Sunday, December 26, 2010

Europe's debt Crisis and Toronto Sun idiocy

Calling someone a social conservative used to be just a polite way of calling them a moron.

Today one need not even include "social". Calling them a conservative will suffice.

"The welfare state has roared back to bite the British lion in the rump.

Ditto for the Irish economy.

Saddled with massive debt and staggering under unaffordable social programs, both the British and the Irish are facing massive cuts.

Britain is cutting everything from the military to social services.

Ireland is bankrupt."


http://www.torontosun.com/comment/editorial/2010/12/22/16650641.html

The notion that generous social programs sank the UK and Ireland is nonsense and so is the acronym "pigs". Spain and Ireland were running surpluses. What sank Spain and Ireland was a huge real estate bubble and inability to devalue their currency. Ireland's debt to GDP doubled over night when the government guaranteed the debts of private banks. The same thing happened in the UK. City Boy bailouts are the main reason UK debt almost doubled.

As for viability of the Welfare state, no one has more generous social programs than the Scandinavian countries and no one in Western world has lower debt levels. Sweden, Finland and Norway have more assets than debts and Denmark virtually the same amount of debts as assets.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwood/2010/02/debt_deficits_and_growth

Tuesday, November 30, 2010

Conservatives big by election winners

The Liberals will not hold onto Winnipeg North. Parties do not win a seat by 40 points in one general election and fail to win it in the next general election. The NDP will take Winnipeg North in the next election.

Still, winning Winnipeg North was quite an accomplishment and Liberals should pat themselves on the back. For the first time in the post Martin era they did something right. That is the good news.

On the flip side is that if the Winnipeg North victory is if this is evidence of an down turn in the NDP fortunes, the Liberals are in big trouble. An NDP collapse in the next election all but guarantees a Conservative majority. Igantieff should be careful what he wishes for. If that NDP collapse, British Columbia Southern Interior, Nanaimo Cowichan, New Westmister Coquitlam, Sault Ste Marie, Skeena Bulkley Valley and Esquimalt Juan de Fuca will all go blue next election. People in these ridings do not shift from right to left and back again. They shift from one populist party or candidate to another. A weakened NDP will also mean that most of the following will also go blue: Burnaby Douglas, Victoria, Edmonton Strathcona, Elmwood Trascona, Western Artic, Welland.

Just as bad, the Liberals won Winnipeg North by playing the crime card. This may have work in few ridings were crime is major issue and NDP are strong and Conservatives weak, but it is bound to fail in virtually every other instance. The Conservatives own crime as an issue and rather than come up with an effective response the Liberals have chosen to tow the Conservative line yet again.

Of course not only did the Conservatives get confirmation that their get tough on crime stance is a political winner in Manitoba they also made major inroads in Ontario. Liberals can spin it however they want. The Conservatives are slowly reducing the Liberals to rump around Toronto Center. Toronto is looking more and more like the Dunkirk pocket everyday. With any luck Obama will send a flotilla to evacuate the besieged. The notion that the Liberals secured a moral victory by limiting Fantino to just under 50% of the vote is absurd. The so called pundits who thought that Fantino would magically win by more simply do not know their craft. The magnitude of the Conservatives victory, while not as impressive as what the Liberals were able to do in Winnipeg North, can not be understated. The Conservatives took 35% of the vote in 2008 and 50% this time around. Even more impressive is that virtually the same number of people cast the votes in favour of the Conservatives this time around as last.

Lamoureux's victory is an Aberration: Conservatives on Verge of Majority

The Conservatives are on the cusp of a majority. They have 145 seats as it is, more money than the other parties combined, they are better organized than the other parties, they dominant the political agenda, and finally they control the public purse. Kingston and the Islands, Mississauga South, Ajax—Pickering, Vancouver South, Esquimalt Juan de fuca, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, Malpeque, Brampton—Springdale, Welland, Brampton West, Edmonton Strathcona are all within their reach and it is easy to see the Conservatives taking a few more 905 seats that just a few years ago looked like save Liberal seats.

As for the Liberals, Kevin Lamoureux's victory was an aberration. Lamoureux won by promising to be tough on crime. In other words, he won by promising to be a Conservative in riding that would never vote for a real Conservative. People in virtually every other riding have no such hang up and Conservatives own crime as an issue. For many Canadians, the Liberals are like old friend that they no longer see much of any more or have much in common with and so give little thought to. The Liberals are short on cash, volunteers and it goes without saying ideas. The jig is up. The Liberals are no longer able to get by on nostalgia and regional divisions. While Ignatieff speaks glowingly of Pearson, the Canada Health Act and CPP, voters recongize the attempted bait-and-switch know that when the Liberals speak of "social justice" they do not mean a commitment to the truly popular notion of universality but rather a commitment to means tested social programs, affirmative action, asymmetrical federalism, pay equity, the intellectual abortion that is collective rights and other policies that neither interest the middle class or have their support. Take away the Liberals commitment to "social justice" and Harper's populace facade and their is little difference between the two parties.

Thursday, November 18, 2010

An "effective" Senate is an Undemocratic Intellectual Abortion

Constitutionally senators have all kinds of power and every once in a blue moon the Senate has stalled major pieces of legislation (e.g., free trade and the GST). However the aforementioned instances of stalling are so rare they are the exceptions that prove just how "ineffective" the senate truly is. Moreover, no senate I can think of has pursued a legislative agenda of its own accord; opposing legislation is one thing; purposing legislation is quite another. The reason the senate is not an "effective" body is that senators are not elected and as such lack legitimacy. Furthermore, senators are members of legitimate federal political parties and the parties that they belong to are loath to have their unelected members exercise real authority least their actions undermine the party. Finally, the fact that it is the ruling federal party and not, say, provincial governments that appoint senators defines a clear pecking order, with the Senate answerable to the House.

Harper, of course, wants to reform the Senate. And Harper being Harper has decided to kill two birds with one stone. He had Conservative senators vote down a climate change bill passed by the House that he did not like as a means of forcing other parties on side. Being unable to reform the Senate in one fell swoop, Harper has proposed electing Senators piece meal. Under the Conservative plan, new senators would be elected and would be limited to serving out a 8 year term. The elephant in the living room is that if the senate's lack of effective powers flows from the senate's lack of legitimacy, then electing senators might provide the senate with a degree of legitimacy it currently does not hold. One problem with proceeding thusly is that current senators are free to serve until the age of 75. As a result, Harper's actions could either transform an unelected political body with no real power into a largely unelected political body with real political power or commit Canadians to the farcical and expensive act of electing people to office who hold no real power. Always content to play the Tin Man and Lion to Conservatives scarecrow, the Liberals remain largely mum on the subject.

Setting aside problems associated with implementation, is the cause of democracy even served by reforming the Senate? Well, the Reformers always held that the regions needed more say and an “equal” “effective” and “elected” senate is the best way of achieving a balance between population centers in Eastern Canada and the rest of us. However, such a conception, and for that matter an "effective" version of the current senate, does not stand up to scrutiny. The problem is fivefold.

First such an argument rests on a false contrast; seats in the House of Commons are supposed to be assigned on basis of population, but in actuality that is not the case. Consider the 905. There are currently 4 plus million living in the 905 and there are currently 32 seats for an average of just over 127,000 people per riding. There are 6 ridings with over a 140,000 people in the 905, Bramalea - Gore - Malton (152,698) Brampton West (170,422) Halton (151,943), Mississauga - Erindale (143,361) Oak Ridges - Markham (169,642) and Vaughan (154,206). By contrast there are 4.5 million people in Sask, Man, NWT, Nuv, Yuk, PEI, NS, NFLD, and NB and there are 62 seats for an average of 72,000 people per riding. Moreover, there is but one riding in the 9, Selkirk Interlake (90,807), with over 90,000 people. Given current growth trends, there will be more people in the 905 than the aforementioned provinces and territories by 2011. Given population growth, Harper would have to give Ontario alone another 70 seats to make things half way equal.

Second, the people living in Canada’s less populated provinces have a mechanism to assure that regional concerns are addressed; it is called provincial jurisdiction and provincial representation. By the very nature of living in a province with a small population, the 135,851 people in PEI have plenty of ways of addressing regional concerns that are not available to, for example, the 136 470 people living in Mississauga - Brampton South.

The third reason is that while one person one vote is bedrock principle of any democracy, one province one senate vote is something else entirely. People, not provinces, deserve equal representation. A province is no more or less than the people that make up that province. Giving the 135,851 in PEI the power to determine everything under provincial jurisdiction, provincial representation and 4 MPs well all the while giving the 170, 422 residents of Brampton West one MP is bad enough as it is. Piling on and giving the 135,851 people in PEI the same number of “effective” senators, as per the American Triple E Senate model, as 12,160,282 Ontarians is beyond stupid and grossly undemocratic. Equally silly is having one "effective" Senator for every 72,997 New Brunswick residents (10 senators in total) versus one Senator for every 685, 581 BC residents (6 senators in total). And that is what the current configuration gives us.

Four, as Benjamin Franklin put it, having two equally matched houses makes as much sense as tying two equally matched horses to either end of a buggy and having them both pull. Having two houses is not only a lobbyists dream, it is a recipe for political gridlock and pork barrel politics. The only thing that would be worse is if one needed 60% of the votes in the senate to overcome a filibuster.

Five, leaving aside the fact that no province has a second chamber, most having abolished them long ago, and that there are numerous examples of unicameral nation states (e.g., New Zealand, Denmark, Finland, Israel, Sweden, Iceland, Liechtenstein, South Korea and Portugal), we already have a de facto unicameral state as it is -- just ask the supporters of a Triple E senate. After all, one can not argue on the one hand that the current senate is undemocratic and so contributes to the "democratic deficit" and on the other hand argue that the senate is “ineffective”. A body that adds nothing to the genuinely "effective" process can not take away anything either.

Monday, November 15, 2010

Coyne gets it wrong

Stephen Harper’s Tories can run $56-billion deficits, raise spending to all-time record levels, and grease every Conservative riding with layers of pork; they can abandon Afghanistan, coddle Quebec, and adopt the NDP approach to foreign investment; and still there exists in people’s minds another Conservative party, somewhere, for whom these policies are anathema.


http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/11/15/politics-all-the-way-down/

Yes the Conservatives are guilty of pork barrel politics. Yes the Conservatives are guilty of codding Quebec. However, Harper is no Mulroney and everything else Coyne he says is completely ridiculous.

As a percentage of GDP, government spending is neither high in comparison to other nations nor is it historically high by Canadian standards. Furthermore, the whole basis of Coyne's silly thesis is the fact that he uses the mid 90s as his measuring stick and never mentions that Martin cut government spending to levels not seen since the 1950s and the fact that he likes to focus on absolute spending and not spending relevant to GDP. Of course, Coyne never laments the fact that military spending is growing faster than any other area and is up 56% since 1999. Apparently in Coyne's mind, spending on programs that actually benefit Canadians is waste of money but engaging in expensive foreign wars that do not benefit Canadians in any way is our moral duty. Incidentally, a rise in military spending is something Coyne should lament. In marked contrast to health car, a rise in military spending in absolute terms is not needed to keep up with a rising population.

As for the notion that Canada has "abandoned" Afghanistan, never mind the missions complete futility and cost or the fact that our being there increases the chances that we will be attacked by terrorists home grown (e.g., Toronto 18) or otherwise (e.g., Al Qaeda claiming that we are a target because of our presence in Afghanistan) this is pretty strange assertion to make given that Canada has been there 9 years and that Canada has just signed up for 3 more years without Parliament ever been consulted.

Finally, the notion that Canada should act like a financially desperate country whose markets have been pried open by the IMF and world bank is just plain stupid.

Friday, November 12, 2010

Mulroney Lives

"Hockey Canada has authorized the creation of Team Quebec to host France, Italy and Switzerland in the proposed Quebec Cup next August in the provincial capital."

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/101112/national/hko_que_national

The treasonous fuck or fucks who oked this should be fired.

Wednesday, November 10, 2010

Liberals are not poised to Win an election: a rethink is needed

There is no chance whatsoever that the Liberals would win an election.

Over the course of the 40 years the Liberal fortunes have risen and fallen according to the ability to capture at least 70% of the seats in either Quebec or Ontario. For a majority the Liberals have needed to capture at least 80% of the seats in either of those two provinces. The Liberals are not competitive enough in the Western Canada for that calculus to change.

Canada is no longer divided against itself and so long as this holds true this is not a party in need of tinkering. It is a party that needs to be blown up.

One of the main stumbling blocks is that the Liberals and the pundits have never fully absorbed what happened to level of support in Western Canada following the 1974 election. Some of blamed the NEP and others have even claimed the gun registry played a part. The latter claim is ridiculous. The gun registry had no impact the Liberals share of the popular vote or their seat totals. As for the former, it was the fact that the Liberal vote collapsed in Western Canada in 1979 that paved the way for the NEP politically and not the other way around. The NEP was introduced after the 1980 election. The Liberals took 1 seat in the three most western provinces in 1979 election and 0 in 1980.

The source of the collapse was that the more emphasis Trudeau placed on individual rights and a commitment to linguistic equality the more the rest of the country, particularly the West, resented the Liberals inability to put a stop to bill 178 and and 101 and its willingness to make special accommodations for Quebec. Quebec's Official Language Act spelled doom for the Liberals in Western Canada from the mid 70s until collapse of the Progressive Conservatives in 1993. Ironically, it was the Mulroney's willingness to go even further in pandering to Quebec, particularly the Charlottetown Accord, that gave the Liberals some life again.

Of course, the Liberals response to Mulroney taking Quebec in 1984 and 1988 and subsequent success of the Bloc was abandon any thought of national programs and a national vision. The death of universality was the budget crisis of the 1990s and the notion that Quebec is special. This has rendered the Liberals forever impotent in Western Canada. Pay equity, collective rights, affirmative action, means tested social programs and other hall marks of modern liberalism have never had the same appeal in Western Canada as elswhere in the country and that is saying something. Outside of Quebec, such hallmarks are generally and rightly poorly regarded. What did hold the Liberals in good stead was when the NDP and Liberals were jointly pursuing universal social programs or basking in their passage. The success of one party generally meant the success of the other. Until such time as the Liberals recommit to universality they have no chance of gaining traction in the western provinces.

Thursday, October 28, 2010

Marijuana prohibition is comming to an end, but Ignatieff and the Liberals have not noticed

Marijuana prohibition will soon come to an end. Indeed, if Californians vote yes on proposition 19, the end will come next on Tuesday.

Legal production of marijuana in California will make the legislation of marijuana elsewhere in the US all but inevitable and extension in Canada as well. Obama is not going to go to war with California in order to maintain a federal prohibition and his unwillingness to tackle the issue head on will be mean the flow of legal Californian bud into the rest of the US will dwarf the amount of illegal Mexican bud going North now. Prohibition is not a half way proposition.

Speaking of Mexico, illegal producers there will be hit hard. However, low their costs are now in comparison to US producers, Illegal producers in Mexico will not be able to compete with legal producers in the US. Of course, Mexican producers will not be the only ones effected. Proposition 19 will spell the end of billion dollar export industry in Canada over night.

Now, even if proposition 19 fails, there is no putting the medical marijuana genie back in the bottle. You see, unlike in Canada, in California, for example, one does not have to be afflicted with a particular aliment to be eligible for medical marijuana. A doctor can proscribe marijuana for whatever they see fit. Needless to say, such a system is ripe for abuse and the Bush administration was right to see California's medical marijuana program as a potential Trojan horse. But Obama let Odysseus and rest the Greeks out. By failing to crack down on medical marijuana users and dispensaries Obama has allowed the medical marijuana industry in California and elsewhere to grow to the point there is no turning back now. There are more medical marijuana dispensaries in Denver than Starbucks.

The Liberals need to come up with a plan. Canada needs to come up with a plan. The loss of the billion dollar industry, albeit an illegal industry is going to have an impact.

The natural response, indeed, the only response, is to beat the Americans to the punch. Far from being political poison, as I said countless times before, there is a lot of political legalization has a lot of upside for the Liberals. It would drive a wedge between libertarians and Theo cons. It would appeal to people who would otherwise would not vote -- most notably young Canadians. It would be popular in very provinces that the Liberals actually have a chance of making headway, e.g., urban Ontario, British Columbia and Quebec. It would garner a lot of positive international exposure. It would leave the Conservatives defending discredited Reefer Madness arguments. Above all else, the lynch pin in the opponents arguments, viz. that the US will not stand for it, is quickly be worn away.

Friday, October 22, 2010

Conservative strong support of Israel is Daft

Conservatives like to speak of Israel as being alone in a hostile tyrannical sea. Nothing could be more misleading. Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and Turkey are part of a informal alliance knitted together by American largeness and the 3 latter three are have been key to Israeli security of more than 30 years now. Of course, the populations of the last four are hostile to the very idea of such an alliance and so special care needs to be taken by all involved. The question various Neo Con thinkers raised is whether this alliance is more trouble then it is worth. It does provide a military buffer to Iran and so is key to the continued flow of oil out of the Gulf. However, the governments of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan lack popular legitimacy --- as does to lesser extent the Turkish military -- and their restive populations resent the US for propping up such regimes. Not that any Neo Con thinker would ever admit it, but this situation is made all the worse by these populations getting daily reports from the Occupied Territories. Such reports remind millions of middle Easterners on daily basis of this informal alliance put together by the US for the purpose of securing the transfer of oil out of the Middle East at a cost many Arab nationalists tell them is less than true market value. Where this all comes back to the West is that various foreign jihidis have decided that it is easier to strike at the "far enemy" than the "near enemy" and more troubling still various 1st and 2nd generation Muslim immigrants to Western countries have decided to take up the cause as well.

All that being said, it should come as no surprise that I regard the the level of support offered Israel by the Conservatives as a form of insanity. In material terms, the aforementioned alliance helps the US manage the flow of oil in an out of the Gulf. However, it does nothing for Canada directly. In diplomatic terms all that aid gives the US a great deal of leverage. In diplomatic terms Conservative cheer leading coupled with Ignatieff's me toos, hurts our relationship with the aforementioned non-Jewish states and leaves us ironically in no position to help Israel out. We are lot more more valuable to Israel as low key member of the security council, for example, than we are as a vocal cheer leader pissing in the wind. Our strong support for Israel has no upside.

The only thing tempering the stupidity of such a approach is that we are not the target the US is. Noisy sidekicks are never the real price. Still, as has become readily apparent over the last 10 years, Canada can no longer consider its foreign policy without also asking questions about how this or that policy might impact upon domestic security. The Toronto 18 is a great case in point. The war in Afghanistan was what motivated the Toronto 18. As for the most recent batch of homegrown terrorists, I do not know specifically what motivated them. However, their choice of targets should have raised more eyebrows then it did. In the years leading up to their arrest, I had mentioned on a number of occasions what would happen if the Montreal subway was attacked. For example I wrote this last December: "Make no mistake if the Montreal subway is bombed and the motivation for the attack was the Afghan mission, there would be huge uptake in support for separatism. The PQ and Bloc will argue that the bombing is proof that Quebec needs its own foreign policy." The government can not afford to flippantly pursue policies that might increase the risk of a terrorist attack homegrown or otherwise. It is one thing to pursue policies that might increase the risk of terrorism, but are nonetheless in the national interest. It is quite another thing to pursue policies for cheap political gain that do nothing to further Canadian interests, increase the risk of terrorist attack and the chance of social strife and that is what Conservatives are doing.

Monday, October 18, 2010

The Sad State of Canadian Foreign Policy

Canada's ability to effect any kind of change at the diplomatic realm internationally depends on our ability to position ourselves as deal makers and "honest brokers" and until the Conservatives were elected that is exactly the strategy Canada took. The Conservatives approach, by contrast, emphasizes "principled" stances. On the face of it is appears as if the Conservatives have chosen to sacrifice Canada's ability to achieve much of anything in the world of international affairs so as to score points domestically.

However, things are a lot worse than that. The recent UN vote and UAE fiasco are evidence that diplomatically we are flying blind. Our official lines of communication and our back channels are so weak relatively minor disagreements are breaking out into the open and catching us completely unawareness and we do not have a any kind of grasp as how little influence with have in world. Complaints about "secret votes' are just a fig leaf meant to cover up the government's incompetence.

Friday, October 15, 2010

Conservative Foreign policy: Moralistic, Macho, Moronic

I do not know what is worse, the UAE fiasco or the fact that these bombastic simpletons thought they had 150 votes in the bag.

http://calgary.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20101015/cannon-un-101015/20101015/?hub=CalgaryHome

Thursday, October 14, 2010

The Stupid People's party Strikes Again

The Conservatives blamed Ignatieff for Canada not getting a seat on the security council. Far from turning attention away from the Conservatives this only focused attention on them. Talking points that are this asinine tend to grab headlines -- not just in Canada but abroad as well. The Guardian, for example, would never have bothered reporting the failure of Canada to secure a security council seat. It is just not the kind of thing that Brits care about. However, the utter stupidity of the such a talking point made it newsworthy. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/oct/13/canada-michael-ignatieff

The Conservative's most recent talking point is hardly better. Decrying secret votes and saying that they do care not about popularity contests are about as superficially appealing as Tim Hortons trumpeting of"steeped tea". Leaving aside the issue that secret votes make it less not more likely that such a votes become a popularity contests, a secret vote are the only kind of votes Canadians have. I doubt all those Conservatives worried about the supposed intrusiveness of the long form census would want someone looking over my shoulder to see who they voted for. Conservative Macho talk about laying it out on the table for everyone to see is just a canard. As for the Conservatives not caring about popularity contests, I think they protest too much. One does not make a meal out of something one does not care about. The Conservatives are caught in a performative contradiction.

Now, I do not want to disecte why Canada lost. What I would like to add is this. Harper's world view -- particularly when it comes to foreign affairs-- is not terribly sophisticated. It is high time we stop trying to breath intelligence into such policies by attributing machivillian motives to its authors. What we have is stupid talking points in defense of stupid policies. Full stop.

Thursday, September 23, 2010

The Liberals need to make the case

The Liberals decision to whip the gun registry vote was a step in the right direction, but people should not get too excited.

The Liberals still seem to believe that by sounding serious, flexible and sympathetic they will have a chance to win the next election. They are dreaming. A lot of the success Conservatives have enjoyed stems from the fact that however, stupid their arguments and policies, they are the only ones willing to put forward some. When pundits talk about policy or arguments used to buttress it; they deal with Conservative policies and arguments. The Liberals give them nothing to talk about. The Liberals have abandoned the field altogether; they do not put forward polices; they do not put forward arguments; they do not refute arguments. They might tut tut and promise to "compromise", but this only hurts them. The former makes them appear to be the effeminate wimps the Conservatives claim them to be and the later makes it appear that the various Conservative arguments polices have some validity when in actuality they have none. At best, the Liberals will sometimes take a stand in defense of the status quo. The aforementioned gun registry is a case in point. However, do not expect them to say much of anything when they do take a stand. They might note that the experts support them, but they will not repeat the expert's arguments least someone take offense to what the experts are saying and want to shoot the messenger.

Wednesday, September 22, 2010

Some Anti Gun registry arguments and how to handle them

"More people nationwide are for abolishing the registry than keeping it "


The most recent Decima poll put it at 48 38 in favour of keeping it.

"it has already been proven that the gov't can't enforce the registry."


Sure it can. It has a hard time getting everyone to register guns that predate the registry. However, they have no problem getting people to register new guns.

As for the issue of non compliance, tax evasion, drunk driving and speeding are common place, but that is no cause for getting rid of those laws.

"Koby, you think a winning talking point is:
the LGR will catch Canadian farmers, duck hunters who have not yet, but will, get a criminal record...?"


There are 1.8 million registered gun owners. It does not take a great leap of faith to believe that some will have a criminal record in 10 years time. It is certainly not beyond the grasp of your average Canadian. Of course what makes it especially easy sell is the ability to trot out more than decade's worth of stats showing just how many gun owning "farmers and duck hunters" have been convicted of crime.

"We all support the licensing of people who own firearms and the registration of prohibited or restricted weapons (such as handguns). That's not going to change; this Conservative government is unwavering in that. We know full well that criminals don't register their guns and that's what makes the long gun registry wasteful and ineffective,"



http://www.nsnews.com/news/Chief+Const+Lepine+Save+registry/3539157/story.html

Criminals can not register their guns. Being able to register a gun presupposes that one has a Possession and Acquisition Licence and a criminal record is grounds for being denied a PAL and for a PAL being revoked.

Semantics aside, this argument does not make much sense. Car thieves can not register their ill gotten goods with ICBC either, but I do see anyone giving this as a reason for not having to register cars. To make matters worse for supporters, it nearly impossible to on the one hand support registering hand guns and on the other hand demand that long guns no longer be registered. After all, the reason given for the latter position is that criminals do not register their guns period. Either one supports both or neither.

"Forget about those gangs, the Hell's Angles and your common bank robbers Canadians,
it's them there farmers that MIGHT go rambo that is scaring the h out of our town folk,"


1) 83% are homicides are not gang related. That said, as it allows guns to be traced back to their last legal owner, the registry makes illegal sales and straw purchases more difficult and so helps keep "law-abiding duck hunters and farmers" honest. "Studies have shown that in the US, states with both licensing and registration (versus one or the other) had fewer guns diverted from legal to illegal markets." http://www.aspq.org/DL/Declarationang.pdf

2) There are far more gun incidents in rural Canada than in urban Canada.

3) As far as your average law abiding citizen is concerned, they are infinitely more likely be killed by a loved one than by a gang.

4) The cops get calls by mental health professionals worried about a patient going "rambo" all the time.

West Vancouver police Chief: "We get calls from mental-health providers saying 'We're concerned about a particular individual.' We'll do that check and go and seize (their firearms) so they don't harm themselves or someone else."

Psychiatrist Barbara Kane: “I think we've probably prevented some major events,” says Dr. Barbara Kane, a psychiatrist in Prince George, B.C. The RCMP has called Kane asking whether she is concerned about certain individuals applying to register a gun. She believes such a call prevented tragedy after a millworker was fired. “He could easily have gone into one of the mills and done something bad,” she says. “But we were able to get his guns away from him.”

Tuesday, September 21, 2010

Liberals gun registry talking point sucks

The Liberals unwillingness to move past the tentative talking point about the gun registry being accessed x number of times every day has hurt them.

They would be in lot stronger position had they admitted the obvious. Namely, Gary Breitkreuz is right. The gun registry is, first and foremost a tool for seizing guns from people. What Breitkreuz gets wrong, and what the Liberals should gleefully point out, is that there have been thousands of "Canadian farmers, duck hunters", who acquired a criminal record over the last 12 years and given the huge number of gun owners, one can safely say that over the next 12 years there will be thousands more. Abolishing the "long gun registry" would make it easier for some criminals to keep their guns.

Of course, there is no reason to stop there. One of the main Conservative talking points is the following. "We know full well that criminals don't register their guns and that's what makes the long gun registry wasteful and ineffective," Now it is not so much that criminals do not register their guns and they can not register their guns. Semantics aside though, this talking point does not make much sense. Car thieves can not register their ill gotten goods with an auto insurer either, but I do see anyone giving this as a reason for not having to register cars. To make matters worse, it nearly impossible for the Conservatives to on the one hand throw their support behind registering hand guns and on the other hand demand that long guns no longer be registered. After all, the reason they give for the latter is that criminals do not register their guns period. The Conservatives can not have their cake and eat it too.

Saturday, September 18, 2010

John Weston's embarrassing gun registry comments

John Weston:
"We all support the licensing of people who own firearms and the registration of prohibited or restricted weapons (such as handguns). That's not going to change; this Conservative government is unwavering in that. We know full well that criminals don't register their guns and that's what makes the long gun registry wasteful and ineffective,"


http://www.nsnews.com/news/Chief+Const+Lepine+Save+registry/3539157/story.html

Criminals can not register their guns. Being able to register a gun presupposes that one has a Possession and Acquisition Licence and a criminal record is grounds for being denied a PAL and for a PAL being revoked. However, this does not mean that some criminals do not try to register their guns. "More than 1,500 Canadians were refused licences for their guns from 2006-2009, on the basis of background checks triggered when they went to register the weapons." The most common reason for denying these gun owners a license was that they were a risk to others. "The program revoked another 6,093 licences in the same period as a result of continuous screening, court orders and complaints to its public safety line. http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/gunregistry/article/863178--why-gun-control-is-really-a-gender-issue?bn=1

Semantics aside, Weston's argument does not make much sense. Car thieves can not register their ill gotten goods with ICBC either, but I do see anyone giving this as a reason for not having to register cars. To make matters worse for Weston, it nearly impossible for him to on the one hand throw his support behind registering "prohibited or restricted weapons (such as handguns)" and on the other hand demand that long guns no longer be registered. After all, the reason he gives for the latter is that criminals do not register their long guns as well as their prohibited and restricted weapons. Weston can not have his cake and eat it too.

Weston:
"This is a big distraction. It has been politicized. There is an unfortunate need for the Liberals to defend their waste of the $2 billion by continually coming up with justifications.


The Conservatives like to hammer the Liberals over the cost of the gun registry and rightly so. That said, the gun registry's 1 billion dollar price tag does not have any baring on whether long guns should be registered. What matters is whether the annual cost (between 1.5 and 4 million dollars) of registering long guns is worth it. Implying that the initial cost over runs justify dumping any part of the gun registry now is akin to saying the gazebo in Tony Clement's riding should be blown up because the Conservatives spent 1.3 Billion on a three day conference . http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/liberal-staffer-accuses-tories-of-trying-to-discredit-auditor-general/article1667099/ It makes no sense.

Now as for the justifications the Liberals have given for continuing to register long guns, other than to point out that the fact that the gun registry is used x number of times each day by the police, the Liberals have said remarkably little about the gun registry over the years. Their refusal to say much more has hurt them. They would have been in much better place had the continually come up with justifications.

Moving on, it is rich of Weston to imply that the Liberals have politicized the issue more than other parties. Not only have the Liberals not continually come up with justifications, they have spent a fraction of the Conservatives have on the issue. The Conservatives have spent money on radio ads and billboards. The Liberals have not.


Weston:
"This is a big distraction. It has been politicized. There is an unfortunate need for the Liberals to defend their waste of the $2 billion by continually coming up with justifications.
There's an Angus Reid poll that says 72 per cent of Canadians want the registry scrapped. There was a nationwide survey of rank-and-file police officers that said 92 per cent of them thought the registry was ineffective."


In 2006 Conservative candidate form Ajax Pickering famously said “The facts don’t matter.” I see John Weston is of the same mindset.

The auditor general put the cost of the gun registry at just under 1 billion, no Angus Reid poll ever showed those numbers and and this so called nationwide survey of rank and file police officers was chat room poll and so was no more scientific than Ted White's many "polls". My hat goes off to the North shore News for pointing this out.

"Setting up the registry ran notoriously over budget, reaching nearly $1 billion, according to the federal auditor general."


"In fact, the Aug. 24 Angus Reid poll of 1,005 Canadians reported that 44 per cent favoured scrapping the registry, with 35 per cent opposed and 21 per cent unsure. The police survey was an unscientific online poll conducted by an Edmonton officer on a police chat forum. The forum's operator later disavowed the survey, calling the results "mixed and inconclusive."


http://www.nsnews.com/news/Chief+Const+Lepine+Save+registry/3539157/story.html

By the way, this is what the most recent poll shows.

"Overall, 48 per cent of those surveyed believe it's a bad idea to abolish the registry, with 38 per cent supporting its abolition. (Harris/Decima interviewed just over 1000 Canadians. A sample of this size has a margin of error of 3.1 per cent, 19 times out of 20.)"


http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/gunregistry/article/863178--why-gun-control-is-really-a-gender-issue?bn=1

John Weston:
"The answer remains that we don't have any documented cases -- that I know of -- where the registry has performed its avowed purpose," he said. "In each case, if you look closely the registry would not have saved the victim. It's not doing its job. All it's doing is intruding on the liberties of Canadian farmers, duck hunters, and other law-abiding gun owners."


The gun registry is, first and foremost a tool for seizing guns from people who should no longer have them. I doubt even Weston would deny that it makes the seizure of guns easier. This was the thrust of what West Vancouver police chief Lepine said.

"Having a detailed inventory of the 4,029 registered firearms in West Vancouver helps police with court-ordered seizures of weapons from convicted offenders, said Lepine. If legally held weapons are stolen and eventually surface somewhere in the criminal economy, the registry records give officers a place to start in their investigation, he said.

"The next one is public safety. We get calls from mental-health providers saying 'We're concerned about a particular individual.' We'll do that check and go and seize (their firearms) so they don't harm themselves or someone else."


http://www.nsnews.com/news/Chief+Const+Lepine+Save+registry/3539157/story.html

The problem is that Weston refuses to acknowledge that sometimes legally registered weapons need to be seized because the owner has, for example, been convicted of a crime. In this he is not alone; I have yet to hear a Conservative acknowledge that there have been thousands of "Canadian farmers, duck hunters", who acquired a criminal record over the last 12 years and over the next 12 years there will be thousands more.

As for specific examples, Weston must not have looked very hard.

“I think we've probably prevented some major events,” says Dr. Barbara Kane, a psychiatrist in Prince George, B.C. The RCMP has called Kane asking whether she is concerned about certain individuals applying to register a gun. She believes such a call prevented tragedy after a millworker was fired.

“He could easily have gone into one of the mills and done something bad,” she says. “But we were able to get his guns away from him.”


http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/gunregistry/article/863178--why-gun-control-is-really-a-gender-issue?bn=1

Thursday, September 16, 2010

Liberal messaging and the media

For years the Liberals have assumed that they can talk directly to the public. They are wrong. First all of all, the Liberals are not in government and so much of what they have to say is not newsworthy. Secondly, most of what the Liberals say is such thin stuff it is lucky they get any news coverage at all. The Liberals are boring. Not only is the party not coming up with interesting policy proposals, but the Liberals stubbornly refuse to talk about any issue intelligently least they offend someone. This holds true even for issues they do support. Take the gun registry. Beyond pointing to the fact that police forces around the country access the gun registry x number of times every day, the Liberals have not said a thing.

Another mistake the Liberals have made is they have been slow to realize one does not need to be on the right side of public opinion to make political gains. The public often do not care deeply about this or that issue. What is important in these cases is that parties speak intelligently about the issue. After all, being on the right side of public opinion in these cases does not have much upside. Worse, if the talking points are badly crafted, stating a popular opinion badly may actually hurt a party. Such was the case with the census. The decision to dump the voluntary long form was popular enough, but Conservative talking points were so asinine they became media fodder and punchline to various jokes.

Yet another mistake the Liberals make is that they do not spend nearly enough time poking holes in their opponents arguments. To expand on what was said above with regard to the census, the Liberals spent virtually all of their time talking about how various interest groups make use of the census. Given the fun the media were having with Tony Clement and the fact some Conservatives were saying that denying funding to special interests was exactly the point, the Liberal approach was utterly misconceived. Never mind giving credence to a Conservative talking point. Tony Clement was digging a big hole for himself and Liberals should have been gathered around and pissing in it. A good reductio ad absurdum is one of the most deadly weapons in an opposition's MPs arsenal. The Liberals do not seem to realize this.

Finally, the Liberals need to realize that not much of their message reaches the public unfiltered and much of what the public knows about the issues the Liberals care about is what they pundits have to say about them. Least they continue to give various conservative pundits free reign, something that they have done since Trudeau stepped down, the Liberals have to go to the trouble of putting out detailed arguments. These arguments might never reach the public, but the pundits will have to deal with them and what the pundits say does reach the public.

Wednesday, September 08, 2010

Carney wrong to Raise Interest Rates

Declining GDP numbers Check
Talk of Double dip recession Check
Talk of further US Job losses Check
Canadian personal debt levels out of control Check
Talk of a housing bubble Check


There was no reason for Carney to raise interest rates.

Raising interest rates means the Canadian dollar will go up against the US dollar. Thus making are exports less competitive at time of low demand in the States. It also ultimately increases people's mortgage payments. Carney is right to be worried about Canadians being overstretched and burdened by the high cost of housing. However, demand for housing is way off last years pace. In other words, there is no housing market to cool off. Worse, raising interest rates now will only send more people over the edge and so could burst and already deflating bubble. Housing bubbles are a bad thing. Bursting a housing bubble, as opposed to slowly letting it deflate, is much much worse though.

Putting pressure on Harper to increase the requirements for taking out a mortgage is a far more effective way of preventing Canadians form taking on too much mortgage debt than increasing borrowing costs for everyone and increasing the interest charges on existing mortgages.

The pundits, the gun registry and "law-abiding duck hunters and farmers"

What separates a good pundit from a bad one is 1) the ability to unpack and critique political talking points, 2) a willingness to step back from politics and assess an issue honestly and 3) an abhorrence of political boiler plate. Pundits are not extensions of political parties -- or least they should not be.

This summer Canada's pundits have done a pretty good job. They ruthlessly mocked the Conservatives census talking points and did not pay much heed to the Liberals had to say on the subject. The Liberals deserved to be ignored and the Conservatives laughed at.

Enter the "long gun registry". The long time Liberal talking point about the gun registry being used by police x time of times a day is pretty thin gruel and the pundits have long be right to ask where is the beef. That said, this is no reason to leave the various Conservatives talking points virtually untouched and that is exactly what has happened over the years. For starters there is no reason for letting the Conservatives talk about a "long gun registry". There is but one registry -- a gun registry.

More substantively, consider the following talking point.

Stephen Harper:
"Canadians have been very clear. They want us to spend our time and our money focusing on the criminal misuse of firearms and not going after law-abiding duck hunters and farmers."


http://www.nationalpost.com/Police+chiefs+endorse+registry+over+Tories+plan/3435694/story.html#ixzz0ytLV3cVbOf


Pundits have rightly noted that while it costs around 3 million a year to register long guns, had the Conservatives continued to collect monies for these guns (about 15 million annually), then there would be no cost to tax paper whatsoever. They have also noted despite the gun registry's 1 billion dollar price tag, saying these cost overruns justify dumping any part of the gun registry now is akin to saying the gazebo in Tony Clement's riding should be blown up because the Conservatives spent 1.3 Billion on a three day conference . http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/liberal-staffer-accuses-tories-of-trying-to-discredit-auditor-general/article1667099/ It makes no sense.

However to leave at that is not enough. After all, the number of legal gun owners in Canada, is huge (just over 2 million) and as with any large population certain predictions can be made about their future behavior. One thing we can know for sure is that a sizable number of "law-abiding duck hunters and farmers" in absolute terms will be convicted of a crime sometime in the future and that an equal or greater number will develop a mental disorder that will render them unsuitable for gun ownership.

Between 1999 and 2008 22,523 licenses refused or revoked. By having "law-abiding duck hunters and farmers" register their firearms, authorities can ensure that guns, owned by "duck hunters and farmers" who are no longer fit to own a gun, are properly disposed of. A gun license only indicates that person has the right to own a firearm. It does not tell the cops whether someone actually owns a gun or how many guns they might have. In sum, the gun registry helps keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Indeed between November 2008 and April 2009, the police seized about 3600 registered guns. Based on their rhetoric, the registry is therefore something Conservatives should support not oppose.

Furthermore, as it allows guns to be traced back to their last legal owner, the registry makes illegal sales and straw purchases more difficult and so helps keep "law-abiding duck hunters and farmers" honest. "Studies have shown that in the US, states with both licensing and registration (versus one or the other) had fewer guns diverted from legal to illegal markets."

http://www.aspq.org/DL/Declarationang.pdf

Finally, the pundits can no longer be so concerned with only what the political parties have to say on the subject and so miss the guy in gorilla suit. http://www.livescience.com/health/invisible-gorilla-basketball-video-inattentiveness-100712.html Suicide is at the center of the academic debate about gun control and one can not ignore it and still remain credible. A significant number of "law-abiding duck hunters and farmers" and their family members in absolute terms use long guns to commit suicide.

Saturday, August 21, 2010

Canada needs way more Immigrants --- skilled immigrants

The average Canadian in 2004 was 39.7; that makes Canada one of the oldest nations on earth. However bad things are now things promise to get a lot worse. The percentage of Canadians over 65 is set to go from 14.7 now to 27.6 in 2050. If the situation was ever allowed to get this bad, the economy would at best be stagnate, the federal government would surely be in deficit, and virtually every public entitlement program would be under enormous pressure or would have already collapsed. Most notably our health care system would be in serious trouble. Indeed as it stands now "People age 65 and older accounted for 13.2% of the Canadian population but consumed an estimated 44% of provincial and territorial government health care spending in 2005."

The problem is this.

In 2005, per capita health care spending was found to be highest at the beginning and at the end of life but, in general, to increase exponentially with age. While 65- to 74-year- olds consumed $6000 per capita, 75- to 84-year-olds consumed $11 000 per capita, and 85-year-olds (and those older) consumed $21 000 per capita, on average. In comparison, per capita health care spending among those age 1 to 65 was approximately $1700.[While 65- to 74-year- olds consumed $6000 per capita, 75- to 84-year-olds consumed $11 000 per capita, and 85-year-olds (and those older) consumed $21 000 per capita, on average. In comparison, per capita health care spending among those age 1 to 65 was approximately $1700.


http://www.bcmj.org/canada-s-coming-age-how-demographic-imperatives-will-force-redesign-acute-care-service-delivery

This problem is not going to go away. Even if today's 60 is tomorrow's 70, we all die and most deaths are preceded by some kind of serious illness. As a critical mass of people reach whatever is the average life expectancy, they will cost the system more -- a lot more.


The notion that this problem can be addressed by encouraging Canadians to have more kids is unrealistic. Currently Canada has the 144 highest fertility rate and our birth rate is 190th in the world. http://www.photius.com/rankings/population/birth_rate_2010_0.html
What goes for Canada goes for the rest of the Western world. There is not one Western nation with a fertility rate above the replacement rate yet alone one with a fertility rate high enough to withstand the aforementioned increase in the number of seniors as percentage of the total population.

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=sp_dyn_tfrt_in&idim=country:CAN&q=fertility+rate+canada

To think that Canada has chance of nearly doubling its current fertility rate of 1.6 -- and that is what it would take -- is pie in the sky nonsense. Moreover, far from making things better a massive baby boom would only increase an already mushrooming dependency rate for a good number of years. There is something perverse about wanting Canada to become a country of the very old and very young supported by taxes on a rapidly shrinking working population.

Canada has no option but to continue with a high rate of immigration.

Immigration is allowing us to make some headway. 2001 study found that based on 1996 census if Canada did not allow any immigrants, then the number of seniors as percentage of the population in 2050 would be 29. 8. If on the other hand Canada let in 225,000 annually, then that number would drop to 25.4. Finally, if Canada let in 450,000 annually that number would drop further still to 22.9. http://sociology.uwo.ca/popstudies/dp/dp03-03.pdf Of course, if 450,000 annually is good, somewhere between 500,000 and million is even better. Finally, the latter number and more of an emphasis on youth would be best of all.

That is the good news. The bad news is that Canada's immigration system badly needs to be reformed and for reforms to mean anything Ottawa needs also needs to reestablish that immigration is a federal issue. Indeed, what is the point of reworking the points system, for example, if Gordon Campbell and his ilk are working with big business to set up a rival system in which restaurant hostess is a skilled position?

Family reunification is a great place to start. There is no reason why an immigrant should be able to bring in anyone other than his spouse and dependents. After all, if the main point of a high rate of immigration is to lessen the effects of an aging population, what sense does it make to allow immigrants to sponsor their parents and grandparents?

Family reunification is part of a larger problem, viz., the ratio of skilled principle applicants as percentage of the over number of immigrants to Canada is way too small. Currently less than one in 5 immigrants is a skilled principle applicant. And however much I am loath to admit it, the Mark Steyn's of the world are right about one thing. Allowing someone to immigrant to Canada has a huge potential cost associated with it. This especially so with regard to any other category of immigrant other the skilled principle applicants. After all, it is only skilled principle applicants that earning anywhere close to what their Canadian peers are earning and skilled principle applicants are the only category of immigrants that are working in numbers that even approach the Canadian average.


"At 26 weeks after their arrival, 50% of all immigrants aged 25 to 44 were employed. This was 30 percentage points below the employment rate of about 80% among all individuals aged 25 to 44 in the Canadian population. ... At 52 weeks after arrival, the employment rate among prime working-age immigrants was 58%. This narrowed the gap to 23 percentage points. At 104 weeks, or two years after arrival, the employment rate among prime working-age immigrants was 63%, 18 percentage points below the national rate of 81%. ... Immigrants admitted as principal applicants in the skilled worker category had an even better record for employment. At 26 weeks after arrival, the gap in the employment rate between them and the Canadian population was 20 percentage points. By 52 weeks, this had narrowed to 12 points, and by two years, it was down to 8 points."


http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/051013/d051013b.htm

If you tease out the numbers, 55% of non principal skilled applicants in the 25 to 44 age group are working after 2 years! Canada needs to do a better job of ensuring that immigrants are able to succeed and while some bleeding hearts will no doubt claim that a complete turn around is possible, an approach that is far more likely to bare fruit is eliminating or greatly limiting those categories of immigrants that are not likely to succeed economically. To say that Canada needs immigrants is only half right. We need young well educated immigrants who are proficient in English. Indeed, we need a lot more than what we are allowing in now. We do not, however, need their parents and grandparents. We also do not need refugees. Most of all what Canada does not need is cheap unskilled guest workers.

Given Jason Kenney's stated desire to avoid “the kind of ethnic enclaves or parallel communities that exist in some European countries” and Mark Steyn's rantings about second generation Islamic exterminism in Europe you would think that Kenney and Steyn would reel back before the subject of guest workers like vampires before garlic. Instead, Steyn's musings reduce to an infantile and bigoted ethnic essentialism and Kenney seems hell bent on allowing more guest works than Germany did in the 1960s and 1970s.

Indeed, whereas the typical guest worker was once an American transferred to a branch office in Canada, the fastest growing category of guest worker is now the unskilled type with poor language skills. Under the Conservatives, Canada has allowed in some two hundred thousand plus unskilled workers a year. In other words, the average Canadian tax payer now pays through the noise to have cheap labour sent in from other countries for the sole purpose of cutting his wages. Forget Conservative talk about such provincial programs bringing in much needed skilled workers, this was the kind of positions Alberta was hoping to fill through its guest worker programs this summer: Front desk clerk, short order cook, baker, maid, assembly line worker, server, buser, bellhop, valet, and cafeteria worker, laundry attendant, pet groomer, general labourer, and hair dresser. All that is required of such would be immigrants is that they score 4 or 24 on the language assessment. In other words, they can still be functionally illiterate and still get it in.

Pace Mark Steyn, Integrating immigrants is really quite simple. If you bring in young well educated immigrants that are fluent in English, they will integrate. It will not matter a lick what their background or skin colour is. On the other hand, if you bring in non English speaking uneducated immigrants to clean toilets and serve donuts at Tim Hortons, you have recipe for what happened in Europe, viz, poor race relations, xenophobia and illegal immigration. It is really that clear cut and Kenney should know this. Every expert on immigration does.

It takes a great deal of chutzpah to Kenney to talk about wanting to avoid “the kind of ethnic enclaves or parallel communities that exist in some European countries” and then go about encouraging the very thing that led to the creation of these communities in Europe, viz., importing gobs of unskilled guest labour.

In addition to letting in more skilled immigrants and less of everyone else, Canada needs to refine what it means to be skilled applicant.

The point system is a mess. It is weighted, accidentally I am sure, in such a way as to favour older applicants over younger ones. A premium is placed on experience, being married is advantageous and age is not penalized much at all. For example, a 49 year old is given the same number of points for age as a 21 year old! Not only is all this is completely at odds with the stated aim of using immigration to mediate some of the stresses of having a low birth rate, a shrinking supply of labour and a graying population, the very kind of skilled worker most likely to fail, viz., older workers is the one most likely to qualify.

Indeed, while everyone agrees that Canada needs to be a better job of recognizing foreign credentials, what has gotten less attention is just how hard it is establish oneself in a particular field without any contacts in that field and work contacts are what many new immigrants lack. As various studies have shown, for immigrants outside of the Western world, work experience counts for virtually nothing as at all. For this reason alone, Canada needs to redo its point system such that it looks to attract younger skilled workers who are not at such a disadvantage contact wise as their peers.

Above all else though Canada need put more of an emphasis on language proficiency. After all, although Jason Kenney may let in hundreds of thousands of unskilled guest workers with little or no English, he is right to say that language proficiency is best predictor of economic success.

It should be noted that by language proficiency I mean ones ability to converse in either French or English. Currently, moderate proficiency across the board in both English and French is amounts to the same thing high proficiency in one! This is akin to thinking an average switch hitter is the equal to all star who bats only right handed.

All that being said, in order to get at appreciation for some of the short comings of the current points system consider this. Under the current formula, a single 26 year old who has just completed a PHD in Canada, and who speaks perfect English, but who lacks relevant work experience and is not proficient in French would likely not qualify. Indeed, assuming no family ties and no relevant work experience, they would score 56 out of 100. In other words, if they were not able to quickly secure a job in one of the relevant fields, they would be heading back to their country of origin in short order. Even, if that same applicant spoke perfect French and English they would still not qualify. They would score 64 out of 100.

By contrast a 49 year old who has never set foot in the country and speaks no French but has a BA, 3 years experience, moderate English skills a spouse with a 1 year diploma, and a cousin in distant Canadian city would score 67! This is absurd.

Wednesday, August 18, 2010

The Stupid People's party and how to respond to the Stupid things they say

Andrew Coyne is aghast that the Conservatives would seek to be the stupid people's party. http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/08/17/a-know-nothing-strain-of-conservatism/ He is right to be. As he says, "A society that holds education and expertise in contempt, no less than one that disdains commerce or entrepreneurship, is dying. To whip up popular hostility to intellectuals is to invite the public to jump on its own funeral pyre."

That said, Coyne overstates Harper's Machiavellian inclinations. The Conservatives are not without convictions and neither is Harper. Not everything they do is a ploy to stay in power. Far from it. It is evident what Harper wants to do. It is just that Harper's world view -- particularly when it comes to foreign affairs-- is not terribly sophisticated. Needless to say, this is also true of most Conservative MPs. As for all those stupid talking points the Conservatives have trotted out over the years it is a mistake to assume that they are merely instrumental. That is to say these talking points not merely designed to get the base going. On any number of issues these talking points seem hardly different from what various Conservative MPs (e.g., Stockwelll Day) have said previously on the subject and in private life. In sum, many Conservative talking points should be seen on some level as a reflection of what Conservatives MPs truly believe.

Whatever the case, the Liberals should welcome the opportunity to debunk these talking points and ridicule the Conservatives for having championed them. But that is not what the Liberals have done. Take the census issue. Whereas, most pundits have focused in on the idiocy of Tony Clement has had to say, the Liberals have focused on showing just how many groups use the census and to what ends. In other words, they have treated it as an issue Canadians care deeply about, but that is simply not the case. What has caught the public's attention and what will always grab the public's attention is the ham fisted manner in which Conservatives have proceeded and above all else the ridiculousness of what Conservatives have had to say. The Liberals should not be trying to educate the populace about how useful the census is, but rather be doing their utmost to make Tony Clement into a punch line to various jokes. They should be laughing it up with the pundits. Keep it light. For example: "The Conservatives believe that most Canadians have a secret desire to fail stats 101. I do not believe that to be the case."

Tuesday, August 17, 2010

The following should be headline news

"It all started with something that is by now horrifyingly routine: a YouTube video of the gory execution of a Mexican policeman by a gang of narcotraficantes. Posted on July 22, it begins with the interrogation of the policeman, who was from the northern state of Durango, by masked gangsters employed, in this case, by one of Mexico’s most powerful trafficking groups, the Zetas. Such interrogations have been circulated on the Internet before, and, as here, they often end in death. However, in the course of this particular video the policeman stated that the director of a federal prison in Durango was in the habit of releasing and arming certain prisoners at night, so that they could commit murders aimed, broadly speaking, at the Zetas. The recent massacre of seventeen people attending a birthday party in the neighboring state of Coahuila was the work of these temporarily sprung assassins, the policeman said, as were two other mass killings earlier this year.

The policeman’s account gained instant notoriety, and came to the attention of federal authorities in Mexico City. At a press conference on July 25—three days after the YouTube posting—the Attorney General’s spokesman confirmed the story, adding that the R-15 rifles used in the Coahuila massacres were indeed standard issue for federal prison guards—a fact that had apparently gone unremarked before. Pending further investigation, the government placed a number of people under temporary arrest, including the director of the Durango prison, a chunky, tough-looking blonde by the name of Margarita Rojas Rodríguez.

What happened next was astonishing. The inmates of the prison rioted, killed a prison guard, and demanded that Señora Rojas be restored to her post immediately, surely the first time in history that prisoners have risen up on behalf of their jailer. .... "

http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2010/aug/12/quiet-shift-mexicos-drug-war/

Wednesday, August 11, 2010

Bob Rae: I do not think he would make a great leader

A common lament is that if not for his record as premier of Ontario, Bob Rae would make a great leader. He is a good debator, charismatic, well spoken, and funny.

This is not an opinion I share. I do not like him for other reasons. Philosophically Bob Rae and I are worlds apart. I do not believe in collective rights. Rae does. I do not believe in affirmative action. Rae does. I do not believe in asymmetrical federalism. Rae does. I generally do not believe in means tested social policy. Rae does.

As the saying goes, policy aimed at the poor is poor policy. Tax rebates and the like if they are effective at all are vulnerable to changes in the political landscape, and more importantly are certainly not enough to hold back the tide of growing inequality in this country. The best -- check that -- the only way of achieving a "just society" is to introduce board based social policies that embody of the principle of universality. Not only do such policies stand a far better chance of effecting social change, in marked contrast to affirmative action for example, they are wildly popular.

Now in fairness to Rae, he is not alone. Under Martin and Chrétien the Liberals abandoned universality and favored instead means tested programs. The thing is means tested social programs do not win elections; the populace is not going to get excited about paying for a service that only a small percentage of the public can use. By turning every social program on offer into a form of welfare, the ability of the Liberals to offer anything other than tax cuts is very limited. The implosion of the Progressive Conservatives and NDP in 1993, obscured just how much this has hobbled the Liberals politically. The Liberals are now always having to play to a core Conservative strength. Indeed, as Tom Flanagan crowed after the 2006 election, there are certain issues that favour the Conservatives and the economy and taxation are two. The simple fact of the matter is that most of the public will not gain a working knowledge of each party's economic policies over the course of the campaign and when assessing each of the parties on the issue of taxation will rely on worn out stereotypes.

Now, the Liberals still benefit from being the party --- with help from the NDP -- that introduced the Canada Health Act and Canada Pension plan, but given that they have long ago abandoned the principle of universality it seems almost farcical for the Liberals to now point two these two shining examples of the that very principle as two of their greatest achievements.

Tuesday, August 10, 2010

Bob Rae comes to North Vancouver: some thoughts

Bob Rae came to North Vancouver yesterday. Unfortunately I came late and so missed his opening talk. I was there for some of the question period though.

First thing I took note of is just how patient Rae is. Not every question asked of him made sense. Others were not questions at all but short editorials. Finally, most questions were buried in lengthy preambles. Still, Rae was polite to a fault, responded to each in timely manner and at length and he was never short or cutting. In other words, Rae not only has the gift of the gab he also knows how to listen and how to make people feel listened too.

That said, even Rae can not turn lead into gold. When someone asked him just what the Liberal party stood for his response was less than satisfactory. He said that Liberals were committed to enshrining good parliamentary process into law and enacting legislation that would protect institutions such as Stats Canada and elections Canada from an overly aggressive PMO. I could not agree more and think level headed people of all political stripes would feel this same. However, this is a far cry from "just society".

The other pillars mentioned by Rae were sustainability and early childhood education. The problem with the former is that it is so nebulous that it is hard to see why anyone -- even the Conservatives -- could not claim to be committed to sustainability. As for the later, it is politically useless. For the vast majority of Canadians, the Liberal promise to work out a different deal with each province amounts to little more than a vague promise to provide more daycare sometime in the future. Canadians could not figure out what this would mean for their lives in 2006 and not surprisingly they preferred the Conservative baby bonus. Nothing has changed.

In order for the Liberals to capitalize on the issue they need make a clear offer to Canadian voters. They could, for example, offer all day preschool and kindergarten for every kid in Canada. That would garner them votes and provide them with the option of juxtaposing such a policy with the Conservative plan to build more prisons.

Speaking of prisons, someone asked Rae what the Liberals planed to do about the biggest mass murder in the world --- "drugs". As I mentioned before, some questions could have been worded better. Anyway, Rae said that diseases associated with poverty were a bigger killer and then went on to question the wisdom of Harper's war on drugs. He said that addiction is better thought of as a medical issue and not criminal one. This is fine as far as it goes, but other than Insite, he did not mention anything specific and he did not deal with Ignatieff's worries about "marijuana cigarettes" or how Liberals have supported every Conservative crime bill since Ignatieff came on as leader. Later that night, I remembered his hollow answer as I watched a CBC story about California's November referendum on whether to legalize marijuana and read that former Mexican President Vincent Fox said that all drugs should be legalized.

Monday, June 21, 2010

Debt Myths

Myth 1: Government spending under Trudeau and Pearson accounts for most of Canada's debt

The notion that the Trudeau and Pearson spent Canada into debt is laughable. Leaving aside the fact that Most of Canada's debt accumulated under Brian Mulroney, when Trudeau left office Canada's debt to GDP ratio was slightly less than it was under Diefenbaker and for most of 60s and 70s debt to GDP ratios were well below what they were in 1960. Moreover, it was only Trudeau's last term in office that deficits to GDP reached troubling levels and that had nothing to do with new government spending.

At the beginning of the 1980s, the US Fed and other Western countries declared a war on inflation. The war was won, but it came at a terrible cost. Sky rocketing interest rates meant sky rocketing deficits in both Canada and the US. An example should put things into perspective. In September 1980 interest rates stood at already ridiculously high 13%; three months later the US Fed had raised them to 20%.

Monetary policy and not government largeness explains Canada's debt crisis in the 1990s.

It was also helps to explain why Martin was able to tackle the deficit. The last of those ridicously high yeild bonds had run out by 1993 and by 1992 new bonds were issued at a much lower rate. Lower interest rates also drove demand here at the same time as they helped lower the Canadian dollar against US dollar.

Myth 2: Canadian government spending is out of control

Using the mid 1990s as a reference pundits such as Andrew Coyne like to point out that government spending has grown by leaps and bounds. Indeed, it has. The problem is government spending in the mid 1990s was lower than it was at any point since the 1950s and given the demands of a modern economy, such low levels of spending were unsustainable. In other words, what we have witnessed in the last 10 years is not a spike in government spending but an inevitable and needed rebound. The amount of government spending in Canada as percentage of GDP is lower than most Western countries and is even lower then what it is in the States.

Furthermore, what is true for other countries in recent years is also true for Canada. What accounts for most of the deficit is a massive decline in revenues and not "Canada's Action plan".

Myth 3: The debt crisis in Europe is a result of government largeness

The acronym PIGS make it seem that Europe's debt crisis is a result of government spending. This is simply not true. Prior to the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy Portugal, Ireland, and Spain, had debt levels that were either comparable to Canada's or lower. Moreover, none of these countries were running huge deficits prior to the crash. Indeed, Spain was running surpluses. The huge deficits these countries are running now are a consequence of a massive decline in government revenues and the massive increase in debt levels is a consequence of large amount of private debt being transferred to the government books in the face of crisis brought on by a US private debt crisis and huge spike in oil prices in the summer of 2008. The UK is perhaps the best example of the later

Italy and Greece, of course, had higher debt levels. However, even here this has arguably more to do with with the revenue side than the spending side. This is especially true in Italy's case. Tax evasion is widespread in both countries. The situation is Italy is so bad that the former government proposed that every Italian's income be made public so that people could rat out tax evaders.

The origins of the debt crisis matter. If the cause of crisis is massive reduction in revenues, fiscal stimulus may be the only way out. Getting on with the business of reducing the debt in the face of 20% unemployment in Spain's case, is likely to make things worse. First there is the question of there being a liquidity trap. Then there is this. However big the real estate bubble was in the States it was far bigger in many European countries and where there real estate bubbles there are high consummer debt levels and most cases highly leveraged banks. Slashing services, rising interest rates, raising taxes that will in turn lead to increased financial burden for households will only serve to bring various European economy closer to the edge. It will lead to defaults which will in turn lead to bank failures. The consumer debt problem and public debt problem are actually one problem.

There is no easy answers and things only stand to get more complicated. For one, the true European debt crisis lies in wait. While there is nothing to suggest that the timing of the current crisis was consequence of government largeness, a rapidly aging population endangers every major European economy. Europe's "implicit debt", most notably generous but uncosted public pensions, will become more of a problem as Europe ages. This is especially true for the PIGS. Italy is Europe's oldest country and, if memory serves, Greece has its lowest birth rate. Many Europeans have been loath to embrace immigration for fears that it would erode national identity. Europe must now embrace higher immigration if it wants to maintain its current way of life.

To further complicate matters, there is the Euro. Greece has been in and out of default for a good portion of the last hundred years. What makes this most recent crisis different is that should it default the future of the Euro would be in called into question. As Paul Krugman et al, have suggested default may be impossible to head off default. The problem is that countries in Greece's position have tradionally devalued their currency in order to get back on their feet again. (To very real extent that is exactly what Canada did in the 1990s.) So long as Greece uses the Euro, that option is not open to them though. In order for Greece business to complete with their German counterparts, for example, there most be real reduction in Greek wages. If Greece was not a Euro member, it could accomplish the same by devaluing its currency.

Myth 4: This is 1995 all over again

Canada is also vulnerable. Sure are banks are better shape, but this is no small measure do to the fact that Canadian housing corporation and not the banks and AIGs of the world are on hook should the real estate bubble burst in Canada's biggest cities.

You see, one of the first things the Conservatives did upon taking office was to extend the mortgage amortization period from 25 years to 30 years in February 2006, extend it to 35 years in July of 2006 and extend it yet again to 40 years in November 2006 During this period they also reduced the needed down payment on second properties from 20% to 5% and allowed for 0 down on one's primary residence.

Such actions allowed Canadians to take on mountains more debt, house prices went through the roof and so has the Canadian housing corporation liabilities. It was 100 billion in 2006. It is expected to reach $500 billion by the end of the year. A sharp increase in defaults will add billions and billions and billions to Canada's net debt.

The slash and burn policies of the 1990s will only make a bad situation worse. Indeed, with Canadian consumer debt growing at amazing 7% a year, slashing services that will in turn lead to increased financial burden will, here too, only serve to bring the Canadian economy closer to the edge. Canada needs to take action least a private debt problem become a public debt one. That means above all insuring that real estate does not continue to rise and to lessen the financial burden of young families in particular. A national day care program is great place to start. The type of services that Canada should be cutting -- if not gutting -- are the ones that offer no direct financial benefit to Canadians. Military spending and the Conservatives daft get tough on crime policies are great place to start.

Friday, June 18, 2010

Germany and Podolski blow it

In the first 36 minutes German Serbia game no time did anything of note and the only entertainment was provided by guessing who a absurdly whistle happy ref would card next. During that time, the ref handed out an absurd 6 yellow cards, two of them to Germany's Miroslav Klose. Shortly after Klose was sent off Germany forgot how to mark and Serbia took a 1- nill lead on a Milan Jovanovic's goal.

For the next 32 minutes, a 10 man German team dominated possession and had the better of the chances. If not for the inability of Lukas Podolski to hit the net and convert a penalty, Germany would have tied the game. For the second game a Serb defender reached out and touched the ball in the crease. One can only guess why Joachim Loew let Podolski, whose name is Polish for can not hit the board side of a barn, take the penatly or why he gutted the creative potential of his midfield by subbing Ozil and Muller off in the 70th minute. Germany did nothing in the last 20 minutes and the Serb's failed to capitalize on two good chances.

Thursday, June 17, 2010

Canadians GM on Crack: Halak to the Blues

Montreal Canadians' GM Pierre Gauthier is on crack. He must not have watched Halak almost single handedly beat the Caps and Penguins. Gauthier traded Montreal's playoff hero to the Blues for pucket of pucks and a beer.

http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/nhl/blog/puck_daddy/post/Montreal-trades-rights-to-goalie-Jaroslav-Halak?urn=nhl,249277

Wednesday, June 16, 2010

Ignatieff's Foreign Policy Idiocy creeping into Liberal policy

Peace keeping means what it says. It involves keeping the peace between two identifiable warring factions who want peace and have invited third party in to keep it. It really only has a hope of succeeding when those groups are separated from one another by geography. In this sense Ignatieff was always right about the Afghanistan mission and the others dead wrong. Afghanistan is and never was suited to peace keeping. Furthermore, as guerilla war supplants state on state violence as the dominant form of conflict, peace keeping missions have become less and less useful. In this sense too Ignatieff is right, albeit for the wrong reasons, and his opponents are wrong. Peace keeping has had it day; it represents a proud chapter in Canada history, but that chapter has been written; let us move on.

Where Ignatieff errs is the prescriptions he makes. He seems to not to realize that just as age of Peace keeping has come and gone so thankfully has the age of nation building. First of all, the public has no stomach for it. For Ignatieff to suggest that Canada and other Western countries should greatly reduce spending on social programs just so they do not have rely on a "Pentagon General" to police the world is such bleeding heart gibberish it hardly merits comment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C43ewgn9CFk&feature=player_embedded

Most Canadians are interested in building up Canada, Ignatieff is alone in thinking Afghanistan and Dalfur should be higher priorities. Most Canadians would be aghast if billions of dollars were to be diverted from health budgets to pay for military hardware, but that is exactly what Ignatieff would like to do. The money quote: "we used to be peace keepers. We used to have capabilities. We gave them up. Because people wanted hospitals, schools and roads and god bless them." The man is a menace.

Second, nation building is a foul's errand. Western countries have had very little success in developing their own hinterlands let alone transforming the most backward economies in the world.

Finally, these missions only make it more likely that Canada will be attacked by terrorists home grown as in the Toronto 18 or otherwise.

Friday, June 11, 2010

Liberals doomed to die a Slow Death

So long as the Liberal party -- or a strong portion of it anyway -- remain committed to collective rights, asymmetrical federalism and means tested social policy the party is doomed to die a slow death.

One thing that made the Liberal brand dominant for so long was the party's commitment to universality, most notably the Canada Health Act and Canada Pension plan. However, under Martin and Chrétien the Liberals abandoned universality and favored instead means tested programs. The thing is means tested social programs do not win elections; the populace is not going to get excited about paying for a service that only a small percentage of the public can use. By turning every social program on offer into a form of welfare, the ability of the Liberals to offer anything other than tax cuts is very limited. This has hobbled the Liberals politically. As Tom Flanagan crowed after the 2006 election, there are certain issues that favour the Conservatives and the economy and taxation are two. The simple fact of the matter is that most of the public will not gain a working knowledge of each party's economic policies over the course of the campaign and when assessing each of the parties on the issue of taxation will rely on worn out stereotypes.

Of course, the one exception to such a dispiriting turn is the Liberals early childhood proposal. That said, the Liberals unwillingness to step on provincial toes and lay out a coherent plan ahead of time have rendered such a policy politically useless. Indeed, during the 2006 election the Liberals promise to work out a different deal with each province amounted to little more than a vague promise to provide more daycare -- which the Liberals said early childhood education was not --- at sometime in the future. Canadians could not figure out what this would mean for their lives and not surprisingly they preferred the Conservative baby bonus.

If the Liberals reintroduce such a program in the future, they need to present it in a form in which voters can understand. They could, for example, promise to provide all day preschool and kindergarten for every 4 and 5 year old in Canada. Now, it will be said that the Liberals can not do this; education is under provincial control, but such thinking is the heart of the problem. Education is under provincial control, but so is health care and that never stopped Pearson from introducing Medical Care Act. It is high time this group of Liberals grow some. No one is ever going to vote for a party that is scared of the Conservatives, scared of the provinces and just plain scared period.

The other thing that people admired the Liberals for was their commitment to individual rights. The problem is that the more emphasis Trudeau placed on individual rights and a commitment to linguistic equality the more the rest of the country, particularly the West, resented the Liberals inability to put a stop to bill 178 and and 101 and its willingness to make special accommodations for Quebec. Quebec's Official Language Act spelled doom for the Liberals in Western Canada from the mid 70s until collapse of the Progressive Conservatives in 1993. The Liberals won but 3 seats over the next 4 elections in the three most Western provinces, one in 1979, one in 1984 and one in 1988. The later two were won by John Turner. Ironically, it was the Mulroney's willingness to go even further in pandering to Quebec that gave the Liberals some life again. However, given that these same sentiments also gave rise to the Reform party, the news was not all good for the Liberal party. Today, the country is no longer neatly divided among regional lines, but least the Liberals forget the source of their troubles in Western Canada, the unpopularity of the a coalition that included the Bloc made it abundantly clear that special treatment for Quebec is still political poison in Western Canada.

Wednesday, April 28, 2010

The Cost of Housing and Jim Flaherty

As mortgages rates rise, Canadians should think of Jim Flaherty and the Conservatives.

After all, it was the Conservatives who extended the mortgage amortization period from 25 years to 40 years, reduced the needed down payment on second properties from 20% to 5% and allowed for 0 down on one's primary residence.

The Conservatives said their actions would promote home ownership. Theoretically this is true. Given growing consumer debt levels and the ever growing number of Canadians without pensions allowing Canadians to forgo a down payment and to take on a longer term mortgage was not exactly sound public policy, but on paper doing so should have freed up more people to buy. As the Toronto Star pointed out, longer amortization periods held out the promise of lower payments.



"Let's look at some numbers to prove the point, using a mortgage of $350,000 at an interest rate of 6.45 per cent, which was recently the posted rate at Scotiabank for a five-year term.

Paid back over 40 years, the weekly payment would be $465 and the total interest cost $597,000 – much higher than the value of the mortgage itself. That pushes the total cost of buying your house close to $1 million.

Shrink the payback to 25 years and the weekly payment rises to $538, but the total interest falls to $343,000, slightly less than the value of the mortgage."




http://www.thestar.com/athome/firsthome/article/204118

The problem was that the prospect of lower payments was wiped out by the fact that the effect of such mortgage "innovation" was to heat up an already red hot housing market. Oh well, at least those who might have taken on a 25 year mortgage had prices not gone completely berserk since 2006, can console themselves with this; they pay less each month on their 35 year mortgage then they would on 25 year mortgage. With interest rates about to rise that really means something in the short term. All it cost in the long term was hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Since the crash, Flaherty has reduced the amortization period to 35 years, mandated 5% down payment on primary residences and again manadated that 20% be put down on second priorties. Flaherty had the chutzpah to claim these actions prudent, but what he did was akin to peeing on the rug and then to try to make amends by leaving it out in the hot sun to dry. The rug will dry, but the stink remains.

Sunday, April 18, 2010

Democracy is Hurt by Senate Reform

Constitutionally senators have all kinds of power and every once in a blue moon the Senate has stalled major pieces of legislation (e.g., free trade and the GST). However the aformetioned instances of stalling are so rare they are the exceptions that prove just how "ineffective" the senate truely is. Moreover, no senate I can think of has pursued a legislative agenda of its own accord; opposing legislation is one thing; purposing legislation is quite another. The reason the senate is not an "effective" body is that senators are not elected and as such lack legitacmacy. Furthermore, senators are members of legmitate federal political parties and the parties that they belong to are loath to have their unelected members excersise real authority least their actions undermine the party. Finally, the fact that it is the ruling federal party and not, say, provincial governments that appoint senators defines a clear pecking order, with the Senate answerable to the House.

Harper, of course, wants to reform the Senate. Being unable to reform the Senate in one fell swoop, Harper has proposed electing Senators piece meal. Under the Conservative plan, new senators would be elected and would be limited to serving out a 8 year term. The elephant in the living room is that if the senate's lack of effective powers flows from the senate's lack of legitamcy, then electing senators might provide the senate with a degree of legitmacy it currently does not hold. One problem with proceeding thusly is that current senators are free to serve until the age of 75. As a result, Harper's actions could either transform an unelected political body with no real power into a largely unelected political body with real political power or commit Canadians to the farcical and expensive act of electing people to office who hold no real power. Always content to play the Tin Man and Lion to Conservatives scarecrow, the Liberals remain largely mum on the subject.

Setting aside problems associated with implemenation, is the cause of democracy even served by reforming the Senate? Well, the Reformers always held that the regions needed more say and an “equal” “effective” and “elected” senate is the best way of achieving a balance between population centers in Eastern Canada and the rest of us. However, such a conception, and for that matter an "effective" version of the current senate, does not stand up to scrutiny. The problem is fivefold.

First such an argument rests on a false contrast; seats in the House of Commons are supposed to be assigned on basis of population, but in actuality that is not the case. Consider the 905. There are currently 4 plus million living in the 905 and there are currently 32 seats for an average of just over 127,000 people per riding. There are 6 ridings with over a 140,000 people in the 905, Bramalea - Gore - Malton (152,698) Brampton West (170,422) Halton (151,943), Mississauga - Erindale (143,361) Oak Ridges - Markham (169,642) and Vaughan (154,206). By contrast there are 4.5 million people in Sask, Man, NWT, Nuv, Yuk, PEI, NS, NFLD, and NB and there are 62 seats for an average of 72,000 people per riding. Moreover, there is but one riding in the 9, Selkirk Interlake (90,807), with over 90,000 people. Given current growth trends, there will be more people in the 905 than the aforementioned provinces and territories by 2011. Given population growth, Harper would have to give Ontario alone another 70 seats to make things half way equal.

Second, the people living in Canada’s less populated provinces have a mechanism to assure that regional concerns are addressed; it is called provincial jurisdiction and provincial representation. By the very nature of living in a province with a small population, the 135,851 people in PEI have plenty of ways of addressing regional concerns that are not available to, for example, the 136 470 people living in Mississauga - Brampton South.

The third reason is that while one person one vote is bedrock principle of any democracy, one province one senate vote is something else entirely. People, not provinces, deserve equal reprsenation. A province is no more or less than the people that make up that province. Giving the 135,851 in PEI the power to determine everything under provincial jurisdiction, provincial representation and 4 MPs well all the while giving the 170, 422 residents of Brampton West one MP is bad enough as it is. Piling on and giving the 135,851 people in PEI the same number of “effective” senators, as per the American Triple E Senate model, as 12,160,282 Ontarians is beyond stupid and grossly undemocratic. Equally silly is having one "effective" Senator for every 72,997 New Brunswick residents (10 senators in total) versus one Senator for every 685, 581 BC residents (6 senators in total). And that is what the current configuration gives us.

Four, as Benjamin Franklin put it, having two equally matched houses makes as much sense as tying two equally matched horses to either end of a buggy and having them both pull. Having two houses is not only a lobbyists dream, it is a recipe for political gridlock and pork barrel politics. The only thing that would be worse is if one needed 60% of the votes in the senate to overcome a filibuster.

Five, leaving aside the fact that no province has a second chamber, most having abolished them long ago, and that there are numerous examples of unicameral nation states (e.g., New Zealand, Denmark, Finland, Israel, Sweden, Iceland, Liechtenstein, South Korea and Portugal), we already have a de facto unicameral state as it is -- just ask the supporters of a Triple E senate. After all, one can not argue on the one hand that the current senate is undemocratic and so contributes to the "democratic deficit" and on the other hand argue that the senate is “ineffective”. A body that adds nothing to the genuinly "effective" process can not take away anything either.