SPP

As the Montebello summit begins and protesters arrive to protest the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), I thought it was time to weigh in with my own views. I neither support nor oppose the SPP as I simply don't have enough information to make an informed judgment and I believe I would be inappropriate to pre-judge this without knowing all the details. That being said, I do have concerns and should the SPP cross any of the red lines I list below, I will oppose it.

Whether one likes the United States or not, we live in a globalized world where we are inter-dependent on each other, so taking an isolationist approach as some advocate is not an option for Canada. We do need to cooperate with the United States on issues that are of mutual interest and can be more effectively dealt with by working together rather than alone. However, closer cooperation with the United States should not weaken our sovereignty. All cooperation with the United States should be based on cooperation between the two in areas we both deem as important, not integration, whether it be falling in line with US policy or submitting our decisions to a trans-national organization that can override national laws. On the whole I believe the Liberal approach is a balanced and reasoned one and wish this was the approach the party took from the beginning when it started the talks in 2005. Such an issue must be brought before the House of Commons where it can be fully debated and if any agreement is signed, it should be put to a vote in the House of Commons. I recommend the Liberals, much like Britain did in the recent EU negotiations, set out some red lines and if the government crosses those, we should vote against it, otherwise vote for it.

- The SPP should not be a stepping stone towards an economic and political union similiar to the EU. The EU only works because it is made up of 27 countries whereby no one country dominates it, so therefore it can only move forward through consensus and compromise. In North America, the United States is much larger than Canada and such arrangement would only undermine our ability to maintain our independent policies as the US would sacrifice little in sovereignty, while Canada a lot.

- The decision to allow or not allow bulk water exports must be made in Canada. There must be no agreement with the United States that mandates us to export any amount of water to them. At the moment, I believe large scale diversions or water shipments are too risky without knowing the full environmental effects, but whether one agrees or disagrees with them, it must be our decision and no one else's.

- We should be free to set our own regulatory standards and any harmonization should be about raising to the highest standard, not a race to the bottom.

- Any cooperation on border standards to allow for the free movement of goods and people should not undermine Canada's sovereignty. We must maintain our right to set our own immigration policies, drug laws etc.

If those red lines are not crossed, we should support it, but if they are, we should not. Also, the issue should not been done in secrecy as this only serves to raise suspicious.

I am not an ultra-nationalist like the NDP and Council of Canadians who seem to believe that we can somehow isolate ourselves from the United States, but neither I am an integrationist or continentalist who believes greater integration with the United States is the solution to our current woes. I believe cooperation as two sovereign nations on issues of mutual interest is the way to move forward.

Cabinet Shuffle

As expected, the cabinet shuffled occured today. Before giving my opinion of the specific changes, I would like to make two general comments. Firstly, the fact this is Harper's second cabinet shuffle since becoming PM only 19 months ago really says something about the talent within the government. Some of that is not totally Harper's fault as strong candidates tend to run for parties likely to form government and prior to the midway point of the last campaign, it didn't look like the Tories would form government. However, it is partly Harper's fault, since he has been a very controlling PM and whenever he messes up, whatever cabinet minister falls under that department ends up taking the fall. The reality is no one is strong in every area, which is why successful governments are a team effort rather than a one man dictatorial show. And this leads me to my second point, which is unless Harper starts letting his cabinet ministers have more say, what I say below is really irrelevant, since as before it will still be Harper calling all the shots. So if you believe, like me that Harper, will still be running a one man show, then don't bother reading any further. But if you happen to believe Harper will let his ministers have more say, then read on.

Gordon O'Connor: It goes without question that he had to go as defence minister. My only question is why didn't Gordon O'Connor have the integrity to voluntarily resign as defence minister after the Afghan detainee issue and when he refused to resign, why didn't Harper force him to do so?

Peter MacKay: Although an improvement over O'Connor, I still feel he is a little too hawkish to be defence minister. Although, I doubt we will find a defence minister who is dovish enough for my liking or acceptable to most Canadians as long as the Tories remain in government.

Jim Prentice: Definitely one of the brighter lights within the Harper government and it is too bad he got switched from Indian Affairs as he was one of the few Tories who was actually on good terms with the aboriginals. Nevertheless, I expect he will be a strong industry minister.

Chuck Strahl: Probably not a bad decision to remove him from agriculture, but considering the fact that he was a former Reform Party member and Reform has a long history of hostility to aboriginals, I am bit worried we could see relations with the aboriginal community worsen.

Gerry Ritz: Certainly qualified considering he was a former farmer himself, however his strong support of weakening the Canadian Wheat Board will certainly not put that issue to rest. Although the fact he comes from the Wheat Board designated area may at least allow him to make the case the Tories understand the farmers in this area better than the other parties, although I am not sure how well this will fly. If you are a Wheat Board supporter, he is a bad choice, but if a Wheat Board opponent, then a good choice.

Diane Ablonczy: Considering the lack of women in Harper's cabinet, he definitely needed to bring in another female after Carol Skelton announced her decision to leave. Still the number of women in the Tory caucus is unacceptably low and it is something the party must address including the possibility of appointing some women in winneable ridings to ensure a better gender balance.

Maxime Bernier: Also one of the stronger ministers, although seems more suited to industry than foreign affairs. However, considering he comes from Quebec, where anti-war sentiment is strongest, I hope he will play a moderating influence on foreign affairs, although I fear this is more about selling the Afghanistan mission to Quebecers rather than re-thinking it.

Josee Verner: As a fully bilingual Quebecer, where culture is a major issue, I do think she will be a better heritage minister than Bev Oda

Bev Oda: Largely a dud as heritage minister, but considering there are few females in the Harper cabinet and the fact asides from Jim Flaherty, Peter Van Loan, and Mike Wallace, she is one of the few Tory members within commuting distance of Toronto, Harper had to give her something.

As for what this will mean in terms of the direction of the government, we will just have to wait and see.

Softwood Lumber Deal already falling apart

Last year, I argued that the softwood lumber deal we signed with the United States was a bad one that we should have never signed. The fact the United States is already planning to take legal action against Canada, for its claims that we are not following the agreement after only 10 months just proves my point. I argued that if the United States wouldn't follow NAFTA, what makes one think they would follow this deal if it didn't suit their interests. While it may have been politically expedient to get a deal on softwood lumber, it was bad in the long-term. What we should have done is pursued the issue in domestic courts, where we may have won and if we didn't, then consider retaliation. While some say as a small country we cannot afford retaliation, this precludes the possibility of seeking alliances with others. Had we agreed with the EU and Japan to support them in their trade disputes against the United States in exchange for them supporting us, the United States would take notice and would have a much tougher time continuing with its current tactics. As I have said all along, we need to diversify our trade. No smart investor would put 87% of their investments in one stock, and likewise no country should put 87% of their trade towards one country. That doesn't mean the United States won't continue to remain our largest trading partner, which there is nothing wrong with, but 87% with any one country is too much regardless of who it is.

Wheat Board ruling and Ignatieff on Iraq

Despite a quiet summer on the political scene, a number of things have happened in the past week. I won't write on all, but write on two of the ones that I have a definitive opinion on.

Canadian Wheat Board Ruling
On July 31st, a judge struck down Harper's decision to end the Wheat Board's monopoly in barley sales in the Prairie provinces. I fully support the decision despite the fact I do support a dual marketing system. The reason for this, is no matter how much I support or oppose a decision, I do not believe decisions of this magnitude should be able to proceed without parliamentary approval. I am very disappointed to see Harper's arrogant attitude that he will proceed regardless of what parliament thinks and the courts say. He must realize, while he may be PM, he does not hold all the power and the fact he has a minority government means he doesn't have a mandate to pass any legislation without the support of at least one other party. He has every right to put the issue to a parliamentary vote, persuade other parliamentarians and Canadians to support his view, and even use this as an argument as to why people should give him a majority. However, he does not have the right to pretend he has a mandate to do something he doesn't. I've learned in life that you try your best to get what you want, but you are not the only person out there and therefore you cannot always get everything you want.

The reason why I support a dual marketing system can be narrowed down to three reasons.
1. In a free and democratic society, I don't believe one's freedom should be restricted unless their actions infringe on another's freedom or cause harm to society as a whole. Selling outside of the Wheat Board does neither in my view. Most of us believe in balancing the interests of the collective and individual while some lean more towards another. I lean more towards the individual and believe that collective rights, while appropriate, must be done with caution as all too often the collective is simply used as an excuse to take away individual rights and expand the power of government. By the same token I do agree with the supporters that allowing individuals to sell on the open market when prices are high, but go back to the Wheat Board when low will undermine it, so my proposal is those who wish to sell on the open market can do so, provided they never use the Wheat Board ever again.
2. As an economics student, I studied how monopsony's work. They do increase producer surplus (the farmers), but the reduction in consumer surplus (the consumers) exceeds that of the gain in consumer surplus therefore resulting a deadweight loss.
3. I generally support having a more centralized government, but I do however believe any law made by the federal government should apply equally across the country. When it applies to only one region, you risk creating more regional alienation. I understand the economic rationale for applying it only to the Prairies, but I still believe this is not appropriate if done by the federal government.

Finally I reject the argument a dual marketing system cannot exist. In fact here in Ontario, the Ontario Wheat Producers' Marketing Board has done just that so if implemented properly it could work. My concern is that Harper wants to see the board destroyed altogether (which there are legitimate arguments for doing so) but feels he has a better chance of succeeding if using the cloak of a dual marketing system.

Michael Ignatieff on Iraq
Recently, Michael Ignatieff came out and said that he believe he made a mistake in supporting the Iraq War. I can certainly empathize with this is I initially supported it, but now strongly oppose it. I also understand his rationale for supporting it as the Kurds did suffer immensely under Saddam Hussein. In fact when I was in Vienna this past June, our hotel clerk was totally supportive of the Iraq War and he was an Iraqi Kurd who fled to Austria due to Saddam Hussein's rule. However, even if the war benefited the Kurds, there were far more people who were made worse off by it than better off. Few issues are entirely positive or negative, but rather one must look at each side and see which is larger. In this case, the negatives greatly outweigh the positives. Never mind, the fact there is no guarantee a different Iraqi government would support an independent Kurdistan and even if they did, there is a good chance Turkey would invade the region to avoid facing a similiar rebellion amongst the Kurds in their country. An independent Kurdistan will only happen, when Turkey, Iran, Syria, and Iraq all together decide to recognize a Kurdish homeland.

Finally I heard Harper will be having a cabinet shuffle soon. I will comment more once I see the changes, but the fact this is already his second cabinet shuffle really says something about the talent his government has. While part of this may be due to the fact strong candidates generally tend to run for winning parties, rather than opposition ones, strong candidates also like to have influence and with Harper being a control freak, this is difficult to do.