The Conservative Government (also known as the "Harper Government") is on another campaign to discredit the numbers published by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Kevin Page. Now, the Conservative Government is getting the Department of National Defence to do their dirty work. This keeps going on and on. The Conservatives always disagree with Mr. Page's numbers when the numbers go against the Conservatives, but almost in the same breath, say they are the ones that created the office.
If the Conservative Government wants Mr. Page to publish accurate numbers, maybe they should actually provide them to Mr. Page! Mr. Page has gone on record that when he was researching the numbers for the F35 program, nothing was provided by the government and that the Department of National Defence hadn't even made the calculations yet! Mr. Page went to the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), as well as governmental organizations from at least a couple of countries that are involved in the F35 program to collate the info and come up with his figures. Of course, there will be a difference in the bottom line figures, as the Conservatives will defend, but they would make you believe that they are the ones that are correct. The Conservative Government have been accused of using numbers provided by the F35 contractor, however Mr. Page is using numbers from not only different sources, but from countries that have gone through many of these types of procurement programs. Who would you believe, somebody that uses several sources, or the one who uses the numbers from the company that regardless of cost overruns, will get their money? I know who I would choose to believe.
It's become obvious that the Conservative Government thought they could create a toothless tiger by creating a Parliamentary Budget Office, on their "Accountability" and "Transparency" campaign, and then underfund and severely limit the info that they provided to this office. Thankfully, they didn't count on Mr. Page being so resourceful with what was available to him and sticking a thorn in the Conservative Government's side.
I would work for Mr. Page. Not because he's a thorn in the Conservative Government's side, but because he's shown himself to be the most resourceful and ethical guy working in the government on Parliament Hill. This guy deserves the Order of Canada! Someone call Rideau Hall!
March 18, 2011
March 16, 2011
Anti-nukes are a bunch of blow hards
The earthquake and tsunami that hit Japan so hard have now resulted in a crisis at one of their nuclear plants, resulting in some release of radiation to the environment and mass evacuations of the area. Despite this ongoing tragedy, which has yet to be resolved, some anti-nuclear activists have come out of the woodwork to use this tragedy to rally people to their cause. They say that now is the time to shut down all nuclear plants and go to green alternatives, such as wind and solar power.
I support the use of green alternatives where they make sense, but this technology is not a panacea, nor is it a one size fits all solution for the world's power needs. I did a little research and found out that a single unit nuclear reactor can create more or less 800 MW of power (I did not research all the current offerings from different countries, but let's use this as a typical example -- you can use other nuclear reactor numbers to compare with the other figures I provide). Typically, there are multiple reactors on a single site (assume 4), and the site will occupy approximately 2,000 acres in North America.
An equivalent wind farm in Texas (Roscoe Wind Farm) has the capacity to generate 780 MW, but of course, that depends on wind speed throughout the day and year. Even assuming that they get full generation throughout the year (which is unlikely), they would generate 7 TWhr of electricity in a year. About the same capacity as one nuclear reactor (remember we are considering 4 units on one nuclear site). Yet this particular wind farm occupies 100,000 acres, i.e. 50 times the area of a nuclear generator site, producing less than 1/4 of the power!
Having a look at solar, the Harper Lake California solar farm has an 80 MW capacity on 120 acres. To achieve the 800 MW capacity, it would have to occupy 10 times the space or 1,200 acres. However, they reported generating an average of 125 GWhr of electricity per year, which is an efficiency of just under 20% -- and this is in the desert! This is in part because the sun doesn't shine 24 hours a day in this location!
It's clear that from a land use perspective, nuclear power is the most efficient. Of course there are issues such as potential radiation leaks to the environment, what to do with the spent fuel rods, and what happens when the facility is at the end of its useful life. But there are also issues arising from these "green" sources. One current discussion is the effect of low frequency noise coming from wind turbines that are affecting the health of local residents. What about the high cost of solar panels (although prices are coming down)? Not to mention that wind and solar generation are not reliable sources of energy and are considered as visual "pollution" by many. Are you going to get a lot of wind during a hot and humid day to run air conditioners? Are you going to get enough solar power in the winter (not to mention at night) to run your furnaces? Environmentalists aren't talking about these issues. In fact, I recall a long time, well known environmentalist (his name escapes me, but I believe he's located in the UK), has come out and supported nuclear power as a "green" alternative until the next generation power source is developed. What does this tell you?
I think these anti-nuclear activists taking advantage of the situation in Japan are despicable, and unfortunately, the media is giving them a voice. I'm not against debate on the subject, but this should not be an either/or discussion. Nuclear power should be part of a larger energy plan, optimizing all of the available technologies. Where nuclear power is used, nuclear engineers need to use the occurrence in Japan to review and revise their risk assessments, and look at how they can make their facilities safer. Nuclear facilities have back-up power in the form of fuel generators and batteries to ensure the water pumps run in the event of a power outage. Could the addition of wind and solar power at these sites provide supplemental back up power if there was a catastrophic event such as what we've seen in Japan? Makes you wonder.
I support the use of green alternatives where they make sense, but this technology is not a panacea, nor is it a one size fits all solution for the world's power needs. I did a little research and found out that a single unit nuclear reactor can create more or less 800 MW of power (I did not research all the current offerings from different countries, but let's use this as a typical example -- you can use other nuclear reactor numbers to compare with the other figures I provide). Typically, there are multiple reactors on a single site (assume 4), and the site will occupy approximately 2,000 acres in North America.
An equivalent wind farm in Texas (Roscoe Wind Farm) has the capacity to generate 780 MW, but of course, that depends on wind speed throughout the day and year. Even assuming that they get full generation throughout the year (which is unlikely), they would generate 7 TWhr of electricity in a year. About the same capacity as one nuclear reactor (remember we are considering 4 units on one nuclear site). Yet this particular wind farm occupies 100,000 acres, i.e. 50 times the area of a nuclear generator site, producing less than 1/4 of the power!
Having a look at solar, the Harper Lake California solar farm has an 80 MW capacity on 120 acres. To achieve the 800 MW capacity, it would have to occupy 10 times the space or 1,200 acres. However, they reported generating an average of 125 GWhr of electricity per year, which is an efficiency of just under 20% -- and this is in the desert! This is in part because the sun doesn't shine 24 hours a day in this location!
It's clear that from a land use perspective, nuclear power is the most efficient. Of course there are issues such as potential radiation leaks to the environment, what to do with the spent fuel rods, and what happens when the facility is at the end of its useful life. But there are also issues arising from these "green" sources. One current discussion is the effect of low frequency noise coming from wind turbines that are affecting the health of local residents. What about the high cost of solar panels (although prices are coming down)? Not to mention that wind and solar generation are not reliable sources of energy and are considered as visual "pollution" by many. Are you going to get a lot of wind during a hot and humid day to run air conditioners? Are you going to get enough solar power in the winter (not to mention at night) to run your furnaces? Environmentalists aren't talking about these issues. In fact, I recall a long time, well known environmentalist (his name escapes me, but I believe he's located in the UK), has come out and supported nuclear power as a "green" alternative until the next generation power source is developed. What does this tell you?
I think these anti-nuclear activists taking advantage of the situation in Japan are despicable, and unfortunately, the media is giving them a voice. I'm not against debate on the subject, but this should not be an either/or discussion. Nuclear power should be part of a larger energy plan, optimizing all of the available technologies. Where nuclear power is used, nuclear engineers need to use the occurrence in Japan to review and revise their risk assessments, and look at how they can make their facilities safer. Nuclear facilities have back-up power in the form of fuel generators and batteries to ensure the water pumps run in the event of a power outage. Could the addition of wind and solar power at these sites provide supplemental back up power if there was a catastrophic event such as what we've seen in Japan? Makes you wonder.
March 15, 2011
Iggy's first election gaffe?
Did Michael Ignatieff, Leader of the Liberal Party make his first political gaffe of this spring's election (the writ hasn't been dropped yet, but everyone is saying it's just a matter of which of the many issues will trigger it)? He promised to help fund a Quebec City arena that would attract an NHL franchise, if elected. He went further and said that he would do this across the country, which was a sticking point when previously debated. The Conservative Government had already nixed this idea previously and is now using the sound bite (or talking point, whichever you prefer) that this is subsidizing billionaires who hire millionaires (referring to team owners and professional players).
At first I agreed that the government should not subsidize professional sports teams, but then I reframed the issue. Obviously, the biggest beneficiary to having an arena operate is the community that it's in. It employs people, it draws in tourists who spend money in the local economy, and builds pride in that community. But typically, a local community can't afford to pick up the entire tab, and it's direct income streams (i.e. going into the municipal coffers) is limited. Thus, the province should step in. They benefit in many more ways, i.e. income tax from the people employed to build and run the operation, a portion of the HST (or the entire PST if the province doesn't have HST) in the materials used to build the arena, plus concession sales, and obviously tourism to the province. Ultimately, these two levels of government should fund the arena, but maybe the Federal level should provide some seed money to get things started.
The Federal Government receives benefits in the form of income taxes from the people that build and operate the arena, as well as GST or HST from the building and operation of the arena. So could we look at the Federal contribution limited strictly to calculating this value, over say 10-15 years, and providing funding limited to that amount and not one penny more? That any cost overruns to build the facility are not a Federal responsibility (it took forever for the Big O in Montreal to get paid off)? Surely the Parliamentary Budget Officer could crunch the numbers (he's been so good at it!)?
I would also argue that the ownership of the arena should remain in the local government's hands. It should not be sold to the private sector, as is done quite often, usually at a huge loss (see SkyDome in Toronto). This would generate an ongoing revenue stream (i.e. leasing and concession sales) to the municipality (other than property taxes and municipal services) that would allow them to recoup their investment, and hopefully, become profitable soon after.
I think this is doable, but it has to be well thought out. To recap, the Federal Government should help build sports arenas with the following provisos:
1. The Federal Government limits their contribution to the building of the arena to the direct benefit it receives in income tax and HST/GST it receives in building and operating the arena over a 10-15 year period, so that the net benefit is zero.
2. The Provincial and Municipal Governments agree on their splits for the contribution to the remaining amount required to build the arena.
3. The ownership of the arena remains in Municipal Government hands and not sold to private interests. They can set lease rates and are in the best position to attract professional teams.
Having said all this, building an arena does not guarantee a professional sports team franchise. The best example that comes to mind is Hamilton. They built a great arena, but they are too close to Buffalo and Toronto to allow an NHL team. In addition, Mr. Bettman, the NHL commissioner, has stated that an NHL team will not be going back to Quebec City. Presumably, it does not fit in with his expansion strategy into the U.S. where there is a greater opportunity to make money, but you can always hold up examples such as Atlanta, Phoenix, Nashville, etc., however that's a whole other conversation. As long as the local community assumes the risk, since they stand to benefit the greatest, I believe a working formula can be made.
This discussion should not be strictly about the best sound bite, doing what the other guys aren't to buy votes, or pandering to hockey-mad Canadians. Let's look at the business case: will the building (it doesn't have to be arenas only) attract who you want, and will the facility ultimately make money for those who need it the most, i.e. the Municipal Government.
I think a business case can be made, and I think their will be a net benefit for all Canadians. To bring it back to Iggy, yes, it is possible to fund arenas across Canada, but be VERY careful how you frame it. Also, make sure you put it into short simple terms for everyone to hear and understand, because you're only going to get 10 seconds at a time to say it.
At first I agreed that the government should not subsidize professional sports teams, but then I reframed the issue. Obviously, the biggest beneficiary to having an arena operate is the community that it's in. It employs people, it draws in tourists who spend money in the local economy, and builds pride in that community. But typically, a local community can't afford to pick up the entire tab, and it's direct income streams (i.e. going into the municipal coffers) is limited. Thus, the province should step in. They benefit in many more ways, i.e. income tax from the people employed to build and run the operation, a portion of the HST (or the entire PST if the province doesn't have HST) in the materials used to build the arena, plus concession sales, and obviously tourism to the province. Ultimately, these two levels of government should fund the arena, but maybe the Federal level should provide some seed money to get things started.
The Federal Government receives benefits in the form of income taxes from the people that build and operate the arena, as well as GST or HST from the building and operation of the arena. So could we look at the Federal contribution limited strictly to calculating this value, over say 10-15 years, and providing funding limited to that amount and not one penny more? That any cost overruns to build the facility are not a Federal responsibility (it took forever for the Big O in Montreal to get paid off)? Surely the Parliamentary Budget Officer could crunch the numbers (he's been so good at it!)?
I would also argue that the ownership of the arena should remain in the local government's hands. It should not be sold to the private sector, as is done quite often, usually at a huge loss (see SkyDome in Toronto). This would generate an ongoing revenue stream (i.e. leasing and concession sales) to the municipality (other than property taxes and municipal services) that would allow them to recoup their investment, and hopefully, become profitable soon after.
I think this is doable, but it has to be well thought out. To recap, the Federal Government should help build sports arenas with the following provisos:
1. The Federal Government limits their contribution to the building of the arena to the direct benefit it receives in income tax and HST/GST it receives in building and operating the arena over a 10-15 year period, so that the net benefit is zero.
2. The Provincial and Municipal Governments agree on their splits for the contribution to the remaining amount required to build the arena.
3. The ownership of the arena remains in Municipal Government hands and not sold to private interests. They can set lease rates and are in the best position to attract professional teams.
Having said all this, building an arena does not guarantee a professional sports team franchise. The best example that comes to mind is Hamilton. They built a great arena, but they are too close to Buffalo and Toronto to allow an NHL team. In addition, Mr. Bettman, the NHL commissioner, has stated that an NHL team will not be going back to Quebec City. Presumably, it does not fit in with his expansion strategy into the U.S. where there is a greater opportunity to make money, but you can always hold up examples such as Atlanta, Phoenix, Nashville, etc., however that's a whole other conversation. As long as the local community assumes the risk, since they stand to benefit the greatest, I believe a working formula can be made.
This discussion should not be strictly about the best sound bite, doing what the other guys aren't to buy votes, or pandering to hockey-mad Canadians. Let's look at the business case: will the building (it doesn't have to be arenas only) attract who you want, and will the facility ultimately make money for those who need it the most, i.e. the Municipal Government.
I think a business case can be made, and I think their will be a net benefit for all Canadians. To bring it back to Iggy, yes, it is possible to fund arenas across Canada, but be VERY careful how you frame it. Also, make sure you put it into short simple terms for everyone to hear and understand, because you're only going to get 10 seconds at a time to say it.
March 14, 2011
Like an "opportunistic" election has never happened before
I have to laugh at the latest "talking point" of the Conservative government. Prime Minister Harper has said it, Government House Leader Baird has said it, and Conservative strategists have said it. "It" is that the opposition rumblings of forcing an election (by calling for a vote of non-confidence, since the opposition is claiming the Conservative government of being undemocratic) are "opportunistic"! It never ceases to amaze me when it comes to the hypocrisy of politicians. It was Prime Minister Harper that forced the 2008 election, after only two years in office, and AFTER enacting legislation that would prevent the sitting government from calling snap "opportunistic" elections to gain more seats, in his bid for a majority. Disgraceful. And it just goes to show you how short memories are. I have yet to hear of anyone in the media pointing this out.
The side show to all of this is three Conservative MPs announcing that they will not be running in the next election. I find it interesting that MPs Strahl and Cummings were first elected to the House as Reform Party Members, and Stockwell Day was the Canadian Alliance (which rose out of the Reform Party as a basis) leader. Interesting in that the Alliance Party, "...platform and policies emphasized, inter alia, the rights and responsibilities of the individual, Senate and other democratic reforms, and smaller more fiscally responsible government." Yet, people have argued that the Conservatives have become less than democratic. They have run up a record high deficit (some argue the government would have run into significant deficit even without the recession happening) and Mr. Harper, in this latest session of Parliament, has a record number of Cabinet Ministers (37 at last count), not to mention the Parliamentary Secretaries on top of that, thus increasing the costs of running the government.
It makes me wonder if these former Reform/Alliance members are bristling at Mr. Harper's (and those of some of his Cabinet Ministers) antics, which clearly rub against the grain of the former Reform/Alliance platform. I think a strong case for this is when Mr. Day was asked why he was leaving, he said he wanted to focus on the future, and when he was asked for specifics, he seemed very vague about what he may do (other than spending more time with his family). It was pointed out by one media person that all three bailing MPs currently hold BC ridings and that they would feel the effects of the province adopting the HST. It was also noted that these are strong veteran Western MPs (the Conservative Party base) and that some of the remaining strong MPs are in Ontario and were members of the Mike Harris Ontario provincial government. I guess it will be the Ontario "elite" that will be holding the reins of the Conservative Party through the next election.
When the election does come, Canadian voters need to ask hard questions of their candidates. Try to get past the talking points and decide which candidate, and party, you want to vote for (or vote against). I think its time for Canadians to stand up and voice their concerns, not just stay away from the polls because they can't be bothered or are upset with politics in general. Afghanis had massive voter turnout even when faced with death threats from Al Qaeda! Surely you can get up off your couch and vote. You don't vote, you can't complain about the result.
The side show to all of this is three Conservative MPs announcing that they will not be running in the next election. I find it interesting that MPs Strahl and Cummings were first elected to the House as Reform Party Members, and Stockwell Day was the Canadian Alliance (which rose out of the Reform Party as a basis) leader. Interesting in that the Alliance Party, "...platform and policies emphasized, inter alia, the rights and responsibilities of the individual, Senate and other democratic reforms, and smaller more fiscally responsible government." Yet, people have argued that the Conservatives have become less than democratic. They have run up a record high deficit (some argue the government would have run into significant deficit even without the recession happening) and Mr. Harper, in this latest session of Parliament, has a record number of Cabinet Ministers (37 at last count), not to mention the Parliamentary Secretaries on top of that, thus increasing the costs of running the government.
It makes me wonder if these former Reform/Alliance members are bristling at Mr. Harper's (and those of some of his Cabinet Ministers) antics, which clearly rub against the grain of the former Reform/Alliance platform. I think a strong case for this is when Mr. Day was asked why he was leaving, he said he wanted to focus on the future, and when he was asked for specifics, he seemed very vague about what he may do (other than spending more time with his family). It was pointed out by one media person that all three bailing MPs currently hold BC ridings and that they would feel the effects of the province adopting the HST. It was also noted that these are strong veteran Western MPs (the Conservative Party base) and that some of the remaining strong MPs are in Ontario and were members of the Mike Harris Ontario provincial government. I guess it will be the Ontario "elite" that will be holding the reins of the Conservative Party through the next election.
When the election does come, Canadian voters need to ask hard questions of their candidates. Try to get past the talking points and decide which candidate, and party, you want to vote for (or vote against). I think its time for Canadians to stand up and voice their concerns, not just stay away from the polls because they can't be bothered or are upset with politics in general. Afghanis had massive voter turnout even when faced with death threats from Al Qaeda! Surely you can get up off your couch and vote. You don't vote, you can't complain about the result.
March 11, 2011
Really, Mr. Harper?!?!? Democracy?!?!!? Really?!?!?!
Really, Mr. Harper?!?! The Speaker of the House of Commons ruling against your government on withholding cost information required by law, as well as at least one of your ministers "misleading" a parliamentary committee?!?!?! Really?!?!? And you call this a "distraction" and a "game" by the opposition??!?!?! Really??!?!?! Excuse Canadian voters, for they did not know that democracy is an inconvenience to you!
Of course Canadians are concerned about their jobs and the economy, but in a Westminster Parliamentary system, the opposition MPs have the right to question the government on its programs, receive information on the cost of proposed government bills, among other things, to show all Canadian constituents what the government plans and how their hard earned tax dollars are being spent. Your Finance Minister, Mr. Flaherty, just standing up and saying trust me, just doesn't wash. He did the same thing when he was Finance Minister for Ontario, and he left a mess for the new government that took over, not to mention his statements over the past couple of years like no recession, no deficit, and small deficit.
Clearly, your government is engaging in a lot of obfuscation, so who is really playing "games"? You rode into Ottawa on a platform of "transparency" and "accountability", yet time and again, media reports that you and your cronies are doing the exact opposite. Tell me, are your former Reform colleagues bristling in their seats, trying to keep their mouths shut?
Democracy is not just about elections. Check your Oxford Dictionary. It's defined as, "government by all the people." Are you that cynical that you think that ALL Canadians would act in this manner. Who is really playing games?
A cynicist would say that you are doing anything and everything possible to not only retain power, but try to win a majority in the next election (and it seems, taking lessons from the American political process, i.e. attack ads). According to the latest polls, your party is way ahead, but just short of majority territory. However, we'll still have to see the polls after the Speaker's rulings. But, as many have said, the only poll that counts is the one on election day. Should you win enough seats to form another government in the next election, I pity Canadian voters (and especially those that don't vote). But it reminds me of the saying, "Every nation has the government that it deserves."
Of course Canadians are concerned about their jobs and the economy, but in a Westminster Parliamentary system, the opposition MPs have the right to question the government on its programs, receive information on the cost of proposed government bills, among other things, to show all Canadian constituents what the government plans and how their hard earned tax dollars are being spent. Your Finance Minister, Mr. Flaherty, just standing up and saying trust me, just doesn't wash. He did the same thing when he was Finance Minister for Ontario, and he left a mess for the new government that took over, not to mention his statements over the past couple of years like no recession, no deficit, and small deficit.
Clearly, your government is engaging in a lot of obfuscation, so who is really playing "games"? You rode into Ottawa on a platform of "transparency" and "accountability", yet time and again, media reports that you and your cronies are doing the exact opposite. Tell me, are your former Reform colleagues bristling in their seats, trying to keep their mouths shut?
Democracy is not just about elections. Check your Oxford Dictionary. It's defined as, "government by all the people." Are you that cynical that you think that ALL Canadians would act in this manner. Who is really playing games?
A cynicist would say that you are doing anything and everything possible to not only retain power, but try to win a majority in the next election (and it seems, taking lessons from the American political process, i.e. attack ads). According to the latest polls, your party is way ahead, but just short of majority territory. However, we'll still have to see the polls after the Speaker's rulings. But, as many have said, the only poll that counts is the one on election day. Should you win enough seats to form another government in the next election, I pity Canadian voters (and especially those that don't vote). But it reminds me of the saying, "Every nation has the government that it deserves."
March 09, 2011
Coporate tax cut: Job creator, or fatter bonus?
Will a Canadian corporate tax cut of 1.5% really create jobs? That's what the Conservative Government and a number of economists will lead you to believe. However, I'm wondering if they're relying too much on economic theory and coming up with an easy sound bite for the public to digest. Or is this just another political move for the Conservatives to finally achieve the majority that has been just out of their reach all these years?
I've had some instruction on economics, but not enough to argue this over economic theory, so I decided to look at this from a more practical standpoint. Statscan tells us that from the 2005 census data, the average Canadian worker earned $41,401. Assuming that "payroll taxes" (i.e. benefits, company contributions to CPP & EI, etc.) account for 25% (this would vary from company to company, depending on a number of factors, but let's use this as an average), that would mean a company would need a benefit of $55,201 (41,401/0.75). Consequently, for the 1.5% tax reduction, a company would have to have revenue of about $3,7M (55,201/0.015) to justify hiring an additional worker. I couldn't find the data, but I suspect many small companies would not make sufficient revenue to fall into this category, and it is often said that small companies are the economic engine of Canada.
So, where would this reduction in taxes go? Canadian Business, in their Investor 500 list, has Manulife Financial Corp as the top revenue earning public company at $34,550M. Using the revenue figure from above, that would mean Manulife could hire up to 9,337 new employees, just from this tax giveaway! Will they do it? Highly unlikely. What sane manager would hire more people just because they could? It's more likely they would give fatter bonuses to their employees, and/or increase their dividends to shareholders, which in effect, raises the stock prices, and makes the Manulife managers with stock options ever richer. Now, I'm not trying to single out Manulife for anything other than they were the top revenue earner on the list. I use them to illustrate the point that putting money in corporate pockets won't necessarily lead to jobs. But the Conservative Government would lead you to believe that this is the case. The real driver for business is to generate more sales. More sales means more production. More production means capital investment and/or the hiring of additional staff. In order to be competitive, it comes down to productivity, i.e. output per unit of input. This is especially true in labour intensive industries where low cost countries have a competitive advantage. The U.S. and Germany (both G8 countries) have significantly higher productivity rates over Canada.
The fact is that Canada already has the lowest corporate tax rate among G8 countries, and that opponents such as Jim Stanford (an economist with the Canadian Auto Workers union) have come out against lowering the corporate tax rate. Mr. Stanford points to the fact that over the past 20 years, corporate tax rates in Canada have dropped from 29% to 16.5% (much of it during a series of Liberal Governments), yet capital investment in Canada has declined.
I can't help wondering if this is a little Three Card Monty trick the Conservative Government is playing so that it appeases their Conservative base, while trying to sell it to the more middle of the road public under the general "will create jobs" banner. Given that Canada fared better than most countries during the recession, and that the economic recovery is still tenuous, with an ever-present fear of a double-dip recession, I would suggest that putting this latest corporate tax cut on the back burner for now would be a good thing for the country. Especially considering the Conservative Government is facing a $45 billion deficit in the next budget, with a quickly rising debt level.
What do you think? Contact your MP and let them know!
I've had some instruction on economics, but not enough to argue this over economic theory, so I decided to look at this from a more practical standpoint. Statscan tells us that from the 2005 census data, the average Canadian worker earned $41,401. Assuming that "payroll taxes" (i.e. benefits, company contributions to CPP & EI, etc.) account for 25% (this would vary from company to company, depending on a number of factors, but let's use this as an average), that would mean a company would need a benefit of $55,201 (41,401/0.75). Consequently, for the 1.5% tax reduction, a company would have to have revenue of about $3,7M (55,201/0.015) to justify hiring an additional worker. I couldn't find the data, but I suspect many small companies would not make sufficient revenue to fall into this category, and it is often said that small companies are the economic engine of Canada.
So, where would this reduction in taxes go? Canadian Business, in their Investor 500 list, has Manulife Financial Corp as the top revenue earning public company at $34,550M. Using the revenue figure from above, that would mean Manulife could hire up to 9,337 new employees, just from this tax giveaway! Will they do it? Highly unlikely. What sane manager would hire more people just because they could? It's more likely they would give fatter bonuses to their employees, and/or increase their dividends to shareholders, which in effect, raises the stock prices, and makes the Manulife managers with stock options ever richer. Now, I'm not trying to single out Manulife for anything other than they were the top revenue earner on the list. I use them to illustrate the point that putting money in corporate pockets won't necessarily lead to jobs. But the Conservative Government would lead you to believe that this is the case. The real driver for business is to generate more sales. More sales means more production. More production means capital investment and/or the hiring of additional staff. In order to be competitive, it comes down to productivity, i.e. output per unit of input. This is especially true in labour intensive industries where low cost countries have a competitive advantage. The U.S. and Germany (both G8 countries) have significantly higher productivity rates over Canada.
The fact is that Canada already has the lowest corporate tax rate among G8 countries, and that opponents such as Jim Stanford (an economist with the Canadian Auto Workers union) have come out against lowering the corporate tax rate. Mr. Stanford points to the fact that over the past 20 years, corporate tax rates in Canada have dropped from 29% to 16.5% (much of it during a series of Liberal Governments), yet capital investment in Canada has declined.
I can't help wondering if this is a little Three Card Monty trick the Conservative Government is playing so that it appeases their Conservative base, while trying to sell it to the more middle of the road public under the general "will create jobs" banner. Given that Canada fared better than most countries during the recession, and that the economic recovery is still tenuous, with an ever-present fear of a double-dip recession, I would suggest that putting this latest corporate tax cut on the back burner for now would be a good thing for the country. Especially considering the Conservative Government is facing a $45 billion deficit in the next budget, with a quickly rising debt level.
What do you think? Contact your MP and let them know!
March 07, 2011
Engage in the political process
A new organization has formed to engage Canadians in the political process. They are Leadnow.ca. I've only just heard of them (since they went public just last week). They claim to be a non-partisan organization that are getting Canadians to hold their politicians to account.
I fully support this and hope that they:
1. Continue to be non-partisan;
2. Vociferously hold politicians to account for their, and their party's actions; and
3. Engage the Canadian public in the political process to reverse the apathetic trend.
This is the type of organization that the general public needs to get involved with, lest Canadians suffer the same fate as people in North Africa and the Middle East are currently suffering, in their fight for justice and democracy.
It reminds me of that famous quote that has been attributed to Edmund Burke (but is disputed), "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing". I find another interesting quote from him that is just as applicable, "The true danger is when liberty is nibbled away, for expedients, and by parts."
To Leadnow.ca I say, a long and fruitful existence!
I fully support this and hope that they:
1. Continue to be non-partisan;
2. Vociferously hold politicians to account for their, and their party's actions; and
3. Engage the Canadian public in the political process to reverse the apathetic trend.
This is the type of organization that the general public needs to get involved with, lest Canadians suffer the same fate as people in North Africa and the Middle East are currently suffering, in their fight for justice and democracy.
It reminds me of that famous quote that has been attributed to Edmund Burke (but is disputed), "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing". I find another interesting quote from him that is just as applicable, "The true danger is when liberty is nibbled away, for expedients, and by parts."
To Leadnow.ca I say, a long and fruitful existence!
The passing of Jim Travers, Star columnist
James Travers, Toronto Star Columnist on political matters, died last week. Many accolades have been coming from colleagues, politicians and the general public alike. As a tribute to him, The Star reprinted a story he wrote on Apr 4, 2009, called, "The quiet unravelling of Canadian democracy." I suggest everyone take the time to read it.
I've had the opportunity to see him on television and I found his deconstruction of the political scene illuminating. It's unfortunate that we've lost such a great journalistic mind.
My condolences to his family.
I've had the opportunity to see him on television and I found his deconstruction of the political scene illuminating. It's unfortunate that we've lost such a great journalistic mind.
My condolences to his family.
March 04, 2011
Going off the rails on a crazy train?
Another scandal for the Harper Government. Using Parliamentary resources for partisan purposes, i.e. campaigning for contributions to the Conservative Party of Canada. And to think, Helena Guergis, the MP kicked out of the Conservative caucus for suspicion of wrongdoing, was the ethical one when she refused to participate in the "in and out" campaign funds maneuver that is currently under intense scrutiny by Elections Canada. Add to that the Bev Oda affair, Lisa Raitt, Maxime Bernier, etc. Does this mean the Harper machine is finally running off the rails? Well, no doubt they'll try to spin the Liberal sponsorship scandal as something more heinous, as they are oft to do.
I suppose that the voting public has come to believe that they cannot expect completely ethical behaviour from every politician out there. But scandal after scandal must indicate a change that requires cleaning out the House. Yet, poll after poll indicates that people favour the Conservatives to run the Canadian government, and that Mr. Harper is the best candidate for Prime Minister. This defies common sense. People seem to be short-sighted. Because the Canadian economy is in better shape than most industrialized nations and unemployment isn't too bad, everyone seems to think the Harper government is doing fine. But let us not forget that it was the previous Liberal government that generated a surplus that allowed the Conservatives to give "gifts" like rolling back the GST (see my other post about why that was a mistake). It was the Liberals that set the stage for the banking system to weather the recent economic storm, but the Conservatives are taking credit for it. There may be some good things that the Conservative government have done (not that I can think of any off the top of my head), but the NDP have some good ideas too (not that I think Mr. Layton should become Prime Minister). Even Mr. Duceppe surprises me with the odd great idea or point, even though he is classified a separatist. But this is moot.
The bottom line is that the current Conservative caucus seems to be getting a little too comfortable, and maybe a little too bold, in their quest for a majority government. Then what will we see? The abolishment of the gun registry? The reopening of the abortion debate? The definition of marriage narrowly defined as that between a man and a woman? These are questions that have been raised because they are platforms espoused by hard core Conservatives.
I don't have a crystal ball, so I don't know the outcome of the next election. What I do know is that Canadian voters need to vote their conscience, not cast their vote as a popularity contest. If it comes down to voting against somebody, rather than for someone, then so be it. I just think that change, any change is good. And the change I'm hoping for is another party running the country, not giving a majority, or even another minority, to the current government.
I suppose that the voting public has come to believe that they cannot expect completely ethical behaviour from every politician out there. But scandal after scandal must indicate a change that requires cleaning out the House. Yet, poll after poll indicates that people favour the Conservatives to run the Canadian government, and that Mr. Harper is the best candidate for Prime Minister. This defies common sense. People seem to be short-sighted. Because the Canadian economy is in better shape than most industrialized nations and unemployment isn't too bad, everyone seems to think the Harper government is doing fine. But let us not forget that it was the previous Liberal government that generated a surplus that allowed the Conservatives to give "gifts" like rolling back the GST (see my other post about why that was a mistake). It was the Liberals that set the stage for the banking system to weather the recent economic storm, but the Conservatives are taking credit for it. There may be some good things that the Conservative government have done (not that I can think of any off the top of my head), but the NDP have some good ideas too (not that I think Mr. Layton should become Prime Minister). Even Mr. Duceppe surprises me with the odd great idea or point, even though he is classified a separatist. But this is moot.
The bottom line is that the current Conservative caucus seems to be getting a little too comfortable, and maybe a little too bold, in their quest for a majority government. Then what will we see? The abolishment of the gun registry? The reopening of the abortion debate? The definition of marriage narrowly defined as that between a man and a woman? These are questions that have been raised because they are platforms espoused by hard core Conservatives.
I don't have a crystal ball, so I don't know the outcome of the next election. What I do know is that Canadian voters need to vote their conscience, not cast their vote as a popularity contest. If it comes down to voting against somebody, rather than for someone, then so be it. I just think that change, any change is good. And the change I'm hoping for is another party running the country, not giving a majority, or even another minority, to the current government.
March 01, 2011
Libya, a Lesson in Democracy
The current events in Libya are troubling. Not just that a dictator is using violence, killing the citizens of his country, to hold onto power by his fingernails, but also the responses by world leaders. The wave of protests throughout North Africa and the Middle East have shown that the citizens of these countries have had enough of their officials, whether they are corrupt, not doing enough to reduce unemployment, and/or not being able to elect new leaders to respect their democratic voice. The fact that Western nations are talking about overtly interfering (calls to impose a “no fly zone” to protect Libyan rebels from pro-Gaddafi air attacks), or whether they are already covertly supporting the rebels (at this time, there are no reports of Western advisors making contact with the rebels, nor supplies being delivered), one thing is clear. This protest has turned into civil war. The question is, should other nations intercede, or at the very least, take sides?
No Western democracy will publicly support Gaddafi at this time, even though for many years, even before his mea culpa of a few years ago (when he shook hands with Tony Blair), companies within these Western democracies did business with Libya, with or without the knowledge of their governments. The fact that the public knows of certain Western companies doing business in Libya is an indication of the attitude of: we will tolerate the dictator, as long as we benefit. Case in point: Nelly Furtado just declared that she is going to donate to charity the fee paid to her by the Gaddafi family a few years ago to perform (not unlike the whole Sun City thing in South Africa during Apartheid). The winds of change are blowing and everyone is piling on to wash their hands clean.
But where is the justice for Bahrainians? They too are protesting peacefully, with many Bahrainian soldiers marching in solidarity with the protestors. Yet, the police have fired upon and killed protestors. Where is the world public condemnation over this? Is it because Bahrain is a Western ally? Is it because it produces a lot of oil for the West? Or is it the fear of the rise of a group that would obtain power and act less favourably towards the West? I would venture that Western leaders are breathing a small sigh of relief that the events in Libya are occupying the world’s attention.
There are many instances in the past when foreign nations have intervened in the affairs of countries. One of the more recent occurrences is Iraq, but have we forgotten (Soviet-era) Afghanistan? Vietnam? Or even the American Revolutionary War and the American Civil War? During the American Revolution, it was the French who helped the American “rebels” defeat the British. During the American Civil War, there was some tacit, unofficial support from the British for the Confederate “rebels”, but firm support did not materialize under the threat of war against Britain from President Abraham Lincoln.
Humankind has a history of interfering in the affairs of other countries, for good or bad. Hindsight is always 20/20 and making the right choice, and picking a “winner” is difficult given the information available at the time. Unfortunately, many decisions are based on ideology, money, and/or the concept of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”. Over the years, we have developed treaties and conventions to protect the innocent within conflicts, one example being The Geneva Conventions. Quite often, despots do not adhere to these rules, in their bid to remain in power.
I find these current events ironic when I think back to the G20 protests in Toronto, Canada last summer. People using “black bloc” tactics marched through the streets of Toronto, vandalizing property and taunting police. But, instead of protecting property and arresting the perpetrators on the spot, the police force (made up of Canadian local, provincial and federal police forces) broke up a peaceful protest in a government sanctioned designated protest area, and “kettled” a group at a downtown intersection, after most of the G20 leaders had already left! Current investigations are still ongoing, so no final reports are complete, but there are a few interesting points to be made:
1. Most violent protestors were not arrested during the demonstrations, but have been systematically arrested and charged after the fact, through the police’s investigations using in part, photographic and video evidence.
2. A peaceful protest (there were no reported indications of violence) in a government sanctioned designated protest area was broken up by the police force using riot police and police on horseback.
3. Hundreds of protestors were held in detention for many hours, many of them released at the end of the weekend without charge.
4. Some of the people “kettled” in the downtown intersection reported that they were not part of an actual protest, but just happened to be walking in the area and getting caught in front of police lines.
5. The accusations by some of the arrested of the excessive force used by police did not get far and investigations were dropped (due to “insufficient evidence”) until people came forward publicly with photographic and video evidence to support charges to be laid against individual officers.
6. It was widely reported during the G20 that the police were given the power to stop, question and search anyone within a certain distance from the fence surrounding the summit site, regardless of these “suspects” exhibiting suspicious behaviour, and the police exercised this power. At the end of the summit, it was revealed that police were not given any such powers by the government.
At this time, I want to state my unequivocal support for police. We ask them to make many sacrifices to perform very difficult work. I am sure that many of them would agree that a few bad apples should not mean we throw out the bushel. But, the actions of individuals are one thing, the decisions of the leadership is another. Who ordered the use of horses to break up the sanctioned protest? Who ordered the kettling? Who perpetuated the idea that people could be stopped and searched just because they were walking near a particular fence? Are these people being investigated, or is this going to be a state sanctioned “insufficient evidence to pursue” result. Why did the police hold up confiscated “weapons” seized from protestors (and a small number of “weapons” at that, in comparison to the number of people at the protest) to be used as justification for breaking up peaceful protests and arresting people? I had some difficulty with classifying some of the “weapons” they displayed as actual weapons that could do significant harm. If I happened to be walking home from a friend’s place carrying a 6” long screwdriver I used to do a little electrical work at his apartment, and I was in the wrong place at the wrong time and was arrested because I had a “weapon” in my pack, does that show intent to do harm at a protest? Are we moving to a “Minority Report” type of world?
Ultimately, we have developed the concept of democracy where we elect representatives to manage our interests. We believe this to be the power of the people. If we do not like how they manage our affairs, we have the opportunity to vote them out of office. Voter apathy is not an option. Recent elections in Afghanistan showed huge voter turnouts, even under the threat of death from Al Qaeda, proving that people want a voice in the determination of their future, even at the expense of their security.
There may be times when wrongdoers escape justice, but not every conflict is won by the most righteous. The best that outsiders can do is allow the populace of countries to sort out their own affairs, while protecting the innocent to the best of their abilities, and that International Law will allow. Whether that’s flying foreign nationals out of Libya, with or without Gaddafi’s permission, publically condemning in the strongest way the killing of peaceful protestors in Bahrain, or bringing to justice the people responsible for using excessive force on peaceful protestors at a G20 protest in Toronto. As Thomas Jefferson (a former President of the United States and American Revolutionary) once stated, “The will of the people is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect its free expression should be our first object.” I would add that media, including the use of photographic and video evidence (recorded by reporters and/or the public), is a tool for the people to hold governments to account.
It is everyone’s responsibility to protect the safety and security of the innocent. However, it is the people that must decide their own fate, for good or bad. To turn a blind eye when it is inconvenient makes us just as guilty as if we had perpetrated the deed ourselves. The blood stains our hands just as much as it stains the hands of those responsible. We cannot base our decisions on ideology, money, or the idiom “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” It appears that most citizens of the world want the same thing, i.e. safety, economic well-being, and the right to voice a dissenting opinion in a peaceful manner. Governments that suppress these needs do so at their own peril. Governments that turn a blind eye to their peers’ actions face trying to rub out that “damned spot.”
No Western democracy will publicly support Gaddafi at this time, even though for many years, even before his mea culpa of a few years ago (when he shook hands with Tony Blair), companies within these Western democracies did business with Libya, with or without the knowledge of their governments. The fact that the public knows of certain Western companies doing business in Libya is an indication of the attitude of: we will tolerate the dictator, as long as we benefit. Case in point: Nelly Furtado just declared that she is going to donate to charity the fee paid to her by the Gaddafi family a few years ago to perform (not unlike the whole Sun City thing in South Africa during Apartheid). The winds of change are blowing and everyone is piling on to wash their hands clean.
But where is the justice for Bahrainians? They too are protesting peacefully, with many Bahrainian soldiers marching in solidarity with the protestors. Yet, the police have fired upon and killed protestors. Where is the world public condemnation over this? Is it because Bahrain is a Western ally? Is it because it produces a lot of oil for the West? Or is it the fear of the rise of a group that would obtain power and act less favourably towards the West? I would venture that Western leaders are breathing a small sigh of relief that the events in Libya are occupying the world’s attention.
There are many instances in the past when foreign nations have intervened in the affairs of countries. One of the more recent occurrences is Iraq, but have we forgotten (Soviet-era) Afghanistan? Vietnam? Or even the American Revolutionary War and the American Civil War? During the American Revolution, it was the French who helped the American “rebels” defeat the British. During the American Civil War, there was some tacit, unofficial support from the British for the Confederate “rebels”, but firm support did not materialize under the threat of war against Britain from President Abraham Lincoln.
Humankind has a history of interfering in the affairs of other countries, for good or bad. Hindsight is always 20/20 and making the right choice, and picking a “winner” is difficult given the information available at the time. Unfortunately, many decisions are based on ideology, money, and/or the concept of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”. Over the years, we have developed treaties and conventions to protect the innocent within conflicts, one example being The Geneva Conventions. Quite often, despots do not adhere to these rules, in their bid to remain in power.
I find these current events ironic when I think back to the G20 protests in Toronto, Canada last summer. People using “black bloc” tactics marched through the streets of Toronto, vandalizing property and taunting police. But, instead of protecting property and arresting the perpetrators on the spot, the police force (made up of Canadian local, provincial and federal police forces) broke up a peaceful protest in a government sanctioned designated protest area, and “kettled” a group at a downtown intersection, after most of the G20 leaders had already left! Current investigations are still ongoing, so no final reports are complete, but there are a few interesting points to be made:
1. Most violent protestors were not arrested during the demonstrations, but have been systematically arrested and charged after the fact, through the police’s investigations using in part, photographic and video evidence.
2. A peaceful protest (there were no reported indications of violence) in a government sanctioned designated protest area was broken up by the police force using riot police and police on horseback.
3. Hundreds of protestors were held in detention for many hours, many of them released at the end of the weekend without charge.
4. Some of the people “kettled” in the downtown intersection reported that they were not part of an actual protest, but just happened to be walking in the area and getting caught in front of police lines.
5. The accusations by some of the arrested of the excessive force used by police did not get far and investigations were dropped (due to “insufficient evidence”) until people came forward publicly with photographic and video evidence to support charges to be laid against individual officers.
6. It was widely reported during the G20 that the police were given the power to stop, question and search anyone within a certain distance from the fence surrounding the summit site, regardless of these “suspects” exhibiting suspicious behaviour, and the police exercised this power. At the end of the summit, it was revealed that police were not given any such powers by the government.
At this time, I want to state my unequivocal support for police. We ask them to make many sacrifices to perform very difficult work. I am sure that many of them would agree that a few bad apples should not mean we throw out the bushel. But, the actions of individuals are one thing, the decisions of the leadership is another. Who ordered the use of horses to break up the sanctioned protest? Who ordered the kettling? Who perpetuated the idea that people could be stopped and searched just because they were walking near a particular fence? Are these people being investigated, or is this going to be a state sanctioned “insufficient evidence to pursue” result. Why did the police hold up confiscated “weapons” seized from protestors (and a small number of “weapons” at that, in comparison to the number of people at the protest) to be used as justification for breaking up peaceful protests and arresting people? I had some difficulty with classifying some of the “weapons” they displayed as actual weapons that could do significant harm. If I happened to be walking home from a friend’s place carrying a 6” long screwdriver I used to do a little electrical work at his apartment, and I was in the wrong place at the wrong time and was arrested because I had a “weapon” in my pack, does that show intent to do harm at a protest? Are we moving to a “Minority Report” type of world?
Ultimately, we have developed the concept of democracy where we elect representatives to manage our interests. We believe this to be the power of the people. If we do not like how they manage our affairs, we have the opportunity to vote them out of office. Voter apathy is not an option. Recent elections in Afghanistan showed huge voter turnouts, even under the threat of death from Al Qaeda, proving that people want a voice in the determination of their future, even at the expense of their security.
There may be times when wrongdoers escape justice, but not every conflict is won by the most righteous. The best that outsiders can do is allow the populace of countries to sort out their own affairs, while protecting the innocent to the best of their abilities, and that International Law will allow. Whether that’s flying foreign nationals out of Libya, with or without Gaddafi’s permission, publically condemning in the strongest way the killing of peaceful protestors in Bahrain, or bringing to justice the people responsible for using excessive force on peaceful protestors at a G20 protest in Toronto. As Thomas Jefferson (a former President of the United States and American Revolutionary) once stated, “The will of the people is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect its free expression should be our first object.” I would add that media, including the use of photographic and video evidence (recorded by reporters and/or the public), is a tool for the people to hold governments to account.
It is everyone’s responsibility to protect the safety and security of the innocent. However, it is the people that must decide their own fate, for good or bad. To turn a blind eye when it is inconvenient makes us just as guilty as if we had perpetrated the deed ourselves. The blood stains our hands just as much as it stains the hands of those responsible. We cannot base our decisions on ideology, money, or the idiom “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” It appears that most citizens of the world want the same thing, i.e. safety, economic well-being, and the right to voice a dissenting opinion in a peaceful manner. Governments that suppress these needs do so at their own peril. Governments that turn a blind eye to their peers’ actions face trying to rub out that “damned spot.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)