the world of politics.
1. There is a greater than even chance of an election this year federally. The most likely outcome is another Conservative minority although both a Conservative majority and a Liberal minority (if held later in the year) are within the realm of possibility.
2. The US midterm elections in November will result in losses for the Democrats and gains for the Republicans. The Democrats will retain control of the senate and house of representatives as well as the majority of governorships, but with smaller numbers in all three cases.
3. In the United Kingdom, Gordon Brown will get badly defeated and David Cameron will win a majority government and become the next PM of Britain.
4. Australia will re-elect Kevin Rudd
5. The election in Sweden will be a tight race with the centre-left coalition having a slightly greater chance of victory than the centre-right coalition, but could go either way.
6. New Brunswick election will result in a PC government unless the Liberals back off their plan to have Quebec Hydro takeover NB Power in which case I think they will be re-elected as they had a solid lead in the polls until they did this deal.
7. Yukon Territory will have an election and I haven't got a clue which party has a better chance, other than it will be either the Yukon Party, NDP, or Liberals who win.
Harper's decision to prorogue parliament was one I disagree with although in reality we are talking about only 1 month of parliament missed as well as I suspect the PM will be at the Olympics held in the latter half of February. My problem here is that all bills that have not yet cleared the senate will have to be re-introduced and this seems like a waste of time. It would have been better to return on January 25th and then perhaps not schedule any sessions during the Olympics.
Also, it appears that the US and some other countries are tightening up airport security in reaction to the failed terrorist attempt on Christmas on a Northwest Airlines flight from Amsterdam to Detroit. Security is in my opinion already tight enough as no amount of tightening can prevent a terrorist attack entirely. Besides, in this case, I think the blame should not go at the airport security but rather at those who gave the suspected terrorist a visa to visit the United States. Considering this guy was on a terrorist watch list and had no return ticket, how the heck did he manage to get a visa to visit the United States. All Nigerian nationals are required to get a visa to visit the United States and before boarding any plane, by law, they must check that every passenger has the required documents necessary to board the plane, so if anything needs to be tightened up, it should be the issuing of visas. Otherwise they should more thoroughly screen people before issuing visas. I hope Canada doesn't follow in tightening our airport security. If anything we should start clamping down on bogus refugees and those illegally immigrating here. There are few problems with those who immigrate here legally, were born here, or come here as a legitimate tourist, so it makes sense to focus on where the problem lies.
Here are a few of my predictions for 2010 in the world of politics.
1. There is a greater than even chance of an election this year federally. The most likely outcome is another Conservative minority although both a Conservative majority and a Liberal minority (if held later in the year) are within the realm of possibility.
2. The US midterm elections in November will result in losses for the Democrats and gains for the Republicans. The Democrats will retain control of the senate and house of representatives as well as the majority of governorships, but with smaller numbers in all three cases.
3. In the United Kingdom, Gordon Brown will get badly defeated and David Cameron will win a majority government and become the next PM of Britain.
4. Australia will re-elect Kevin Rudd
5. The election in Sweden will be a tight race with the centre-left coalition having a slightly greater chance of victory than the centre-right coalition, but could go either way.
6. New Brunswick election will result in a PC government unless the Liberals back off their plan to have Quebec Hydro takeover NB Power in which case I think they will be re-elected as they had a solid lead in the polls until they did this deal.
7. Yukon Territory will have an election and I haven't got a clue which party has a better chance, other than it will be either the Yukon Party, NDP, or Liberals who win.
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Weekly Bulletin #9
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.
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 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)
