Making Canada Relevant Again- The Economic Super-Thread

[RangerRay]

He praised the B.C. government, which said on Tuesday it will reduce business taxes.

...and they instituted a carbon tax!

:rage: :rage: :rage:

 

[Yrys]

...and they instituted a carbon tax!

huh? How is it working ? Seems difficult to administer, a thing like that!

 

[RangerRay]

huh? How is it working ? Seems difficult to administer, a thing like that!

They just brought it in yesterday.  Will increase the price of gas 2.4 cents/liter in June, and will be raised to 7.2 cents/liter by 2012.

Just as the Feds try to solve Toronto's problems with nation-wide legislation, the BC gov't is going to try to solve Vancouver's problems with province-wide legislation.

Idgits!  Every single one of them!

 

[xo31@711ret]

...and they instituted a carbon tax!

So...that'll make how much % of tax on athe price of litre of gas ? And what of those who heat their homes with home heating fuel?

 

[RangerRay]

...and they instituted a carbon tax!

So...that'll make how much % of tax on athe price of litre of gas ? And what of those who heat their homes with home heating fuel?

IIRC, the carbon tax will also apply to natural gas and heating oil.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

A propos of nothing recent in this thread, an interesting article nonetheless:

Alex Singleton on how Fairtrade isn't
Brian Micklethwait (London)  Globalization/economics • Media & Journalism

Alex Singleton's most recent posting here was on the subject of libertarians in the mainstream media, one in particular. Maybe that has some connection to the fact that Alex seems to be becoming a mainstream media person himself. A few days before that Samizdata piece about a fellow journalist, he did another Samizdata posting about Fairtrade beer, and he returned to the subject of Fairtrade, this time Fairtrade coffee (at the time of me writing this there is a problem with that link - hopefully it will soon work again), in a piece last Friday in one of the Telegraph blogs which he now regularly writes for. Yesterday's Sunday Telegraph (paper version and online) included a shorter version of that same piece. This was the bit (I'm quoting the longer Friday version) which I found most interesting, and most depressing:

  Despite Fairtrade's moral halo, there are other, more ethical forms of coffee available. Most Fairtrade coffee on sale in UK supermarkets and on the high street is roasted and packaged in Europe, principally in Belgium and Germany. This is unnecessary and retards development. Farmers working for Costa Rica's Café Britt have been climbing the economic ladder by not just growing beans but by also doing all of the processing, roasting and packaging and branding themselves. Shipping unroasted green beans to Europe causes them to deteriorate, so not only is Café Britt doing far more to promote economic development than Fairtrade rivals, it is also creating better tasting coffee.

    But Café Britt is not welcome on the Fairtrade scheme. Most of Café Britt's farmers are self-employed small businesspeople who own the land they farm. This is wholly unacceptable to the rigid ideologues at FLO International, Fairtrade's international certifiers, who will only accredit the farmers if they give up their small business status and join together into a co-operative. "It's like outlawing private enterprise," says Dan Cox, former head of the Speciality Coffee Association of America. ...

Fairtrade is, in other words, a front organisation, crafted by unregenerate collectivists to con believers in nice capitalism to buy something which is neither nice nor capitalist. And the way to deal with cons is to expose them for what they are, so that only those who really do believe in the actual values being promoted here continue to support the thing. Telegraph commenters declared themselves angry and disillusioned, and congratulated Alex on a well-researched piece. I long ago stopped being angry about such people as those behind Fairtrade. I expect duplicity and destructiveness and inferior produce from this quarter. But I do congratulate Alex on a good piece of journalism, and on managing to get paid for doing it.

http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/2008/02/alex_singleton.html

EDIT: Ack!  That was just a summary ... original article here: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/politics/brassneck/feb08/fairtrade.htm

 

[Edward Campbell]

This column, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail, describes, in Jeffrey Simpson’s usual backhanded way, the Conservative vision I want in Ottawa – one focused on doing a whole lot less a whole lot better:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080301.COSIMP01/TPStory/National/columnists

Harperites want to shrink Ottawa's power - and cash

JEFFREY SIMPSON
jsimpson@globeandmail.com

March 1, 2008

Tough fiscal circumstances force governments to take decisions they do not like; bountiful circumstances allow them to do what they prefer.

The Harper Conservatives arrived in office a little more than two years ago under bountiful circumstances. They inherited a comfortable surplus from the Liberals, low inflation, strong economic growth. They also inherited from the Martin government large, ongoing transfer commitments to the provinces for health and equalization, indexed above inflation.

The Harperites could therefore do what they preferred, within the confines of a minority government. What did they prefer, and what does it therefore show us about them?

This week's budget confirms that the Harperites are big spenders, not much different from the Liberals. Except for killing the Kelowna accord for aboriginals and a few small programs the Harperites hated as the Opposition, they have done next to nothing about cutting public spending.

The Conservatives' program spending as a share of GDP is now much higher than during the Liberal years, except 2004-05.

Unlike the Mike Harris government in Ontario, or the early Ralph Klein one in Alberta, the Harperites have not taken an axe to public programs. The results of a spending review of 17 departments produced risible administrative savings of $368-million from budgets of $13.6-billion. At this pace, the review might save $2-billion or so when all departments are studied, hardly the stern stuff of right-wing ideology.

In two other ways, however, the Harperites have displayed colours that mark them off from Liberals.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has often argued that Ottawa should do less but better. He has been true to his word. Ottawa has transferred billions of extra dollars to the provinces to solve the mythical "fiscal imbalance," while putting more money in what he considers core federal responsibilities such as defence.

There are exceptions. For example, because they promised something in the campaign, the Conservatives have shilly-shallied around with a Patient Wait Times Guarantee, a completely ineffectual policy in provincial jurisdiction. Why? Because, like all parties, they felt the need to be seen to be doing something about health care, especially its sharp political point, wait times.

The Conservatives, much more than the Liberals, are content to send money to provinces without strings attached. They're happy to let provinces do their thing without national standards if their actions are in provincial jurisdiction. This reflects the strong Alberta sentiment in the government, as well as its overarching political objective to curry favour in Quebec.

In addition, the Conservatives are tax-cutting populists. Not only do they want Ottawa out of certain areas, they prefer to use surpluses for debt-reduction and tax cuts.

Prime minister Jean Chrétien adopted what he called a "balanced" approach to using the surplus: a third each for debt-reduction, tax-reduction and spending. This formula was later changed to half spending, half debt-and-tax reduction.

The Harperites' "balance" tilts the formula well over toward debt-and-tax reduction, while continuing robust federal spending overall and not touching the Martin government's long-term and very expensive transfers for health care and equalization.

The Harperites were able to do this - cut debt and taxes while also spending more - because they inherited such a comfortable surplus and the economy kept performing so strongly, courtesy of high commodity prices. Now that the economy is slowing and they have largely emptied the federal cupboard, this approach has come to an end.

These decisions to cut debt and taxes, spend, and funnel money to provinces, reflect the Harperites' preference (ideology? vision?) for a smaller, more focused (as they would put it) federal government. It might also reflect a slow, long-term agenda to reduce federal revenues, so that over time Ottawa will be diminished in both power and money.

Most of these preferences work themselves out at the margin of spending/taxing decisions. But the two biggest decisions of the Harper government - to send billions to the provinces for the "fiscal imbalance" and to slash the GST, thereby depleting federal revenues - are strong signals of their preference for a smaller, weaker federal government. Or, as they would put it, giving money back to the people.

A classic example of this trend came with the Tax-Free Savings Accounts in the budget that will allow up to $5,000 to be invested without being taxed.

There is no particular social purpose to these TFSAs. Seniors with money are likely to be the principal users. Therefore, it might be argued that TFSAs are a sort of investment retirement program. But when the budget described TFSAs as a way of paying for a vacation in Florida or the purchase of an RV, the politics of the TFSAs became obvious.

As long the Liberals remain on the political run, the Harperites will continue implementing their vision, whittling away at Ottawa, giving money and power where they can to provinces, while using surpluses for debt repayment and lowering taxes in politically enticing, although economically dubious, ways.

The tax reduction methods that Simpson (and many others) find “economically dubious” are, for real fiscal conservatives, politically and economically sound: when easy money, like the GST, is taken away from Ottawa it is very hard to get back. It is politically more expedient for governments, even traditionally spendthrift Liberal governments, to learn to do less with less than it is to raise taxes, especially to reintroduce an economically sound (because it doesn’t penalize savings and investment) consumption tax like the GST.

While I want massive spending increases for defence, foreign aid, national (interprovincial) and international (airports/seaports) infrastructure, border security, post-secondary education and R&D I want each of those increases to be ‘covered off’ by a withdrawal from areas of provincial jurisdiction – beginning with a repeal of the Canada Health Act.

Cutting taxes, squeezing government, is the best way to get started. When one squeezes a minority government it is hard to get socially and politically sound solutions because the first (and demonstrably most successful) instinct of politicians is to buy our votes with our own money. But majority governments can effect change – early in their mandates. Two successive ‘real’ fiscally conservative Conservative governments might just do the job well enough to set us back about 60 years – to the last time we had a sensible, responsible, prudent government in Canada: Uncle Louis St Laurent’s government.

 

[a_majoor]

The real land of opportunity. This nation shares many of our values, has a free citizenry and sits astride the Indian ocean, one of the strategic areas of this century. Lets go!

http://ctv2.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080305.wibasia05/business/Business/businessBN/ctv-business

Unlocking India's promise
Google's there. IBM is, too. But most Canadian companies fear the risks outweigh the rewards. Ottawa entrepreneur Raj Narula makes a good living proving them wrong

By MARCUS GEE

Wednesday, March 5, 2008 Posted at 6:30 AM EDT

From Wednesday's Globe and Mail
   
MUMBAI — Raj Narula lives a double life. At home in Ottawa, he plays hockey with his buddies, visits his family's Indian restaurant and organizes a gaudy annual charity ball. In India, where he visits about once a month, he is an international deal maker, criss-crossing the subcontinent to drum up Indian business for Canadian technology companies.

During a recent business trip from Bangalore to Mumbai, he brimmed with enthusiasm about the opportunities that await Canadians in fast-rising India. "Retail, real estate, IT, insurance, banking - you name it, they're all wide open," he said. "There is such an energy here."

If that's so - and even an occasional visitor to Indian can't help feeling it - then why aren't more Canadians hitting the road to take advantage of India's boom? Why aren't there more Raj Narulas?

A report by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce last year said that, despite years of exhortations from Canadian government leaders to jump on the India train, Canada's exports to India represent only about one half of 1 per cent of its export total.

Similarly, India was the destination of just one half of 1 per cent of Canadian foreign direct investment.

At a time when the U.S. market for Canadian exports is sagging and Canada is trying to shift some of its trade to emerging economies, its failure to do more business in India is particularly striking.

The Chamber called these figures "underwhelming." With other countries beating a path to Indian's door, "it is clearly time for Canada to get serious about India or get left behind." If Canada wants to make India a significant economic partner, "we have to think bigger and bolder."

Mr. Narula couldn't agree more. "Google is in India. IBM is in India. Microsoft is in India. Canadian companies should take notice. Canada should be looking at India in a strategic way."

The son of an Indian diplomat, Mr. Narula grew up all over the world but did his high school in Canada. He studied mechanical engineering at the University of Ottawa then worked for General Electric. He started the Indian restaurant, Haveli, with his brother and lost his shirt on a venture importing Indian beer.

Undeterred, he started travelling to India regularly in 2000 and has been bouncing around the globe like a pinball ever since. In India, he is constantly on the road, racking up the miles as he races between New Delhi, Mumbai, Bangalore, Hyderabad, Pune and other cities, juggling work on his Canadian BlackBerry and his Indian cellphone.

It's a frenetic existence, but he says he is making progress. He and his partner Mike Manson have helped arrange several deals through their Taraspan Group, which is part of IT entrepreneur Terence Matthews' Wesley Clover firm. They helped Ottawa's Recognia Inc. supply Indian brokerages with systems that provide technical analysis of the stock market. They helped another Ottawa firm, TrialStat Corp., provide Indian pharmaceutical companies with systems that automate clinical drug trials.

All the work is paying off. Taraspan has seen its revenue double every year of its three years in business. Yet, even with so many inviting chances to make money, Canadian companies balk at coming to India.

With some notable exceptions - Bombardier in transit vehicles, SNC-Lavalin in roads and energy, Magna in auto parts, McCain in frozen foods, Sun Life in insurance - Canadian companies are at best a modest presence on the Indian scene.

When asked why more Canadians aren't doing as he is and hustling for Indian business, Nr. Narula, 48, just shakes his head.

"Canadian companies have always been extremely reluctant to commit to India," he said.

"They think it's all about outsourcing."

In fact, he said, there are opportunities for Canadians in almost every sector because "there are so many products and processes that Canadian companies have mastered." Just consider infrastructure, he says. India is investing hundreds of billions of dollars in upgrading its primitive transportation network and "we have some of the best know-how in building roads, bridges and highways."

In Mr. Narula's experience, Canadian companies usually give four reasons why they won't consider India:

A: India is just not on our radar.

B: India is too far.

C: We don't know how to do business there.

D: We don't have the budget.

Others share the impression of Canadian reluctance. Peter Sutherland, a former Canadian high commissioner to New Delhi who now works for the Toronto law firm Aird & Berlis, says that Canadian executives are used to the comfort of doing business in North America, where doing a deal can be as simple as flying to Chicago one afternoon and coming back the next morning.

In India, "you have to get over there and build the relationships. That takes time, that takes courage and that takes commitment of resources." In short, it takes people like Raj Narula.

    * © Copyright 2008 Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved.

 

[a_majoor]

More on the possibilities open to us as a nation. We have a strong hand if the Americans really want to modify or renegotiate NAFTA, and other ports beckon as well:

http://climbingoutofthedark.blogspot.com/2008/04/we-have-very-big-hammer.html

We Have A Very Big Hammer!

I enjoy having an economist as our Prime Minister, he understands how trade and the economy are essential to our country. He shows it here, with his comments on NAFTA.

Re-opening NAFTA would benefit Canada: Harper

Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Tuesday that re-opening NAFTA would actually help the Canadian economy, because Canada is the biggest supplier of oil and gas to the United States.

"That is of critical importance to the future of the United States, and if we had to look at this kind of option I think that would put us in an even stronger position than we were 20 years ago," Harper said at the North American Leaders' Summit in New Orleans.

But he added that his preference "is not to renegotiate what we discussed in the past, and to talk about the future."

We have a very big hammer, or should I say Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Newfoundland, are the hammers. I have seen PM Harper smile anytime the opposition brings up the Democrats desire to tear up the NAFTA agreement, he knows they will never do it. One word....oil.

Harper said "North American co-operation" is the "best option to create jobs and to compete effectively with emerging trading blocks elsewhere in the world."

Yet many Canadians think Canada can exist alone, that NAFTA is bad, that hating Americans is somehow making them "superior". It's easy to tear down, much harder to build up.

Here is a speech that the media forgot to cover. It's very impressive, guess that's why the lefties don't want to show it.

Prime Minister urges stronger relations with India.
Go to the right side and click on the video.

This little good news article was totally ignored. Both Atlantic Canada and BC win with this one:
The Government of Canada Announces Refit of Navy Frigates

Where are the media stories on this? HA.

We see this daily. The media and lefties smearing the government anyway they can, that's easy, no positive TV coverage, no reports on jobs being created in Atlantic Canada.

What do they stand for, oh, I forgot lately they do not stand, they sit on their hands, not voting on anything.....I guess those are "Liberal values".

 

[Edward Campbell]

The OECD has issued a new report on Canada. See my comments on Globe and Mail columnist Jeffrey Simpson's comments here.

 

[a_majoor]

A synopsis of the OECD’s Report is here.

First: Jeffrey Simpson detests the Conservatives, so much so that he rarely uses the word, preferring Harperites or Harper’s government and so on. He, like his Globe and Mail colleague Lawrence Martin, wishes fondly for the old Progressive Conservatives of Bob Stanfield, Joe Clark and even Brian Mulroney – pale imitations of the Liberals: Canada’s natural governing party; both are low level anti-Americans, like most Canadians, but they are deeply committed haters of George W Bush and all his works and all his friends and, indeed, of those who dare to not hate Bush.

Second: Regarding his comments, per se –

“For starters, the OECD says taxes should be shifted toward consumption and lowered on incomes and businesses.” I agree: the GST is good – it could be much better, and income and property taxes are bad. But: Canadians, like most people in the Western world, are accustomed to and even ‘comfortable’ with income taxes (which tend to be on the radar only once per year for most) and they hate the GST and PSTs and VAT type taxes which, in a honest system, ‘appear’ on nearly a daily basis. Lowering the GST was poor economics but very, very good politics;

“The OECD notes that the Harper government has emptied the federal treasury of surpluses, raising the prospect of a small deficit.” That’s right, too, in so far as it goes. Harper, while not quite as bad as George W Bush, is a free spender. That’s bad policy but, again, good politics – especially in Canada where about 95% of the population is economically illiterate.’ I repeat what I have said several times here in Army.ca: we could have another $10-15 Billion, per year - year after year, for defence without raising taxes by one penny. All we need to do is cancel dozens of programmes (that do little good for most Canadians and do real harm to the economy and social fabric) and transfer the funds to DND;

“But the OECD is right: Without better productivity, social programs will be hard to sustain at current levels.” The OECD is dead right but Canadians hate discussions of productivity fearing, rightly, that they will be asked to work harder and smarter for less money. Bad politics again;

“Start with supply management in agriculture where "nowhere ... are the distortions greater," especially in dairy farming. The OECD values milk quotas at $26-billion a year, or 2 per cent of GDP, or $26,000 a cow. Says the OECD: "Such rents are a blight on the economic landscape and are totally unjustifiable in a world of skyrocketing dairy prices." Indeed, the OECD takes aim at the whole agriculture sector, saying it is subsidized to the tune of about $16,600 per farm.” Quite right again, but the Conservatives, like the Liberals and the NDP and the BQ and the Greens are terrified of the Québec farm vote and they will continue, ad infinitum, to be economically stupid cowards;

“As for biofuels - the latest farm-subsidy program dressed up as a climate-change program - the OECD says this program should be reconsidered.” Right again – and see the discussions in the Canadian Politics/Global Warming super-thread here on Army.ca;

“Canadian banks are too small to compete effectively overseas. Therefore, says the OECD, "it is now time, 10 years after the first merger proposals were blocked by government, to welcome competition in financial markets by allowing Canada's leading financial institutions to become global players by lifting the ban."” Right again! But: Canadians hate big banks more than they dislike George Bush and they take great delight in denying banks - and themselves, through their pension plans – an opportunity to prosper by merging. It is stupid but stupid people get to vote in much, much larger numbers than do smart people (because the stupid outnumber the smart by about 10:1) so we will continue to have good politics and bad policy for a long time to come – no matter which party forms the government;

“Provinces still have too many barriers to internal trade, says the OECD. Their spending on health care is not very efficient. The five provinces that have refused to harmonize their sales taxes with the national GST should do so as fast as possible.” Also right;

“Unemployment insurance policies should be the same across Canada to spur labour mobility. That would mean dismantling the special regional benefits for areas of high unemployment, especially in Atlantic Canada.” Yes, indeed! But good politics trumps good policy every time;

“Alberta, recommends the OECD, should follow Norway's lead and sock away much more royalty money in the Alberta Heritage Fund.” I’m not sure this is a sound recommendation. There are many, many differences between Alberta, within Canada, and Norway – maybe too many to make that sort of recommendation;

“Alberta's plans for reducing greenhouse gas emissions are grossly inadequate - a 20 per cent increase by 2020.” That’s not clearly (to me, anyway) correct, either - but time will tell; and

“The OECD even disagrees with the Bank of Canada. This week, the bank refused to lower the prime rate, but the OECD says some "further easing" of monetary policy is warranted to help the economy cope with world economic turmoil and the sluggish U.S. economy.” This time the OECD is talking rubbish. The primary responsibility of The Bank of Canada is price stability (controlling inflation). The Bank is doing the right thing and it is doing it right, too.”

On balance, however, The OECD and Simpson are on the right track - and Canada is not.

I agree fully with Edward on this matter; Canada will trapped by "good politics" unless someone screws their heads on tight and takes action.

I suspect the only way this might happen is in the early days of the next government (probably a CPC minority again). Several windows of opportunity will exist:

1. Prime Minister Harper has indicated in the past he is only interested in staying for two terms. Assuming this is true, whatever action and consequences can be his legacy, for good or ill. If he is willing to take the heat, then potential candidates for leadership will be able to take positions and establish themselves as people with new ideas (although as a practical matter, they would be well advised to make the OECD's ideas their "new" ideas. Since the Liberals were able to serve up the 1993 "Red Book" as their "new" election platform for each election to 2005, this should not be too difficult!)

2. The Liberals will probably be decimated, and will also be embroiled in a bitter leadership convention. There will be a very fractured opposition to the Government's actions. Prime Minister Harper has demonstrated a remarkable ability to play off opposition parities against each other, so passing enabling legislation should be easier.

3. The "first 100 days" factor can be in play as well. If the government takes bold steps in that magic first 100 days, they can impliment programs and nurture them before the bloom is off. The negative fallout of following the recommendations that the Federal Government can impliment will probably be short lived, especially as the real effects of dramatic income tax cuts will show themselves shortly, and removal of economically distorting subsidies will have their initial impact early in the mandate, while the positive effects of removing subsidies will be apparent by the time of the next election.

The price of not taking action will be far higher, and since delayed action will probably be taken as panic stricken reactions to economic calamities, the negative effects will be far higher.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here are two interesting articles, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s National Post:

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=622818

Complacency Hurts Nation: Think-Tank
Quality of life declining, report warns

Matthew Coutts, National Post

Published: Monday, June 30, 2008

Canada's quality of life is declining in comparison to its industrialized peers because of an internal wave of complacency and an unwillingness to seize the challenge of competition, says a new report from The Conference Board of Canada.

The scathing report, to be released today, points to an economy that has dropped from third-best in the world three decades ago to 11th, an education system that has left millions of adults with inadequate literacy skills and a failure to commercialize on science that has led to a decades-long streak of lowered productivity.

"Canada is in a gifted class among nations but every year, like a gifted child, we move to the back of the class because we are underperforming. And underperformance is not good enough," said Anne Golden, the Conference Board president, in an interview. She said the report acts as a "snapshot" that should allow politicians and industry leaders to make ambitious plans for the future.

The non-profit think-tank annually grades Canada in six categories --economy, innovation, environment, education, health and society --and compares it with 16 of the wealthiest countries in the world. "In almost every major category of socio-economic performance studied, Canada's performance is slipping, causing it to fall behind countries that are its peers, partners and competitors," the reports reads.

Of most concern, notes Ms. Golden, is the "D" grade Canada received in innovation, a mark that has been a consistent disappointment since the 1980s. While many countries have government programs encouraging innovation, Canada's industry sector remains rooted in the past, focussed on preserving existing industries -- such as forestry and auto manufacturing -- rather than generating new ones.

While Canada is valued for its sciences, and is well supplied with good universities and technical institutes, the report says its failure to turn that research into successfully commercial products. The report suggests improving Canada's performance in innovation would lead to greater productivity overall.

"Innovation is the route for Canada to improve its productivity growth," Ms. Golden said.

"The only way we can compete is by doing things and by making products that are smarter and better, and earn more money in the world. There are only so many routes that can take you forward. Ours has to be innovation."

Last week, the Competition Policy Review Panel recommended lowering barriers to foreign investment in a number of industries, including telecommunications and air transportation. Today's report similarly warns that Canadian industries need to do a better job competing for global investment dollars, attracting foreign investors and establishing new investments overseas.

---------

REPORT CARD:

Matthew Coutts' precis of the Conference Board of Canada's views.

Economy (B, 11th) Canada has the fundamentals in place to become a top performer -- booming resources industry, fiscal surpluses and a strong currency -- but needs to work "smarter" and use its time more efficiently to boost productivity. Has shown steady improvement over the years in debt reduction, inflation and unemployment, but needs to improve on such co-operative assignments as competing for foreign investments.

Innovation (D, 13th) Canada's lack of attention to innovation is beginning to hurt it in other categories. With a strong base of universities and technical institutes to rely on, marks should be better. But that base is going to waste and isn't successfully commercialized. Canada should develop a national strategy, roll up its sleeves and get to work.

Environment (C, 15th) Classmates are picking up the subject faster than Canada, and it is unable to keep up during class discussions. Should put in extra study time to improve results in climate change, smog and waste generation. A move away from the United States and Australia is in order; perhaps the Nordic countries could provide some tutoring.

Education and Skills (B, 2nd) Canada moved ahead of Japan to sit second in its class, behind only Finland. High-school graduation rates are excellent, and college completion levels are second to none. Attention to public school systems and educating young people is an asset. But Canada may be coasting on past success. Should focus on producing more "high-end" university graduates.

Health (B, 9th) Steady progress has been made in many ways, and mortality rates suggest a steady reduction in death caused by most diseases. Could tutor Ireland and the U. K. -- both constant "D" performers. However, Canada has a serious problem with diabetes and obesity that should be raising alarm bells. If current trends continue, Canada may lose its "B" next year.

Society (B, 10th) Gets an "A" for acceptance of diversity, and should be proud of its work in reducing poverty among the elderly. Positive reputation based on social assistance programs and universal health care is well deserved, but should be built upon. Tendency toward violence is also becoming a problem. The rate of assault is 17 times that of the best-ranked country, Denmark. Must focus on lowering levels of child poverty and income inequality. Should not be satisfied with simply besting the United States.

And

http://www.nationalpost.com/related/topics/story.html?id=622851

A blueprint for a more competitive country

Anne Golden, National Post

Published: Monday, June 30, 2008

When there is a problem to be solved, and practically all the experts who have analyzed it come to the same conclusions, it is time to move from analysis to action.

The problem at hand is that Canada's competitive position in the markets of an increasingly globalized world has been slipping steadily for decades. Last Thursday, the Competition Policy Review Panel, chaired by Red Wilson, released its report, entitled Compete To Win. The panel called on the government to reduce or eliminate legal and regulatory barriers to vigorous competition within Canada, to encourage more foreign investment and to take a series of other measures, including a reform of taxation, attracting and developing talent and harmonizing our competition laws with those of the United States.

The Conference Board of Canada sees Compete To Win as an important contribution to what must be a nationwide effort to make our country a more creative and successful competitor in the world. The panel's approach and recommendations are fully consistent with research we have carried on for more than a decade.

The latest edition of our annual report card on Canada's socio-economic performance, How Canada Performs, has just been published. It reinforces the Wilson panel's message that now is the time to take action to make Canada more innovative and competitive.

Both reports point to productivity as the key to competitiveness. Productivity -- the value of the goods and services produced per hour of work -- is at a lower level in Canada than in most of the countries we compete with. Without improving our productivity, we cannot hope to have good jobs, prosperity or the quality of life that we want.

The review panel correctly highlights the three core themes for boosting productivity of people, capital and innovation, and gives special attention to foreign investment. When the panel was launched, there was great anxiety in the air over the threat of foreign takeovers and the "hollowing out" of Canadian industry. In January, we issued a report which attempted to sort out myth from reality on this subject. We concluded that mergers and acquisitions, including those involving a foreign partner, often provide a net economic benefit to Canada. We agree with the Wilson panel that it is up to boards to protect the long-term interests of their corporations.

The trend toward greater foreign investment will continue, and Canada's policies must reflect that reality. We were therefore pleased to see that the Wilson panel's report focuses on the need for Canada to be more open to competition, and more welcoming to foreign investment.

The review panel's report is balanced and practical. It does not propose a one-size-fits-all policy -- indeed, many of its proposals are tailored to the needs of specific sectors. The report references national interest, but leaves it to the government to define what constitutes that national interest.

Among the priorities for action listed in the report are: - Raising the threshold for foreign investment review to $1-billion, except for cultural businesses. - Applying that same threshold to sectors currently under tight restrictions -- transportation, including pipelines, non-federally regulated financial industries and uranium mining. These measures will signal clearly to the world that Canada is open for business. - Increasing the foreign ownership limit for air carriers to 49% of voting equity. - Bringing in a two-phase liberalization of foreign investment in telecommunications and broadcasting. Canadian ownership rules in the content area would still be governed by broadcasting policy. - Removing the de facto prohibition on the merger of banks and other large financial institutions while maintaining the requirement for broad ownership. - Amending the Competition Act to make the review process more efficient, and aligning it with U. S. practice. - Stabilizing municipal revenues by allowing cities to levy a 1% value-added tax. We welcome in particular the panel's advice on building a stronger fiscal capacity for Canadian cities. Our cities must be full partners in the competitiveness agenda.

These and other recommendations included in Compete To Win offer a vision of Canada as a rejuvenated competitor in the global economy. We at the Conference Board of Canada strongly believe that this report should not be allowed to gather dust on a shelf. - Anne Golden, is president and CEO of The Conference Board of Canada. The Conference Board's annual report card is available online at www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp .

Canadians, by and large, hate discussing hearing about, much less thinking about competitiveness: it is a complex issue and most Canadians are afraid that they’re going to hear that they are stupid, lazy and overpaid – all of which are, to some degree, true and better education, improved work methods and more realistic salaries are parts of the solution.

But the real villains of the piece are:

• An inept ‘management class’ that is very much overpaid – especially considering that it is timorous, lacks ambition and expects government handouts to cover bad corporate management;

• Too many and too large “chattering classes” that oppose globalization – even as most of them understand that globalization is, broadly, good for Canada and Canadians and good for the third world, too – and, therefore, oppose any and all measures designed to make Canada more competitive in the new global system. These “chattering classes” are able to drive the political agenda through their privileged access to the mainstream media, and

• Weak and venal politicians who, despite knowing better, refuse to act less they are branded anti-labour, pro-American plutocrats.

The devil will be in the details and the Conference Board’s views on those details will come out over the fall. Some of the ‘hot button’ issues are sure to be:

1. Immigration – we need more, a lot more, but it needs to be better focused and the immigrants we do allow in must be allowed to contribute. Essentially:

• We take far too many immigrants from too many places (often doing real harm to an immigrant’s home country and acting counter to our own foreign aid programme) and they are, too often, people who have difficulty integrating into mainstream, productive Canada, but

• We take far too few from a few places – where there are real surpluses of well educated, sophisticated people who can and do integrate easily and succeed here;

2. Inter-provincial barriers to labour and trade – that ought to be intolerable and unconstitutional in a sensible federal state; and

3. Inadequate R&D:

• Governments need to give more money to universities for pure Research – even though the vast majority of Canadians, driven by our defining characteristics of greed and envy, don’t like ‘hand outs’ to anyone except themselves, and

• Governments need to give more money (tax breaks) to corporations to encourage Development – something Canadians hate even more than they hate giving money to scientists. 

And the list will go on and on and on – there will be something to which 99% of Canadians will object and, on that basis, weak, ward heeling politicians will sit on their hands while the country slides, slowly but surely, into second rate status.

“Only in Canada, you say. Pity ...”

 

[Kilo_302]

One problem the report stresses is that we focus too much on "shoring up old industries," ie auto industry, and natural resource based industries. For example, profits from Alberta's oil industry should be invested in the R and D of renewable resource technology and other "green" methods of producing energy. It isn't that Canadians don't want to "give money" to corporations, its that right now we are giving too much money with not enough strings attached to the wrong corporations. Think of the government tax breaks and subsidies GM Canada has received in the last few years, and low and behold it's still cutting jobs. No amount of money will save our old industries from the effects of the global market, we just have to be smarter, and let some of them fade away, but with a plan in place to maintain our economic growth.

 

[a_majoor]

Just to keep this thread on track, examine the premise of the previous post:

For example, profits from Alberta's oil industry should be invested in the R and D of renewable resource technology and other "green" methods of producing energy.

In other words, the profits that an industry earns through hard work, innovation, clever marketing and efficient management can be taken from the company and shareholders and invested in whatever takes some politician's fancy. Looking at Ontario, the Liberal government has done just that through aggressive and predatory taxation of both workers and industry to invest in "targeted" industries, with resulting job losses and net negative economic benefit. The opportunity costs of what could have been invested in if the legitimate owners of the the wealth (i.e. the workers and industry) chose their own vehicles to invest in are harder to quantify, but we are living on the cusp of a recession now, and job growth outside the public sector is down to @ 2%.

Imagine if you will that the politicians in question were more interested in imperial conquest, or personal gain, or aquaculture. Simply replace "should be invested in the R and D of renewable resource technology and other "green" methods of producing energy." with any of the above choices (or pick your own) and you should begin to see the result.

As Edward pointed out, Canada is afflicted by a large and predatory "managerial class" which has developed highly refined skills at lobbying funds from the government for their benefit, much to the detriment of the smaller but much more important entrepreneurial class which is suffocated through high taxes, regulation and limited access to investment funds (as the private sector is heavily taxed). Cutting economic subsidies (and the taxes that pay for them) will go a long way to developing the diverse, broad based and efficient economy The Conference Board of Canada seeks.

I noticed this article which just reinforces the idea that the "managerial class" is more interested in extracting tax dollars rather than working to earn profits:

http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/011492.html

The real reason for the Volt

It's all about PR, according to the Wall Street Journal's Holman Jenkins:

    At best, the Volt will be an affluent family's third car. It will have to be plugged in for six hours a day – i.e., it will be a car for a suburbanite with a sizeable garage wired for power. It won't be a car for a city dweller who parks on the street or in a public lot. It will travel 40 miles on a six-hour charge. After that, a small gas motor will kick in to recharge the battery while you drive. Some reports claim the Volt will get 50 mpg in this mode, but that's hallucinatory: If using a gasoline engine to power an electric motor were so efficient, the streets would be full of such vehicles. (Our guess: The car will be lucky to get 15 mpg under gasoline power.)

    Notice that, even today, some people continue to buy SUVs capable of hauling eight passengers, the dog and groceries, though they spend most of their time in the car driving alone. Customers value flexibility in their vehicles. For a car with the Volt's narrow usability to sell would require an unlikely revolution in consumer behavior, especially if gasoline prices aren't going to $10 a gallon.

    [...]

    Never mind. GM executives are not nuts. They justify the costs and risks of the Volt as a way of changing GM's image in the minds of consumers and politicians. To commit a pun, the Volt is GM's vehicle for making a bailout of GM politically acceptable.

    The company has already started signaling it expects Washington to provide a whopping $7,000 tax credit to Volt purchasers. In Europe and the U.S., under whatever fuel economy and emissions regulations prevail, GM also expects special favoritism for the Volt. The goal is to re-enact the flex-fuel hoax, in which GM receives extra credit for making cars that can burn 85% ethanol, even if they never see a drop of such fuel.

The Volt could be impressive, but I'd rather see GM put its resources into building something that can compete with the Corolla and Civic. (In the greater scheme of things, the 2010 Cobalt is a much more important vehicle.)

Edit to include new article

 

[a_majoor]

This is the environment we must change to reach our full potential as people and a nation:

http://freedomnation.blogspot.com/2008/07/pierre-lemieuxs-idea-of-america.html

Pierre Lemieux's "The Idea of America"

Oddly enough this article written by the great Lemieux fits in well with my somewhat flippant last post. He wrote about the progress and disintegration of the American Revolution. It was published today by the Western Standard;


Pierre Lemieux: The Idea of America
Americans are busy celebrating the 4th of July today, but do many of them really know what the idea of America was? What were the revolutionaries -- the signers of the Declaration, the men and women who abandoned their old ties to call America home -- doing all of this for? What was that glorious idea?

Pierre Lemieux, our firebrand libertarian columnist, has produced a monograph entitled "The Idea of America," (PDF) published by the Western Standard, to answer this and related questions. His analysis is, in my judgment, accurate and cutting. Once upon a time, Americans (and Canadians) wouldn't even think of the government when presented with a problem.

Once upon a time, no American worth her salt would ever stand for identification papers, gun control, nanny state regulations, and so on. What happened to those Americans? Maybe they lost their grip on the idea of America, and were coddled and pacified by unparalleled wealth and prosperity. Or maybe they were flummoxed by the snake-oil salesman cum politician, insisting that they could get something for nothing, or frightening them with tales of bogeymen under every bed.

"...consider the first decade of the 20th century," writes Lemieux, "n general, anybody could start a business, find investors, and sell his product without any government license and oversight. There was no SEC, no IRS, no FCC, no FDA, no OSHA, no USCIS (formerly INS), no EPA. The absence of regulation did not prevent the development of vibrant capital markets, and New York City was on its way to becoming the top financial place in the world. The right to keep and bear arms, so typically American in the 20th century, had survived relatively unscathed. There was no witch-hunt and, in a legal fight between an individual and the government, it is the latter that felt handicapped. Writing in 1910, Lord Acton could confidently say that the American people are “more free than any other the world has seen.” In her celebration of American liberty in the early 20th century, Rose Wilder Lane could exclaim: “That is what Europeans meant when, after a few days in this country, they exclaimed, ‘You are so free here!’.”

Once, maybe, there was America. But what happened to that idea?

"Americans are now caught in the “network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform” that [Alexis de] Tocqueville forecasted. Virtually all activities—even those protected by the Bill of Rights—are regulated in some way, and most often in many ways. Just at the federal level, there are probably 4,000 statutes, although it’s hard to tell the exact number, notes a Wall Street Journal reporter, “because the statutes aren’t listed in one place.” And this does not include the regulations. “We continue to claim that nobody is supposed to ignore the law,” wrote French legal theorist Georges Ripert in 1949, “but those who know it are certainly to be commended.” In 2001, federal prosecutors brought more than 80,000 cases. To this must be added the laws, regulations and prosecutions at the State and local levels. It is stimated that 15 per cent of all Americans have an arrest record. France has come to America."

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Ottawa Citizen is a useful contribution from Andrew Cohen:

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/opinion/story.html?id=21e5e1bd-75e0-4f71-8b1c-adc3211347ae

Canada's false comfort

Andrew Cohen

Citizen Special

Published: Tuesday, July 08, 2008

BERLIN - As if rising gasoline prices, plunging markets and the sub-prime mortgage crisis were not anxiety enough for beleaguered Americans this summer. Now they have to cope with identity theft.

According to Maclean's, the United States has lost the American Dream. Worse, oh much worse, it has lost it to Canada. As the magazine tells it, Canadians have overtaken Americans in one category after another. We have more money, less debt and higher savings. We live longer and work less. We drink more and socialize more. We travel abroad more. We have more sex and - believe it or not - more interesting sex.

"In short, as a nation, we have been doing everything right, while the U.S. has been doing everything wrong," it says breathlessly.

Really? Certainly America is in a funk these days. It isn't just the recession or the war or the national debt. It is the sense that America has lost its creativity at home and its stature abroad. The other day, the New York Times reported how the United States has ignored repeated warnings of today's energy crisis over the last three decades. Unable to break its oil addiction, it is reeling as the bill comes due.

This is similar to the failure to identify the terrorist threat before Sept. 11. In other ways, from crumbling infrastructure to obesity to health care, the failures have been costly.

Always happy to trumpet their superiority, real or imagined, Canadians do have reason to feel good these days. We have comprehensive, universal health care, more affordable higher education, less gun crime, safer cities, lower per-capita debt. And if Maclean's assures us we have better sex, who's to argue?

Celebrating our success has become a national vocation in the country that once dared not speak its name. Unsure of who we are, we have always known who we're not -- and we're not those crass, fat, pushy, avaricious Americans. That the U.S. now comes up short is sadly comforting to the envious Little Canadian who happily consumes America's popular culture, works for its branch plants, huddles under its nuclear umbrella and then feels free to criticize its vulgarity, debt and crime.

But the point here is not that Canada is a happier, healthier, richer place than the United States -- if that is in fact true, which it may not be -- but what we have done with our new wealth, health and happiness.

Relatively speaking, do we have better universities than the United States? Better public transportation? Newer museums, libraries and concert halls? Do we have more ambition, enterprise and innovation? Do we give more to charity and understand our history better?

The answer is no. If you're skeptical, read the recent annual report card of the Conference Board of Canada ("How Canada Performs") and weep. It looks critically at innovation, health and the environment, among other measures. Generally speaking, our quality of life is falling precipitously behind that of other leading nations.

The report underscores how Maclean's is wrong - staggeringly wrong - in making the United States our basis of comparison. It may be natural to measure yourself against your great neighbour, especially one seemingly in decline, but it's false comfort. Actually, Canada should be comparing itself with Europe. To Germany, France and Britain, as well as the Netherlands, Switzerland, Austria, Ireland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland.

We should be asking ourselves why the Germans spend lavishly on culture while we argue over a national portrait gallery. Or how they have reunified this magnificent city and laced it with bicycle paths. Or why they are embracing solar and wind power while we contemplate it.

We should ask how the French tie their country together with high speed rail while we run toy trains on old tracks, offering a service that was late half the time last winter. Or how the British manage to open their superb national museums for free.

We should ask why the Sami, the indigenous people of Scandinavia, are among the most successful in the world and our Inuit are not. Or how the Norwegians extract mineral wealth in the Arctic carefully and husband their growing wealth wisely.

Or how the Danes and the Finnish have become world leaders in design. Or how Poland is remaking the cities of Lodz and Wroclaw.

Instead of crowing that we have three more days off a year than the Americans, why not ask why the Europeans have twice the vacation we do, and how that enhances their quality of life. Or why, by and large, health care works here. Or why, in most places in Europe, food is innovative and inexpensive, displayed with flourish even in subway stations, and why people find time to savour it.

Then again, these are inconvenient questions for Canada, the capital of Contentment, where we are doing everything right.

Andrew Cohen is a visiting fellow at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs in Berlin. E-mail: andrewzcohen@yahoo.ca.

© The Ottawa Citizen 2008[/center​

Cohen is mostly right: while the US is the natural base for any meaningful comparison, we are – by any fair and sensible measure – one of the world’s top ten to fifteen nations and we need to measure our accomplishments and our deficits against the rest of the top tier of nations – the OECD plus a few.

I think we are doing better than the US in a few areas and we are probably doing better than Australia, Belgium, the Czech Republic and Denmark in an equally few fields, too. But we remain far behind many OECD nations in two important areas:

1. Quality of life – however defined; and

2. Productivity – which decides if we can even maintain, much less improve our already fairly weak quality of life.


​

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act, is an interesting commentary by Judith Maxwell:

http://www.reportonbusiness.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080728.wmaxwell0728/BNStory/Business/home

Conquering Canada's competitive ambivalence

JUDITH MAXWELL

Globe and Mail Update

July 28, 2008 at 7:37 AM EDT

Red Wilson and his colleagues on the Competition Policy Review Panel are trying to shake Canadian business and governments at all levels out of their ambivalence about competition.

Their goal is to make Canadians more active and willing participants in competitive markets. What is missing, however, is a recommendation that would bring the provinces and the big cities into the front lines of the battle for competitiveness.

Politicians and business leaders talk the rhetoric of globalization and freer flows of trade, investment and people, but they do not walk the talk. Governments don't seem to believe they can have an impact on competitiveness and business gripes about government inaction.

Stacks of reports from think tanks and large-scale national conferences involving business and government are gathering dust, but the underlying mindset does not change. As a result, decisions do not treat competition as a driver of economic success.

The panel's critique of governments and business is not particularly new. But it does remind us how much both sides have been dragging their feet.

“Long-standing inaction” in the regulation-making process; the lack of business-university collaboration; internal barriers to trade that drive up costs and inhibit business opportunities; the unwillingness of five provinces to harmonize their sales taxes with the GST; serious deficiencies in venture capital available to support the growth of small and medium-sized businesses into robust competitors; and so on.

But the panel's strategy is different: “We wish to emphasize that competitiveness is a journey, not a destination,” says the panel report Competing to Win issued at the end of June. “Periodic reforms will not get us to where we need to be. … Canada's policy improvement process must be ongoing and continuous.”

Thus, a lot of the 65 recommendations propose changes in the way decisions are made, the speed of decision making and regular reviews of existing rules and laws to keep them up to date in a rapidly changing global competitive context.

The cornerstone recommendation is to establish a competition watchdog called the Canadian Competitive Council – an independent voice to promote competition as one of the key forces which drives economic success. “A council that is free to speak out without being constrained by the bureaucratic or political ramifications of its work will be the most effective way to advance an agenda for a more competitive Canada,” the panel said.

The role of the council would be to speak truth to power on the basis of rigorous analysis. The panel says it must be able to control its agenda, set its priorities, and be free to foster national debate and dialogue. The council would report to Parliament and would be evaluated after five years.

Canada has several think tanks that focus on competitiveness, including the Conference Board of Canada, the Ontario Institute for Competitiveness and Prosperity and the Centre for the Study of Living Standards. For the most part, they address broad macro trends in productivity and costs, but they do not get to the cutting edge of policy decisions. The proposed council would look more at the micro and policy roots of competitiveness, examining particular policies or specific sectors, and benchmarking them to other countries.

This is all well and good. But independent councils can be abolished at the behest of a Prime Minister – witness the demise of the Economic Council of Canada. How long could this new council survive in today's climate where governments, especially the federal government, are determined to control the debate? More important, what could be done to make it more effective and give it a better chance at survival?

First, as Red Wilson pointed out in an interview, the tone will be set by the first council chair. That person must be passionate about Canada's competitiveness, experienced in the pressures of the market place, and unencumbered by other loyalties.

Second, the council should be an institution advising all governments in Canada – not just the federal government. After all, competitiveness is a national issue. Every province has ministries for trade, economic development, industry, science and education, among the many departments that can impact on competition. And, as the panel acknowledges, the big cities are central to Canada's ability to nurture and develop Canadian-based global companies.

One model for this integrated approach is the Canadian Institute for Health Information. It works with Ottawa and the provinces, but not the cities. But the Competitiveness Council will need a far stronger mandate to comment on public policy than the one given to CIHI. By building relationships with provinces and the big cities, the council will strengthen its independence and improve its chances of survival.

The report was delivered to Industry Minister Jim Prentice (whose predecessor commissioned the panel). But, if the government is going to take competitiveness seriously, Mr. Prentice and the Prime Minister should take the proposal for the Canadian Competitiveness Council to the fall summit with the Premiers, inviting them to become co-sponsors of the council. They should also invite the mayors of the six largest cities to consider this role as well.

If this council is going to convince Canadians to overcome their collective ambivalence about competition, it will need a truly national mandate, with an outstanding chair as well as direct working relationships with Ottawa, the provinces and the six biggest cities.

Ms. Maxwell is the former head of the Economic Council of Canada and the Canadian Policy Research Network./i]

The first problem is: politicians are cowards need to get re-elected; telling Canadian workers/voters that they are lazy and need to work longer and harder for less (which is what most workers/voters think they hear when someone says ‘productivity’) is not a good way to do that.

Ms. Maxwell says that ”role of the [proposed] council would be to speak truth to power on the basis of rigorous analysis.” That is, precisely, the role of the existing civil service. Here, the problem is that both most politicians and way too many civil servants are cowards. The civil servants are afraid to “speak truth to power” lest they offend ministers (paymasters) and the politicians are afraid to hear the “truth” lest it annoys the electorate (their paymasters). That’s why we have layer upon layer of ‘independent’ councils and agencies and boards, and, and, and, all, effectively, insulating politicians and civil servants from the unpalatable truth.

I suppose that yet another council cannot do much harm but the best course of action, for Stephen Harper and Kevin Lynch, would be to disband almost all of the existing ones and let senior civil servants – by and large a smart, intelligent (they’re different things), hard working and loyal group – “speak truth to power” and require politicians to hear it.

 

[a_majoor]

There are plenty of independent think tanks, councils and other bodies operating outside the government, and all feel they are speaking "truth to power", even if their views are as divergent as the Frasier Institute or the Council of Canadians. So we have no shortage of opinions out there, and if you think there is a shortage, I can register another institute in a matter of weeks  .

The problem is two fold. Edward has nailed the first and most crucial problem: elected politicians are biased towards actions that get them reelected. Bold, out of the box thinking isn't one of those attributes, and this isn't likely to change (even term limits would only ensure "safe", middle of the road candidates would run).

The second problem is embedded in the thinking behind the proposal: government intervention in the economy will "make things right". More government intervention or more layers of bureaucracy simply gum up the works even more (we will have to wait for the competition council to report to a Parliamentary committee, then filter their recommendations through the various departments before producing legislation, which still has to go through public hearings and the three readings....). What we need is to tear out the bureaucracy and remove impediments to real competition like regional or targetted subsidies, and lower income tax rates by a meaningful amount to free up capital for investment.

Of course the people and companies who benefit from controlling taxes, regulations and subsidies or receiving them will fight to the death to preserve their positions of power and influence, so if you are serious about making Canada relevant again, then there is a hard battle ahead.

 

[a_majoor]

Lets start with something simple:

http://gerrynicholls.blogspot.com/2008/07/making-spending-transparent.html

Making Spending Transparent
In a bid to make government spending more transparent, some U.S. states are actually posting every cheque they write online.

This empowers citizens to keep an eye on where their money is going.

It's the kind of idea we should implement here.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Evidently, according to this article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Ottawa Citizen, we have, in Ottawa, the first responsible government since around 1967:

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=f343a8aa-2724-42e1-a969-8e637d0288b1

Tory budget ignored public concerns: survey
Pre-budget poll reveals global warming trumped military spending

Don Butler, The Ottawa Citizen

Published: Wednesday, July 30, 2008

As Finance Minister Jim Flaherty honed his budget last February, Canadians were expressing heightened alarm about the rising price of oil, the loss of manufacturing jobs and global warming.

As well, according to an $82,500 pre-budget survey commissioned by the Department of Finance, they identified health care, environmental issues and crime as top priorities for government action.

Yet Mr. Flaherty's Feb. 26 budget all but ignored some of those concerns, and took action in other areas the survey identified as low priorities, such as defence spending and protecting Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic.

Research Associates survey of 1,842 Canadians, done between Jan. 24 and Feb. 7, offers a fascinating snapshot of the public mood as the Harper government was drafting its economic blueprint.

It found that, despite rising oil prices, turmoil on the stock markets and economic problems spilling over from the United States, the public was generally upbeat as the year began.

Two-thirds of Canadians said the country was moving in the right direction, the highest level in eight years. Nearly seven in 10 expressed confidence in the Canadian economy.

There was a modest increase in satisfaction with the government, with four in 10 expressing approval, and an eight-percentage-point increase over six months in the number saying the Conservative government's economic policies helped people like them.

Canadians were also warily watching the deteriorating global economy, with six in 10 worrying about the impact of a recession on them personally.

The fast-rising price of oil topped their list of concerns, but nearly as many worried about the loss of manufacturing jobs overseas and the economic impact of global warming. Yet those issues received little attention in the budget.

Asked to identify priorities for government, more than eight in 10 mentioned keeping the economy strong, shortening health care wait times, protecting the public from unsafe food and products, enforcing tougher laws on violent crime and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

For some of those priorities -- notably cutting wait times and reducing greenhouse gas emissions -- they also expressed significant dissatisfaction with the government's performance.

They gave lowest priority to increasing spending on defence, asserting Canada's sovereignty in the Arctic, enforcing tougher laws on property crime and lowering taxes.

Again, Mr. Flaherty's budget sometimes seemed not completely in line with the public mood.

It trumpeted new spending on defence -- rated rock-bottom by Canadians on a list of 18 priorities -- and unveiled policies designed to protect and secure sovereignty in the north, ranked second-last.

There was no mention of reducing wait times for health care and only modest action on greenhouse gas emissions.

And despite limited public demand for tax cuts, the budget included new tax breaks, declaring that, combined with measures in last fall's economic statement, it would provide nearly $24 billion in tax relief by 2010.

In other areas, the budget more closely reflected the survey results.

There were sections on protecting the health and safety of Canadians, tackling crime, and fiscal and economic management, all ranked highly by the public.

Even in those areas, though, there are some apparent disconnects.

For example, the survey showed Canadians preferred to combat crime by enforcing current laws and imposing longer sentences, rather than by increasing funding for police and courts.

Yet the budget set aside $400 million to recruit 2,500 new front-line police officers and a further $122 million for the federal corrections system.

Nine in 10 also said the government should maintain a balanced budget. But two months into the current fiscal year, it was running a $500-million deficit.

According to the Finance Department, pre-budget surveys, which began in the early 1980s, provide the government with some insight into the priorities of Canadians and supplement other pre-budget consultations.

The pre-budget survey has a margin of error of 2.3 percentage points, plus or minus, 19 times out of 20.

© The Ottawa Citizen 2008

Can you imagine!?! Politicians doing what they think is right rather than just buying our votes with our own money?  Impossible! I can pretty much guarantee that none of Jean Chrétien, Paul Martin, Stéphane Dion, Michael Ignatieff or Bob Rae could/can imagine such nonsense. The polls must be followed, slavishly, they all agree because that’s how one grasps power – for its own sake, just ‘cuz Liberals are entitled to it.

What ought to be instructive, to us, here in rmy.ca is “[Canadians] gave lowest priority to increasing spending on defence, asserting Canada's sovereignty in the Arctic, enforcing tougher laws on property crime and lowering taxes.” Despite all the “support the troops” slogans and red T shirts on Fridays the simple fact is that, no matter that brave young men and women are dying in Afghanistan, Canadians do not care about their national defence, nor do they give a damn about the people who fight and die to defend them! Rick Hiller changed some minds, but not enough.

Anyway: Kudos to Stephen Harper and his Conservative Government for having the sense of responsibility and the political courage to do the right thing, even when Canadian voters want the wrong things done.