Harper's Errors and US politics

This past week, another minister from the Harper government had to resign over a security breach. The question many ask is why was Maxime Bernier even given the foreign affairs ministry. Unlike some, I think he was a capable person, but mainly on issues relating to domestic economic policy so I though ministry of Industry was far more fitting for him than foreign affairs. In fact he probably only got that ministry to help pacify the strong opposition to the Afghanistan mission in Quebec. Also Harper has been over in Europe trying to sell his environmental policy, which isn't going to well. And contrary to what some think, most European countries have centre-right not centre-left governments at the moment (i.e. France, Germany, and Italy) so hardly the people you would usually suspect to be critical of Harper. In fact I don't know of any right wing party in Europe that is against dealing with climate change. While they may take very different views on immigration, law & order, social policy, and fiscal policy, this seems to be at least one of the few issues that are reasonably united behind. Now it is true that Europe will have an easier time reaching their Kyoto targets as they drive more fuel efficient cars, have better inter-city transportation due to their higher population density, spend less on fuel due to their milder winters, and their cities were built prior to the automobile rather than after, but still we could be making the same level of effort, which we aren't. As for my view on the Bernier scandal, I generally tend to ignore scandals as I believe no matter what party is in power scandals will happen as that is just the way government operates. After all, the sponsorship scandal played no role whatsoever in determining my vote last election. Still, this will definitely hurt the Tories in the short-term and if enough of these happen, eventually one of them will bring them down just as adscam wasn't the first Liberal scandal, but it was the one to bring the party down.

In other domestic news, Dion is promising a carbon tax. This is quite similiar to what is already done in British Columbia. I know this might be a tough sell but I totally support it provided it is revenue neutral, which means the reductions in taxes for those who pollute less are equal or greater than the increases for those who pollute more. If it is just a tax grab like some European countries have done, I don't support it, but I think Dion understands this and won't do this. Pollution is an externality so this is simply putting a price on it and then letting the market take care of the rest as any first year economics student will tell you higher prices mean people cut consumption and lower prices encourage consumption. Now off course, the one problem could be on inelastic goods (for those not familiar with economic terms, this means goods where consumption is not highly affected by price, usually essential items) and in this case it probably won't be the most effective, but still no solution will be perfect.

Continuing on British Columbia, the BC supreme court has ruled that the safe injection site will be able to stay open until at least 2009. While it is unfortunate this case had to go to court and not being lawyer I am not sure the exact legalities behind the decision, I do support keeping the site open. I initially opposed the site when it first opened since it worried it would encourage more drug use and create more crime in the surrounding area, but I am a pragmatist and when the facts showed this assessment was wrong, I changed my views. Unfortunately the same cannot be said about our government. Despite the overwhelming evidence that it works and the strong support of the population, they seem more bent on ideology. Now that is not to say I want to see every city open one up, but the decision to have or not have one should be up to the local community and in Vancouver most support it including the municipal and provincial government who are BTW centre-right although less ideological than the federal Tories.

Turning to US politics, it is pretty clear by now that Obama will be the next Democrat presidential nominee. My suggestion to Hilary Clinton would be to graciously bow out after the primaries finish in under a week and then throw her support behind Obama. Polls have shown that the party is becoming more and more polarized with more and more supporters willing to support McCain if their candidate doesn't win. Now is the time to unite the party. Also, while Obama has many strengths, one of his weaknesses is amongst White Blue collar voters and this vote is quite important in some key states such as Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. If Obama, loses either Michigan or Pennsylvania to McCain, he will not be president and not winning Ohio will make it difficult although not impossible to win in November. As with any leader they need to not just motivate their base to show up, they must also reach out to the fence sitters who could go either way.

Recent Issues

Haven't blogger for a while due to a combination of factors including a bad cold I had recently as well as I also wanted to be outside when we finally got our first spring like weather here in Toronto. Anyways a brief summary of my take on a few recent issues.

Clinton Wins Pennsylvania

The results in Pennsylvania ensure one thing, which is the race for the Democrat nomination will continue. Clinton's win of 55% to 45% over Obama was not a small margin, but neither a blowout. Clinton needed to get over 60% to be fully back in the game, which she failed to do, but she needed to win by more than a few percentage points to stay competitive, which she did. However, I still think it is almost a guarantee Obama will be the Democrat presidential hopeful, so my advice to Clinton would be to bow out if she doesn't win either Indiana or North Carolina. In the mean time the super-delegates need to start declaring who they will support, so hopefully by June when the primaries are over, one of the two contenders will have graciously bowed out. The longer the contest goes on, the more divided the party will become and the better the chances are of a Republican victory in November. As much as Americans don't like Bush, McCain is still reasonably well liked and is electable. As for my opinion on McCain, I am still somewhat undecided, since although I respect the fact he was willing to go against his party on several issues, he is still too conservative for my tastes, albeit he is definitely an improvement over Bush (which isn't that hard to do unless one is a dictator).

Economic downturn and Ontario's struggling economy

A recent report has come out that Ontario may become a have not province in a few years. Perhaps maybe I need to leave as British Columbia became a have not province right around the time I graduated from high school and then moved back to a have province just before I moved to Ontario, so it seems I bring bad luck economically wherever I go. But all joking aside, this could be quite serious for not just Ontario's economy but Canada's as a whole. With 38% of the population and over 40% of the GDP, a downturn in Ontario will hurt all of Canada. It will mean less tax revenue to fund our social programs, debt repayment, and lower taxes. Also if Ontario goes on equalization, it will either mean the have provinces in the West have to pay a lot more into equalization, or those currently receiving equalization will get a lot less, both which are not attractive. Rather than pick fights, the federal government and provincial government should work together to find a way to prevent this from happening. Much of this is off course beyond the control of the government is we live in a global economy and we cannot avoid an economic downturn especially one in the United States. The decline of the manufacturing sector has been happening for some time and I don't think it can be fully reversed, but we need to find ways to allow our economy to make a full transition to new sectors. Economies that can change easily from one sector to another tend to do better than those that cannot. By having a highly skilled and educated workforce as well as making Canada and Ontario a competitive place to do business, this can make the transition easier.

Harper's dispute with Elections Canada

Elections Canada has accused the Tories of using an in and out scheme to exceed the election spending limits. This is an serious issue and if the Tories broke the law, there should be penalties. This also seriously undermines the confidence people have in our democratic institutions. Now I am not saying the Tories are guilty since although the partisan side of me would love to say they are, I do believe in the idea of innocent until proven guilty, so I will wait until the court hands down an opinion one way or another before commenting. I am however, disturbed by Harper's frequent attacks on Elections Canada. Back in his days as president of the NCC, he referred to them as jackasses and his former right hand man at the National Citizens' Coalition, Gerry Nicholls (www.gerrynicholls.blogspot.com) still is attacking them daily. Ignoring the fact Nicholls bashes Harper frequently for not being right wing enough, I think he is simply saying what Harper believes but has enough sense not to say. One may not agree with all of Elections Canada's rulings are all election laws, but independent organizations like Elections Canada are vital to ensuring the fairness of our elections. Unlike in the US where parties frequently gerrymander congressional districts to favour their party, our boundaries are drawn up by Elections Canada in a fair matter that does not favour one party over another. In fact it has helped many other countries around the world including Ukraine and Iraq in their elections. Therefore, I abhor Harper's attacks on them and am very concerned about them. I am all for less government and getting government out of areas it doesn't belong in, but clearly this is a legitimate area for an independent government agency such as Elections Canada.