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