BEWILDERBEEST INC.

Literally Worth a Million? That's retarded!

2008-04-25T23:45:00.007-05:00

Public transit users in Toronto are surely familiar by now with the subway ads from the Amalgamated Transit Workers Local 113 union. These ads explain how each TTC worker is worth more than a million dollars, concluding with the observation, "That's amazing!" The fuzzy logic is quoted below. [source]

The Special Report by leading environmentalist and former Ontario Cabinet Minister Marilyn Churley calculates that the economic, environmental, health and other benefits of the TTC to Toronto total at least 12 billion dollars. And that’s a conservative estimate. Many benefits of the TTC are literally incalculable, but real.

Since about 11,000 people work for the TTC, that means each contributes, on average, more than a million dollars in benefits every year. Most TTC workers are represented by ATU Local 113, the sponsor of this site. We’re proud of the work our members do, work that deserves public recognition. Each one is literally Worth a Million.

That is some dubious accounting. The TTC may well be worth $12 billion, but it is not the case that members of the Local 113 are giving personal piggy-back rides to each commuter in the city. The average worth of each TTC worker can only be assessed within the context of the TTC system as a whole. One must first assess the value of previous investments in infrastructure, which includes investments in new vehicles and thoroughfares. Beyond this, operation and maintenance costs pay for more than just the labour of transit workers; the material costs associated - like, say, fuel - are significant.

I do not know the exact numbers that need to be added to the balance sheet, but considering that Premier Dalton McGuinty's rapid transit action plan for the Greater Toronto Area is supposed to cost $17.5 billion, one can safely assume that the transit workers' union is playing a shell game with these ads. I am meant to be convinced that these (mostly) low-skilled workers are invaluable assets to the city. Perhaps if there was even a pretense of plausible accounting in this ad campaign, I might have fallen for it. Instead, I am just reminded that the transit workers' union, by virtue of the TTC's monopoly position, can hold the entire city hostage in order to demand ever higher ransoms.

Not even two years have passed since the transit workers' illegal wildcat strike in 2006. Last weekend, with the threat of strike action looming for Monday morning, Torontonians sighed in relief as it appeared that the crisis had been averted as both sides agreed to terms. This evening, however, it all fell apart as workers voted to reject the the tentative agreement. The union had promised the mayor to provide a 48-hour warning, yet at 10:30 PM on a Friday night, they announced a strike effective midnight that same evening! No doubt, many city dwellers and suburbanites emerged from the bars this evening to find themselves stranded with no public transit and only the remnants of their sobriety.

I have no sympathy for such crass behaviour. Labour deals should be negotiated, not brought about by blackmail. Dalton McGuinty should immediately classify the TTC as an essential service and force the union to go back to work. Since the TTC's monopoly position is not going to be broken up anytime in the near future, there can be no other option - that is, unless we are content to leave ourselves susceptible to random hostage takings.

I, for one, am not.

Surprise! The Canadian Pork Council wants more money

2007-12-14T15:43:00.000-05:00

The federal government has just announced an extra $1 billion in loans to livestock farmers with zero interest on the first $100 000 for each producer.

Ottawa announces more aid for livestock industry

[Agriculture Minister Gerry] Ritz says the government is also streaming more money through existing support programs.

He says a producer with 400 head of cattle should get an extra $38,000 in cash and $116,000 in loans.
...
It's unclear whether the aid will be enough for farm groups, who have been calling for unsecured loans and new programs.
The Canadian Pork Council says the industry is facing a crisis of epic proportions due to high costs and low prices.

Indeed, grain prices have been rising recently in global markets, which in turn would raise the price of maintaining livestock. Also, according to Statistic Canada, the price of hogs is only at 77.9% of 1997 levels. The price of poulty, however, has risen by more than 11% over the last year.

Low hog prices must be indicative of either a bloated supply or of relatively weak demand. What is there to be gained by encouraging producers to produce yet more pork? Surely that would only lead to a further deflation of hog prices. And why is the government so eager and willing pad excess pork onto the federal budget?

Jack Layton, Defender of Free Trade

2006-04-29T05:27:00.000-05:00

The Moustachioed Socialist swoops in to defend the free market in response to the softwood lumber deal!

We had something called the free trade deal...with the U.S. and this completely violates it. It essentially says that the Americans can break the rules and when they're caught - caught many times by the tribunal under NAFTA - they don't have to pay up the full amount that they took inappropriately, so a billion dollars is still sitting on the table. And it means that other industries are going to look at the Canadian situation and say 'Maybe we should do the same. After all, it looks as though we can get away with it.'

Layton's also got a beef with the 34 percent market share restriction.

This is directly contrary to what the Prime Minister said in the House of Commons yesterday where he said very clearly, 'No tarrifs, no quotas.' Well, the agreement clearly has both tariffs and quotas.

Harper better watch his back!

Interestingly enough, these are tarriffs that now the Canadian government is going to charge, which means of course they'll have to come through the House of Commons as a tax measure, so we'll see what happens when that is brought forward.

Dun dun dun...

Actually, I'm curious too. Here's hoping that the opposition isn't just talking tough on this one.

Knock on Wood

2006-04-27T19:34:00.000-05:00

'Twas no mere rumour. The Prime Minister stood up in the House of Commons today to announce that a deal had been reached with the Americans on the longstanding trade dispute over softwood lumber. According to the PM's website:

The United States has agreed to Canada’s key conditions including:
Stable and predictable access to the U.S. market: there will be no quotas and no tariffs at current prices;
Repayment of duties: at least four billion dollars will be paid out to Canadian producers;
Provincial flexibility: there will be different compliance options in response to varying operating conditions across Canada; and
Certainty: the deal runs for a minimum of seven years with options for renewal at a later date.

Surprisingly, the PM also announced that the deal had the support of the provincial governments of British Colubia, Quebec and Ontario. Earlier in the week, Ontario's Minister of Natural Resources, David Ramsay, said that his government was "very upset with the deal that's there." Perhaps the third bullet point about provincial flexibility was enough to placate him. Regardless, the three major lumber-producing provinces were basically the only ones who could have gotten the deal scuttled at this point. Chalk one up for Stephen Harper.

There is surely some cause for celebration. The softwood lumber dispute has been a sour note in an otherwise good working relationship. With this out of the way, relations between the two countries should become more cordial, as befits the friendship that our countries share. Also, the mere fact that there is a deal now - any deal - will save a lot of grief for the Canadian lumber industry since they lose out the longer the argument simmers. On top of that, with the trend suggesting that the loonie will continue to rise against the dollar, the collected duties currently being held by the U.S. will end up being worth less the longer it takes to get them back.

That being said, there are plenty of reasons to complain. Canada may be getting $4 billion in duties returned, but that leaves $1 billion in the U.S., an amount which will likely end up going mostly to American softwood producers. It's a bitter pill to swallow, but it can be said that a good compromise leaves everybody angry. On the other hand, the first bullet point is a real concern. "There will be no quotas and no tariffs at current prices." What happens if prices change? The details are still murky, but it sounds like CTV got it right when they reported earlier this week that the deal would hold Canada to 34% of the American market. That is roughly what Canada's market share is right now, implying that a quota (or tarriffs) would end up in effect when current market conditions change.

It's free trade, as long as there are no free markets.

I argued before that Canada should not start a trade war over softwood (as Jack Layton suggested during the election campaign) on the grounds that Canada would ultimately lose that battle. But it seems that the government has confused withholding retaliation with capitulating. Canada has lost a few decisions at non-binding WTO tribunals, but has consistently won under legally binding NAFTA tribunals. Canada should have continued along that process, and if necessary, temporarily granting loans to the softwood industry to keep them afloat as the dispute persisted. Accepting anything less than free trade sets a bad precedent.

Softwood lumber breakthrough?

2006-04-24T22:31:00.000-05:00

From CTV:

Sources told CTV News on Monday that outlines of an agreement were hammered out by both sides following round-the-clock discussions. As part of an agreement:

Canadian lumber firms would be held to a 34 per cent share of softwood lumber in the U.S. market. It's roughly the share that Canada currently holds.
The U.S. would return 78 per cent of the $5 billion it collected in softwood duties beginning in 2002.
The remaining 22 per cent will go to the U.S. lumber industry to help defray the costs of their legal challenges. It is not immediately clear, however, how that portion will be distributed, or what form it will take.

If I was a part of the Canadian softwood lumber industry, I would be ecstatic if a deal has in fact been struck after all these years. It's not an outright victory, but it is better than a stalement.

However, as someone who has no direct stake in this particular dispute, I am not so enthused. Why are we accepting export quotas under NAFTA? It's hardly free trade if you ask me... And having to compensate the American softwood industry for waging their protectionist war is just a kick in the teeth.

Then again, this latest story may just turn out to be a false alarm. The plot sounds familiar...

Brief thoughts on the first Question Period of the 39th paliament

2006-04-06T23:30:00.000-05:00

Impressions from about 50 minutes of watching CPAC:

There was a lot of talk when the Speaker was elected earlier this week about making Question Period seem less like a circus. The much heralded return to civility lasted about 5 minutes by my count. There's just something about jeering while others are speaking that is simply irresistable to MPs of all stripes.
Stephen Harper is pretty funny sometimes.
Paul Martin is nowhere near the camera ...or a microphone. That's the way it should be.
Two Conservative MPs got seats on the opposite end of the floor. That must suck.
Independent MP Andre Arthur hasn't ripped into the CRTC yet. Or maybe I didn't watch long enough.
I didn't know that Jim Prentice is bilingual. Impressive.
Liberal defector David Emerson got hammered hard by Liberal MP Hedy Fry. On the second volley, the Prime Minister had to stand up to defend him. Emerson is probably going to be taking a beating on a daily basis...
It is not good that the Minister of Public Works is not able to answer questions in the House.
I really like the CPAC commercials with Tom Green.

Unwarranted Flak

2006-03-31T18:40:00.000-05:00

Some in the media have made fun of the vest that Prime Minister Stephen Harper wore during the trilateral meeting in Cancun this week with President Bush and Mexico's President Fox. I don't see what the problem is. To me it looks like normal attire for a Canadian Prime Minister to wear on such a journey.

Can you spot the difference?

Arik beats Bibi with eyes closed

2006-03-29T05:11:00.000-05:00

In Transparency International's most recent Corruption Perception Index, Canada slipped from 12th to 14th with a CPI index of 8.4 out of 10. It is hardly a terrible score, yet the stench of scandal in the wake of Judge Gomery's first report was enough to sink the Liberals on the January 23rd election.

Israel, which just held a general election yesterday, has a CPI score of 6.3. It has fallen to 28th in the rankings, and yet corruption did not end up becoming a major campaign issue. The stakes were higher than the cost of a few dollars in graft. Though social policies were indeed prominent, peace and security issues were the most pressing.

What made this election interesting was the upheaval of the political landscape that led up to the vote. First there was the controversial Gaza Disengagement Plan, pushed through by then-prime minister Ariel (Arik) Sharon. He did this despite objections from his own Likud party. His chief rival in the party, former prime minister Benjamin (Bibi) Netanyahu, resigned from his position as finance minister in protest. By the end of November of last year, Sharon was convinced that he could not advance his agenda as a member of Likud, so he decided to redraw the political map by founding his own party, Kadima, which drew members from both of the traditional parties (Labour on the left and Likud on the right). Less than a month later, Sharon was suddenly and unexpectedly removed from the political scene after he suffered a massive stroke. The final bit of turmoil leading up to the Israeli election came in January with the victory of the terrorist group Hamas in the Palestinian legislative elections, essentially ending any hope for a negotiated settlement.

As such, the choice facing Israelis was essentially narrowed down to either unilateral withdrawals - as favoured by Sharon's brainchild, Kadima, and supported by Labour - or holding on to Greater Israel, at least temporarily - as favoured by Netanyahu's Likud, among others. When the dust settled, it became clear that Israelis chose the former. Even though Ariel Sharon is still lying in a coma, Kadima managed to win the election with 28 out of 120 seats in the Israeli Knesset (parliament), while Labour came in second with 20 seats. The Likud party was dealt a huge blow, winning only 11 seats, which makes it only the fifth largest party in the Knesset.

The people have spoken, but here is the bad news. With the decimation of the Likud, Netanyahu's Thatcherite economic reforms will be off of the government's agenda. If anything, the likely inclusion of Labour into the government coalition will probably mean a complete reversal of the governments economic policies. This is especially worrisome because of Labour's chairman, Amir Peretz, who showed during his time as head of the Histadrut (Israel trade union congress) by frequently calling general strikes on a whim that he is completely irresponsible. The new prime minister, Ehud Olmert of Kadima, will have to keep him on a leash.

Bonus random thought!
Israel is an excellent example of why Canada should not adopt a system of proportional representation. Kadima and Labour, the two biggest parties, do not have enough combined strength to form a stable coalition by themselves. Such is the norm for systems with proportional representation. There are always a mess of small, often one-issue parties who extract concessions from the major parties in exchange for their support in a coalition, thus insuring consistently bloated (and confused) budgets.

Bonus related news item! [Updated 6PM, March 29th, 2006]
Canada takes a stand! The Foreign Affairs Minister, Peter MacKay, announced today that Ottawa is cutting off aid and contacts with the Palestinian Authority, now that Hamas has officially taken power. This is presumably in keeping with Canadian laws against financing terror organizations (Hamas has been blacklisted since 2002). Humanitarian assistance will continue through third-party organizations.

No Turning Back

2006-03-13T00:23:00.000-05:00

After a press leak delayed an earlier plan by Prime Minister Harper to make a surprise visit to Canadian troops in Afghanistan, today the PM finally made his first foreign trip, landing in a Hercules transport aircraft in the middle of a Kandahari sandstorm. Back home, NDP leader Jack Layton responded to the news by renewing his call for a parliamentary debate on Canada's role in Afghanistan. Harper would do well to ignore him. His trip demonstrates that that is exactly his plan.

In all likelihood, a parliamentary referendum on Canada's role would pass easily with the support of both the ruling Conservatives and opposition Liberals, who made the commitment while they were the government. But the time for debate has passed. It could be argued that a debate should have been held when the Liberals first made the decision, but that does not change two fundamental facts. First, Canada has made a firm commitment to the international community. Second, Canadian soldiers have already been placed in harm's way, so they deserve the full support of the Canadian people as they carry out their duties. As such, I applaud Mr. Harper for his visit to Afghanistan to support the troops. Upon his return, he should continue to ignore Mr. Layton, but should also remind Canadians what the rationale behind the mission is and why it is important to stay the course.

While I do think that Layton's position on this particular issue is completely amiss, he does have a point about how future military engagements should be handled. A parliamentary debate before deployments are set in stone would be beneficial in determining whether a mission has popular backing. Furthermore, if a mission is democratically decided upon, the debate will be over by the time the soldiers ship out, and they will be able to do so with full confidence.

But I do not go as far as Mr. Layton. Such parliamentary debates should only be held at the Prime Minister's discretion, not required by law. After all, the government may sometimes be called upon to react quickly to events. This was definitely the case after Jean-Bertrand Aristide was overthrown in Haiti. Had Canada and its allies dragged their feet for too long before deciding to intervene, Haiti may have descended into the dire straits of anarchy and it would have been too late. Afghanistan is not quite the same, as I am sure that the Taliban would continue to roam unabated (as per usual) in the Afghani countryside if Canada were to delay its mission to help the Afghani government extend its region of control.

Once Canada's current international commitment expires, Jack Layton and the other 307 MPs should be given the opportunity to debate a renewal. Until then, Layton should chew on his moustache and keep quiet.

Brokeback Charter

2006-03-09T02:24:00.000-05:00

Remember that thing that Paul Martin was using as a security blanket for two consecutive elections? You know, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Martin kept on blathering on about "defending the Charter", often in the context of his support for gay marriage. Well, I was reading through the Charter while researching for my previous post and I noticed a pretty glaring omission.

Equality Rights
15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Notice, discrimination based on sexual orientation is not explicitly prohibited.

Umm... Paul, maybe you could have come up with a more useful proposal for a consititutional amendment than removing the notwithstanding clause...

Individual Rights in a Mulitcultural Society

2006-03-09T02:22:00.000-05:00

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms enshrines fundamental individual rights, like freedom of religion and freedom of expression, as the law of the land, but not before hedging its bets. According to Section 1,

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

The question that follows is an obvious one. What exactly are the 'reasonable' limits?

The Supreme Court most recently dealt with this question in the Multani case, where it ruled that Orthodox Sikhs should be allowed to carry ceremonial daggers (kirpans) with them to school, in accordance with their religious beliefs. This overturned an earlier decision by the Quebec Court of Appeal which ruled that schools should be allowed to ban kirpans just as other "weapons and dangerous objects" are banned. The unanimous Supreme Court decision argued that banning kirpans at school would be a violation Section 2a of the Charter, which guarantees freedom of religion.

So where then is the limit of the right? If even the presence of daggers in schools can be justified by religious belief, does that imply that freedom of religion always trumps public safety concerns? Lest you draw the wrong conclusion, the Supreme Court's decision explains some of its reasoning.

The risk of G using his kirpan for violent purposes or of another student taking it away from him is very low, especially if the kirpan is worn under conditions such as were imposed by the Superior Court. It should be added that G has never claimed a right to wear his kirpan to school without restrictions. Furthermore, there are many objects in schools that could be used to commit violent acts and that are much more easily obtained by students, such as scissors, pencils and baseball bats. The evidence also reveals that not a single violent incident related to the presence of kirpans in schools has been reported. Although it is not necessary to wait for harm to be done before acting, the existence of concerns relating to safety must be unequivocally established for the infringement of a constitutional right to be justified.

Even now, the kirpan does not roam completely free. In the aftermath of the September 11th terrorist attacks in America, Transport Canada banned all "knives or knife-like objects" - including kirpans - from airplanes. If the question before the Supreme Court had been one of kirpans on airplanes instead of kirpans in schools, one could surmise how it would rule. In the case of aircraft, not only are weapons prohibited and thoroughly searched for, but even scissors have been confiscated during security checks, so it could not be argued that objects with potential use in a violent attack are easily obtainable. Moreover, the use of boxcutters by the 9/11 hijackers established unequivocally the danger of allowing any manner of sharp object onboard. Clearly, allowing kirpans on airplanes lies beyond the 'reasonable limit' of religious freedom.

But the debate over reasonable limits has been more prominent of late over the issue of freedom of expression. Murderous mobs have been marauding in the wake of the publication in Denmark's Jyllands-Posten of cartoons depicting the Muslim prophet Mohammed - no doubt egged on by some egregious forgeries. But the question being asked by cooler heads is whether or not Jyllands-Posten (and others that reprinted the cartoons afterwards) overstepped the bounds of free speech by publishing the cartoons.

Of the 12 cartoons, some indeed are offensive, like the one showing Mohammed wearing a turban with a bomb in it. Many of the others are completely innocuous to any non-Muslim observer - simple illustrations of Mohammed with no demeaning subtext. Yet even the latter type of cartoons have been at issue because they contravene the Muslim law preventing any depiction of Mohammed whatsoever, innocuous or otherwise.

Section 27 of the Charter instructs

This Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians.

Indeed, in its ruling on kirpans in schools, the Supreme Court also mentioned religious tolerance and multiculturalism as Canadian values that weighed into its decision. One might then argue that the limit to freedom of expression can be found at the point where it offends religious sensitivities, just as the Supreme Court argued that prohibiting kirpans "...is also disrespectful to believers in the Sikh religion and does not take into account Canadian values based on multiculturalism."

But there is a difference. A individual Sikh student carrying around a kirpan in school exercises his right to religious freedom at no one else's expense. The court was convinced that the kirpan did not constitute a particular threat (under certain imposed conditions) to the other students' right to live in security. On the other hand, the claim that muslims as a collective body have the right not to be offended by depictions of their prophet contravenes every non-muslim individual's right to both freedom of speech and freedom of religion (that is, the freedom not to follow sharia law).

The bounds of freedom of expression cannot be defined in terms of collective rights of other groups, but rather the rights of other individuals. Newspapers should only censor themselves in regards to things like libel or hate speech, which puts the rights of members of the slandered minorities at risk by inciting discrimination.

While multiculturalism is one of the most important facets of our society, we should not forget that the framework of that society is built upon the rights of the individual. It is not a common definition of blasphemy that protects our multicultural heritage. Instead, it is a recognition that each individual has the right to live according to his or her beliefs - as long as it does not impede other individuals' rights to do the same. It appears then that the reasonable limit lies at the edge of your neighbour's lawn.

A note on the American Ports Deal

2006-02-28T03:22:00.000-05:00

At first blush, I had no problem with the American deal to sell several ports to Dubai Ports World, a company based in the United Arab Emirates. It appeared to me that the uproar in the US over the potential dangers of the deal was based mostly on xenophobic economic protectionism rather than legitimate security concerns. Security, I thought, should not be a problem because, first, no one was suggesting that the Coast Guard would cease to oversee the port operations, and, second, because DP World has a financial stake in its own reputation, and would thus take the utmost care in preserving the company's image of a secure and competent manager of ports. Moreover, mere xenophobia is not a sufficiently good reason to block trade from the United Arab Emirates, which happens to be one of the most pro-Western Arab countries.

Once I had the chance to delve beyond the headlines, my discovery that DP World is wholly owned by the government of Dubai tempered my support for the deal. Indeed, it would be a positive development, both in the U.S. and Canada, if shipping ports are sold to private companies. As I mentioned before, since private companies have a stake in their own success, they are likely to maximize the efficiency of the operations while minimizing the risk of security breaches which would be detrimental to both their own assets and their reputation. However, the same can not always be said of publicly owned companies since their governments will always be willing to bail them out in the event of failure (witness Canadian Crown Corporations or even the likes of Bombardier). This deal, in effect, may just be ceding control of vital infrastructure to a foreign government, which may well be mired by the same inefficiencies as the domestic government, but is less risk-averse.

Several days later, my flip-flop on this issue is complete. Jerusalem Post has now learned that the Dubai ports firm enforces a boycott of Israel. From JP:

"Yes, of course the boycott is still in place and is still enforced," Muhammad Rashid a-Din, a staff member of the Dubai Customs Department's Office for the Boycott of Israel, told the Post in a telephone interview.

"If a product contained even some components that were made in Israel, and you wanted to import it to Dubai, it would be a problem," he said.

A-Din noted that while the head office for the anti-Israel boycott sits in Damascus, he and his fellow staff members are paid employees of the Dubai Customs Department, which is a division of the PCZC, the same Dubai government-owned entity that runs Dubai Ports World.

Moreover, the Post found that the website for Dubai's Jebel Ali Free Zone Area, which is also part of the PCZC, advises importers that they will need to comply with the terms of the boycott.

In a section entitled "Frequently Asked Questions", the site lists six documents that are required in order to clear an item through the Dubai Customs Department. One of them, called a "Certificate of Origin," "is used by customs to confirm the country of origin and needs to be seen by the office which ensures any trade boycotts are enforced," according to the website.

A-Din of the Israel boycott office confirmed that his office examines certificates of origin as a means of verifying whether a product originated in the Jewish state.

So there you go. This deal has nothing to do with free and open trade - it is, in fact, antithetical to the concept - and thus I had no reason to deride the American uproar. If this deal goes through, several American ports will be boycotting trade from an American ally with whom they have a free-trade agreement.

For the Americans, cancelling the Dubai ports deal will not be an excersize in xenophobia but, rather, a defense against it. Overturning this one will be a wise decision.

Integrity

2006-02-10T11:34:00.000-05:00

Garth Turner (Conservative MP for Halton, Ontario) is awesome. Read his blog - especially entries for the last week.

Did I know the potential consequences of speaking my mind, or sticking with the principles that brought me to this cold hill? Yeah, I did. I have been an MP before, and a leadership candidate and a cabinet minister. I have the hide to prove it. I know the PMO has a song sheet it wants all caucus members to sing from, and I know what happens when an individual chooses to go his or her own way. I was just hoping this time I would not be asked to choose – between party and principle.

I chose principle. My deepest loyalty is to what I believe, what I told the voters and what I want Parliament to become. The Emerson affair may indeed blow over. The minister may decide not to take the heat. David may turn into a cabinet star and a national asset. But he should still have the conviction to get elected a member of the team he chose. The same team that I chose, and fought like a warrior to join, helped by hundreds more and supported by tens of thousands of others. How could any member of caucus not privately feel the same?

A few nights ago, I made some pledges here. I pledged to remember that my job is not to serve the party or the prime minister, but rather the people who sent me here. I pledged to work to enhance the position of MP, because when that happens, the voters win. I pledged to share my MP’s power with you every way I could, and to speak up for middle class Canadians.

That voice may be a little fainter now, coming from that forgotten basement washroom office, but, dammit, it won’t quit.

Diminished Hopes for Senate Reform

2006-02-08T17:51:00.000-05:00

Despite reassurances that senate reform will proceed - even with Michael Fortier's recent appointment to the upper house - the whole notion of an elected senate is now in jeopardy. The Conservatives were proposing to do this without amending the constitution. Instead, the idea was to establish a process through Elections Canada that would elect a senator, who would then be appointed by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister, still, would have no obligation to appoint the senator-elect, but ideally would do so in respect for the new precedent, a new tradition. Stephen Harper was supposed to set this precedent, but with Fortier's appointment, he has instantly and permanently nullified any of his future efforts to reach this end.

It is very possible that by the time Harper's mandate is over, all the current senate vacancies filled by elected officials, including the seat to be vacated by Fortier himself by the next general election. The senatorial election may be a process firmly ingrained in the Elections Canada organization. All this may be accomplished and Harper will still have achieved nothing. The only precedent that will have been set is that even the would-be father of senate reform had no qualms about abusing his power to appoint for the sake of political expediency. Why would anyone expect any subsequent Prime Minister behave any differently?

The funniest thing ever

2006-02-07T22:49:00.000-05:00

From Canada.com via Babbling Brooks...

Stronach blasts Emerson's defection to Conservatives

"David Emerson is a fine individual. But I look at what Harper did and said when I left the party and I look at what he did to get David to come over and you have to conclude that's a double standard and hypocritical," said Stronach, a former Tory MP who crossed the floor to join the Liberals last year.

That's almost as funny as when Belinda was named the minister responsible for democratic renewal. Oh, the irony.

...

In somewhat related news, Tony Clement, the new Health Minister, announced in a media scrum today on CTV that he will be taking over Belinda's role as Minister of Complex Files. He did so while referring to the challenges he will be facing in his new post, unwittingly repeating Belinda's famous phrase, It's a complex file.

The Seamless Transition

2006-02-07T20:09:00.000-05:00

It's been a more than a day now since Harper revealed his new cabinet, which included David Emerson, an elected Liberal from Vancouver, and Michael Fortier, an unelected Conservative organizer from Montreal who is "temporarily" being appointed to the senate. (See my rants on the former, and the latter.) The official explanation seems to be that the appointments were made to ensure that Vancouver and Montreal - who, along with Toronto, elected no Conservative MPs - had some representation in the cabinet. What a bunch of crap.

First of all, if he was that concerned about Vancouver's representation, he could have appointed James Moore, a young talent whose riding (Port Moody - Westwood - Port Coquitlam) is not downtown, but is still in the Greater Vancouver Area. Second, physical presence at the cabinet table is not what is required in order to placate/woo the three metropolitan areas, especially if the electorate chose not to give you any representatives from there. A perfectly laudable method that could be used instead would be to act to address urban concerns. For example, Harper won praise from Toronto's mayor, David Miller, by appointing a respected and high-ranking Conservative MP, Lawrence Cannon, as Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

No, Harper has not done anything that is particularly out of the ordinary with the two surprise appointments, but that is why it is so galling. Canadians voted for change. Changeons pour vrai. Today's column from the Toronto Sun's Lorrie Goldstein asks, "This is a !!&?@? change?" So far, it looks like the answer is "Apparently not".

Appalling Start

2006-02-06T17:15:00.000-05:00

I spoke too hastily when I named my last entry "Bad Start". I wrote it quickly during my lunch break this afternoon in reaction to David Emerson's appointment. In hindsight, the title is exceedingly mild.

Here's something that I glossed over earlier. From CTV:

The appointment of Fortier as public works minister came as another big surprise.

Harper has no MPs in any of the Canada's three biggest cities, and he told reporters he appointed Fortier -- a key business figure, party organizer in Quebec and a former president of the Progressive Conservative party -- because he needs a minister from Montreal in his cabinet.

Fortier is not a Member of Parliament, and is being temporarily appointed to the Senate until a seat opens up in the Commons -- a move which seems to contradict Harper's pledge to reform the Senate by appointing only elected Senators as one of his first steps in the new Parliament.

But Harper said Fortier will run in the next federal election, and that he will step down from his Senate seat once he is elected to Parliament.

"Michael Fortier is leaving a lucrative, private sector job to take this (position) ... but it is only a temporary appointment. He has agreed that he will step down at the next federal election . . . and so this Senate seat will be available for elections, and we'll be proceeding with Senate elections in the not-too-distant future."

Conservatives have been talking about senate reform for more than a decade. They rightly argued that the senate lacks legitimacy because it is an unelected body. Now they are finally in power and their first act is to appoint someone to the senate. Does this mean that they now accept the legitimacy of the senate, now that they are in the position to make the patronage appointments? I don't care if the appointment is "temporary"; I'm stupefied.

Allow me to echo Coyne's call. Harper needs to avoid Martin's major pitfall, which was to stand behind bad decisions until the problems that result fester and become unmanageable. Harper needs to get approval from the people for these decisions. Neither Emerson nor Fortier should be allowed into cabinet until they are duly elected by the people that they are meant to represent. The new Prime Minister needs to act immediately to rectify the situation by announcing a by-election in David Emerson's Vancouver riding and a senatorial election for Michael Fortier.

The whole farce does not impress me in the least. Next time I might end up voting Green.

Bad Start

2006-02-06T12:19:00.000-05:00

Last week in Canadian politics was a week of speculation and hypotheticals. One by one, prominent Liberals were announcing that they would not be running in the party's leadership race. Still, many potential contenders remain, and none has yet to officially announce candidacy. One such person was David Emerson, who served as Industry Minister under Paul Martin. As of this morning, the suspense surrounding Mr. Emerson was no more.

Emerson was among those sworn in today as cabinet ministers in Stephen Harper's Conservative government. The man who the voters of Vancouver Kingsway elected as their Liberal member of parliament just two weeks ago is now the Conservative Minister of International Trade.

It's a reverse-Belinda, minus the confidence crisis. So much for the hoped-for end to surreptitious backroom deals.

Both the NDP and the Conservative emphasized ethics and accountability in their election platforms. It is one of the few issues of common ground between the two parties and one that they were widely expected to cooperate on. Yet there is one major difference between the two ethics packages. The NDP proposed that MPs who wanted to cross the floor to another party would have to submit first to a by-election. The Conservatives oppose this proposal on the grounds that it gives too much power to parties instead of individual MPs.

This goes back to the question of voter intentions. Do voters vote for candidates based on party affiliation or based on the individual merit? If the vote is based on party affiliation, it implies that it is immoral to cross the floor. If it is based on individual merit, then the constituents have expressed faith in their MP to make the right decisions, regardless of partisan affiliation. In our electoral system, however, there is no way to distinguish between the two options. Each voter makes up his or her own mind based on many factors and it is impossible to determine which factors overwhelmingly prevail in any given riding. This is why the NDP is right. A by-election is the only way to determine the voters' intentions, and is the only way to determine whether an MP has the moral right to cross the floor.

That's right, I'm agreeing with socialists. I think I just saw a pig floating by the window.

Holy shit, they're still flying in those things?

2006-02-02T18:48:00.000-05:00

From CTV:

Five crew members have been rescued safely after a Canadian Forces Sea King helicopter went down Thursday afternoon.

The helicopter was ditched about 50 kilometres off the east coast of Denmark at about 1:34 p.m., according to a press release from the Canadian Forces.

Good thing the crew is ok. I can't believe that Canada still lets its soldiers fly around in those rust buckets.

Full Circle

2006-02-01T01:15:00.000-05:00

Dig deep into the archives of this blog and you might happen upon my first ever post, "Ontario gets the shaft?". My inaugural entry, which dates back to May of last year, decried the Liberal government's unnecessary and counter-productive interventions into the economy with specific reference to subsidies given to Bombardier for the development of its C-Series jets. Allow me to quote myself.

Canada is purportedly a competitive market economy, and yet the Liberals continue to arm-wrestle with the invisible hand... If this latest CSeries Jet project was actually a wise investment, it could have easily been financed privately. Meanwhile, businesses around the country that are actually profitable are saddled with high taxes, restricting their growth prospects.

Guess what? It turns out it really wasn't such a wise investment. From CBC via Andrew Coyne:

MONTREAL (CP) - Bombardier Inc. (TSX:BBD.SV.B) has put its proposed transcontinental CSeries jet project on the shelf, blaming poor market conditions.

The company said Tuesday it has not scrapped the program but has put off indefinitely its launch after failing to get enough orders to proceed.

As Coyne so eloquently puts it.

Coyne's Fork on this is remorseless and absolute: If the project is uneconomic, it shouldn't get a subsidy. If it's economic, it doesn't need one.

Amen.

Belinda leaves the Liberal Party

2006-01-29T17:50:00.000-05:00

Belinda Stronach, former Minister of Complex Files, has decided to pursue a different avenue of public service. She has recently been spotted driving vehicles for the Toronto Transit Commission under the pseudonym "Lisa". Her managers at the TTC speak highly of her, but worry she might defect to GO Transit if offered the right incentives.

(Click on the image to enlarge.)

Lifting the Deep Malaise

2006-01-24T21:50:00.000-05:00

So the Liberals may survive the sponsorship scandal. But the affair points to a deeper malaise in Canada's politics. It is worrying that the Conservatives are considered unable to win even when the Liberals are laid low by scandal. Long periods of domination by a single party are not good for the health of any democracy, let alone one in which power at the national level is highly centralised.
-The Economist, December 1st, 2005

Today, Canadians clearly are ready for change. If not now -- if not after a painfully incoherent minority Liberal government, if not after a succession of scandals, if not after four full terms of deteriorating government -- then when? When is change acceptable if not now?
-The Globe and Mail, January 14th, 2006

Despite expectations at the beginning of this campaign, we are now one step closer to restoring competitive democracy in Canada - one step closer to curing the deep malaise in Canadian politics. 12 years of Liberal rule came to an end yesterday with the election of a Conservative minority government (Seat count: CON - 124, LIB - 103, BQ - 51, NDP - 29, IND - 1). Voter turnout was relatively high, 65%, reversing a trend of steady decline since 1988. The message to politicians was loud and clear: corruption will not be tolerated by the electorate.

The election result was not only good news for Canadian democracy, but for Canadian federalism as well. Despite being shut out entirely from the province of Quebec in the 2004 election, the Conservatives were able to pick up 10 seats with 24.6% of the popular vote. Indeed, the surge in Conservative support in Quebec was one of the biggest surprises of the campaign. Had the Conservatives formed government without electing a single MP from la belle province, federalism would have been in a precarious position. The same precariousness would have held true had the Liberals again formed the government, further imprinting in the minds of Quebecers that federalism and corrupt government are concepts one and the same. But yesterday's results turned out to be a blow to the sovereigntist movement. Paul Martin's huge blunder in declaring the election to be a "referendum election" thankfully did not backfire as Giles Dusceppe failed to win his long-desired aim of 50% plus one of the popular vote. The BQ's support dropped to 42.1% and they managed to win only 51 seats, less than the 54 they won last time, despite wide expectations (mine included) that their seat count would increase. Meanwhile, at the other end of the country, where increased political representation has not followed from growing economic clout, a newly elected Prime Minister from Calgary was able to say, "The West has wanted in. The West is in now."

Yet another welcome development in yesterday's frantic politicking came from the outgoing Prime Minister, Paul Martin. As Finance Minister in Jean Chretien's government, Martin was able to slay the deficit, but his short reign as Prime Minister has been an incoherent and unscrupulous disaster. Somehow, the Liberals managed to avoid complete decimation at the polls, escaping with 103 seats, even after running one of the most horrendous campaigns in Canadian history. It was difficult for me to watch Paul Martin spew his invective on the campaign trail over the last few weeks. It made me feel both nausea (from the vile rhetoric) and pity (from watching a once-proud man's self-immolation). But yesterday Paul Martin did the right and honourable thing. He recognized that the time has come for the Liberal Party to build itself anew. In his concession speech, he announced that he will continue to serve the constituents of Lasalle-Emard, but will be stepping aside as leader of the Liberal Party.

For the Liberal Party, the road ahead will require a lot of hard work. The situation they face now is similar to (though arguably less dire than) the one faced by the divided right-of-center parties who spent more than a decade wandering the political wilderness before the "unite the right" movement's culmination in yesterday's Conservative win. The warring factions of the Liberal Party will have to find a way to unite and regain the public's trust. To that end, there are several challenges ahead.

The most immediate problem facing the Liberal Party is that they are broke. According the Elections Canada, the last annual filing of the Liberal Party showed that they had accumulated $34,818,257.32 in debt. The next challenge will be to find a new leader. A swift anointment of Frank McKenna, currently serving as Canadian ambassador to the United States, will probably not do the trick. The Liberals need to hold a leadership race that will involve a serious debate about the direction of party. Finally, they will need to hold a policy convention with grassroots involvement in order to flesh out a Liberal vision for the country.

The Conservatives, for their part, now have a tremendous opportunity. The minority won by the Conservatives -- to judge by the numbers -- is a very delicate one, and appears to be even less stable than the last parliament. But there are several key differences that suggest that this parliament will be able to last at least 18 or 24 months. First of all, in the last parliament, both the Conservatives and the Bloc were itching to get to the polls to take advantage of the Gomery commission. This time, the Liberals will be busy getting their party's house in order and raising cash, and the Bloc will be wary of the Conservative beachhead in Quebec while there is no huge scandal to stem the tide. Second, if there is anyone who has a good chance of taming the three-ringed circus that will emerge in the next parliament, it is Stephen Harper. In his career, he managed to unite a squabbling Canadian Alliance party, he brokered a merger between the Alliance and the Progressive Conservatives, and, in this election campaign, he managed to steer a newly reunited party of ragtag misfits into the political center. I was not convinced of this before the campaign began, but Harper has shown that he can be a pragmatic and competent leader. It is now up to him to prove that this is the case if he hopes to earn a stronger mandate in the next election.

Harper's first order of business will be to dismantle the Liberal patronage machine that has been in operation for much of the last century. For reasons that I cannot understand, when Harper commented that regardless of who won on the 23rd, the senate, the judiciary, and the senior civil service will all still be decisively Liberal, the media played it up as a big gaffe. Yet the Liberals are guaranteed an absolute majority in the appointed senate until at least late August, 2009 and Liberal cronies in senior civil servant positions, like David Dingwall and Chuck Guité, have been central in several scandals. Harper's first piece of legislation, the Federal Accountability Act, will make government far more transparent and accountable. More importantly, in my opinion, Harper has promised to set up a process for democratically electing senators. If Stephen Harper accomplishes nothing else other than these reforms, he can consider his term in office a success.

Other items on the to-do list:
• Go on a diet
According to a CPAC documentary series on former Prime Ministers, R.B. Bennett thought a plump figure would make him look more respectable in a suit. Perhaps Stephen Harper, now somewhat removed from more slender days in opposition, shares that same prime ministerial outlook. Perhaps not. (See picture above.) I think it must have been the barbecue tour he did in the summer. The long periods of sitting during well-catered road trips for the last two months probably didn't help either. Thankfully, he has now earned a tentative respite from the bus tours.
• Repair our relationship with the United States
The United States is our largest trading partner and most important ally. Instead of trying to outdo Hugo Chavez with our anti-American slurs, we need to work cooperatively where there is common interest and engage constructively when there is a dispute.
• Fix the "fiscal imbalance"
I am pretty sure that "fiscal imbalance" is just a vague term used to describe provincial governments whining for more money when they can't control their budgets. If this is indeed the case, the "fiscal imbalance" is probably an even deeper-rooted malaise than the malaise that is the subject of this article. Nevertheless, Harper's promise to "fix" the imbalance was the motivation for a great number of Quebecers to vote Tory, so he better fix it. My hope is that his solution will involve a meaningful devolution of tax powers -- to provide a more stable provincial income -- and not a massive cash giveaway. The latter would surely result in Canadian premiers crowing even louder by the year's end.

I argued before that this election had little to do with policy; it was just a referendum on the incumbent Liberals. With any luck, the Conservatives will make the most of their opportunity and provide some good governance. With a little more luck, the Liberals do enough soul-searching to be inspired by a motive other than power for power's sake. Hopefully the next election will be a truly competitive battle of ideas instead of a mud-slinging competition. Canadian politics may yet emerge from the deep malaise.

Today, Vote for Change

2006-01-23T11:18:00.000-05:00

Just in case you need more proof that Paul Martin is going insane - proof beyond his shrill ramblings about abortion, his defense of indefensible attack ads, beyond his impromptu constitutional tinkering - then check out Paul Martin at a campaign rally yesterday playing air guitar.

Beyond the reasons I cited in my endorsement, the sheer nastiness, incoherence, and dishonesty of the Liberal campaign provide more than enough of a reason to vote for a change in government. The polls are open today. It's up to you. Go cast your vote.

The Globe and Mail weighs in

2006-01-23T10:57:00.000-05:00

Read the Globe and Mail's endorsement. (You have to be an "Insider Edition" member, but can sign up for a free 14-day trial.) I have quoted a sample below.

Today, Canadians clearly are ready for change. If not now -- if not after a painfully incoherent minority Liberal government, if not after a succession of scandals, if not after four full terms of deteriorating government -- then when? When is change acceptable if not now?

Ed Broadbent weighs in

2006-01-23T10:48:00.000-05:00

Former NDP leader, Ed Broadbent, who would make a great ethics commisioner, had this to say at a press conference on the weekend.

[The Liberals have] run a campaign that at best is incoherent, and at worst is deeply offensive. To women. To members of our armed forces. And to people who long for intellectual honesty in politics once more.

It is clear the Liberal Party no longer has the moral authority to deserve people’s votes. It is, simply, not the party it used to be or the party it portrays.

Mr. Martin’s team is running a campaign based on intellectual dishonesty. Cynical manipulation. And recklessly using significant issues for the sole purpose of continuing Liberal entitlement – which we know is used to benefit Liberal insiders, not working people.