Once again the Canadian political landscape has been rewitten with huge changes. As the Conservatives finally have a Majority Government and the days of the Liberals being the Natural Government of Canada or the Government in Waiting might as well be ancient history.
Conservates 167 Seats (+23) -- Stephen Harper's unwavering support of Israel has been rewarded with the defeat of Liberals Ken Dryden and Joe Volpe. Now that he has a majority he can focus more on governing and spending less time on partisan politics. Highly ranked and skilled Lawrence Cannon was the only significant Convesrvative casualty of the election. The new influx of talent should allow for an even stronger cabinet.
NDP 102 Seats (+66) -- Under Jack Layton, the NDP played the roll of Effective Opposition, while the Liberals were floundering under Stephane Dion. They started by taking Outremont in a by-election and have grown in Quebec ever since. They will should serve the title of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition well. The only potential drawbacks that will emerge, will be from candidates that won who had no business running in the election.
Liberals 34 Seats (-43) -- It looks like Michael Ignatieff will join Stephane Dion and become the 4th Liberal leader not to become Prime Minister. He was ineffective at rebuilding the party. He lost his seat, along with former leadership race contenders Martha Hall-Findley and Gerard Kennedy. Bob Rae is the only one left from that group. The Liberals need to rebuild from the ground up with a real vision and a strong leader. Without the fear of an election or forming a coalition they have the opportunity they need. Now it is a matter of taking advantage of the time they have.
Bloc Quebecois 4 Seats (-44) -- They lost official party status. Gilles Duceppe lost his seat and resigned as party leader. This is good news for Canada and as bad as it gets for the Seperatist movement. In Quebec there is always room for a rebound but at least for the time being they will not be doing very much.
Green Party 1 Seats (+1) -- In 2008 Elizabeth May ran a horrible campaign. She tried to run a campaign on Foreign Policy by running against the very popular Peter McKay. She signed a signed a deal with Dion, to have the Party leaders not compete against each other. In the dying days of the election endorse strategic voting that would hurt her party. It made for an easy decision for the TV networks to not include her in the leaders debate.
This time round she took a different strategy. She moved over to the more cushy riding of Saanich--Gulf Islands. She spent the entire campaign in her own riding. With only 3.9% of the popular vote, costing the Green Party their vote subsidy. However she gets full credit for winning her seat. She can now be taken seriously and the future of the Green Party will be determined by her performance in Parliament. Exactly what her and her supporters wanted.
The best news about this election is the new Government will have time to govern and the parties will have time to recover before the next election. The Conservatives, NDP and Green Party will have a chance to prove themself while the Liberals and Bloc will have time to rebuild.
Showing posts with label federal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label federal. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Friday, April 22, 2011
Choosing a Prime Minister King-Byng All Over Again
The Canadian First Past the Post electoral system is designed to create majority governments. As Canadians prepare to go to the polls in a few weeks, they face the possibility of electing a 4th consecutive minority government. If the Conservatives win another minority will Harper still be Prime Minister has become a real question.
Harper was the first one to spin the debate to keep his job, by attacking the concept of a Liberal, NDP, Bloc coalition. It put the ball in Ignateif's court and his response was gaurenteed to help the Conservatives. If he said he was willing to form a coalition, then his more left wing supporters have no fear in peeling off to the NDP because it would still knock Harper out. It would also alienate his more right wing supporters who don't like the idea of the NDP in government. Rejecting the coalition would make it more difficult to come in 2nd place and argue he has a mandate to be Prime Minister. This week Harper also said that the who ever has the most seats should form the Government. If they lose the support of parliament they should go back to the polls. Harper is taking the side of Mackenzie King side of the King-Byng affair.
Ignateif this week tipped off how he would become Prime Minister even if he loses the election. The Government still has to pass a budget. If the budget were defeated, the Governor General could act as Lord Byng did in 1926 and ask the Liberals to form a Government. Ignateif could keep his promise to not form a coalition as long as he is able to pass the budget. Fearing the backlash from voters of another election would buy him the time he needs to put the fingerprint he wants on Government.
There is another variable that has started to emerge. The NDP are polling strong in Quebec and are showing signs that they may beat the Liberals and form the official opposition. The more voters accept the possibility of a real NDP breakthrough the more likely they are not going to lost that support to strategic votes for the Liberals. They could repeat the above scenario with Layton becoming Prime Minister.
Canadians may wake up on May 3rd to discover they have no idea who they have elected to govern. As Harper, Ignateif and possibily Layton stake out their political ground the Governor General may be the one deciding who really won the election.
Harper was the first one to spin the debate to keep his job, by attacking the concept of a Liberal, NDP, Bloc coalition. It put the ball in Ignateif's court and his response was gaurenteed to help the Conservatives. If he said he was willing to form a coalition, then his more left wing supporters have no fear in peeling off to the NDP because it would still knock Harper out. It would also alienate his more right wing supporters who don't like the idea of the NDP in government. Rejecting the coalition would make it more difficult to come in 2nd place and argue he has a mandate to be Prime Minister. This week Harper also said that the who ever has the most seats should form the Government. If they lose the support of parliament they should go back to the polls. Harper is taking the side of Mackenzie King side of the King-Byng affair.
Ignateif this week tipped off how he would become Prime Minister even if he loses the election. The Government still has to pass a budget. If the budget were defeated, the Governor General could act as Lord Byng did in 1926 and ask the Liberals to form a Government. Ignateif could keep his promise to not form a coalition as long as he is able to pass the budget. Fearing the backlash from voters of another election would buy him the time he needs to put the fingerprint he wants on Government.
There is another variable that has started to emerge. The NDP are polling strong in Quebec and are showing signs that they may beat the Liberals and form the official opposition. The more voters accept the possibility of a real NDP breakthrough the more likely they are not going to lost that support to strategic votes for the Liberals. They could repeat the above scenario with Layton becoming Prime Minister.
Canadians may wake up on May 3rd to discover they have no idea who they have elected to govern. As Harper, Ignateif and possibily Layton stake out their political ground the Governor General may be the one deciding who really won the election.
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Canadians Going Back to the Polls
The writ has been dropped and Canadians are going back to the polls for another Federal election. For years we have heard rhetoric about how Harper is destroying Canada and we need an election "now". With the Conservatives leading the polls going into the election, those who believe Harper is truly destroying Canada have until May 2nd to make their case.
There are 4 likely out comes to this election.
1. A Conservative Majority Government, which may help reduce the partisan bickering as the Government and Opposition parties will have 4 years to focus on the governing rather than political posturing on questions like if and when an election is called.
2. A Conservative Minority Government, which just means going back to the same old, that has been in place for the last 5 years.
3/4. A Liberal Government that can focus on changing course from what Harper has offered while in the Prime Ministers seat. How different the course will be from the current Government will probably be less noticeable than the Anti-Harper camp has hoped. In the event of a minority Government, Ignatieff should get some breathing room to put his fingerprints on the government before facing the difficulties of strategic maneuvering through a minority parliament.
As a Canadian living abroad my most important concern is on Foreign Policy. The current Government has proven to be a friend of Israel and willing to make the correct moves even if they are unpopular. While the Liberals have Israeli supports, such as Irwin Cotler, we are more likely to see a foreign policy that more closely mirrors that of the Obama Administration.
Obama has created a big mess in Israel that has allowed the Palestinians to avoid the negotiating table and reintroduce terrorism into their political arsenal. The Palestinians are hoping to force the creating of a State that will be in a de facto state of war come September. It is important that countries that have stood up for truth, such as Canada do not lose their voice in such a critical time.
There are 4 likely out comes to this election.
1. A Conservative Majority Government, which may help reduce the partisan bickering as the Government and Opposition parties will have 4 years to focus on the governing rather than political posturing on questions like if and when an election is called.
2. A Conservative Minority Government, which just means going back to the same old, that has been in place for the last 5 years.
3/4. A Liberal Government that can focus on changing course from what Harper has offered while in the Prime Ministers seat. How different the course will be from the current Government will probably be less noticeable than the Anti-Harper camp has hoped. In the event of a minority Government, Ignatieff should get some breathing room to put his fingerprints on the government before facing the difficulties of strategic maneuvering through a minority parliament.
As a Canadian living abroad my most important concern is on Foreign Policy. The current Government has proven to be a friend of Israel and willing to make the correct moves even if they are unpopular. While the Liberals have Israeli supports, such as Irwin Cotler, we are more likely to see a foreign policy that more closely mirrors that of the Obama Administration.
Obama has created a big mess in Israel that has allowed the Palestinians to avoid the negotiating table and reintroduce terrorism into their political arsenal. The Palestinians are hoping to force the creating of a State that will be in a de facto state of war come September. It is important that countries that have stood up for truth, such as Canada do not lose their voice in such a critical time.
Friday, March 19, 2010
Canada Doesn't Follow American Lead in Latest Diplomatic Mistep.
This week should have cast any doubts that at the moment Canada is Israel's #1 ally.
From the Toronto Star Editorial Staff
I wrote a response that doesn't have a chance of being published. I decided to share it here.
While in Israel Joe Biden was insulted by the announcement of a construction project to build much needed housing. On the very same trip PA President Abbas attended the inauguration of a square named after a terrorist who killed 37 Israelis. While an insult to Israel this move didn't warrant any attention from the US Administration.
I am rather baffled by the Toronto Star editorial staff for condemning Stephen Harper and Lawerence Cannon for not following the American lead in over reacting to this minor announcement.
It is likely that Palestinian negotiators have already agreed it would remain on the Israeli side of any border with a Palestinian State. If it doesn't Israel has proven over and over again they are willing to throw their own citizens out of their homes to make peace. Palestinians would get 1600 brand new housing units.
Obama's Administration created an international incident that caused violence without any diplomatic gain. The little more level headedness by world leaders, exhibited by Harper and Cannon would much more practical for creating a practical peace arangement.
From the Toronto Star Editorial Staff
If Prime Minister Stephen Harper wants to rebuke the Israeli government for expanding Jewish settlements in disputed East Jerusalem, as Washington and others have done, why doesn't he just come out and say so in plain language?
Instead, Harper has opted to send politically mixed messages in what appears to be a bid to curry favour with U.S. President Barack Obama's administration without alienating Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government. Amid the fog, it's hard to know just where the Conservatives stand.
Netanyahu's government infuriated the Obama administration on March 9 by provocatively announcing it plans to build 1,600 more housing units for Jewish settlers in East Jerusalem, despite Obama's express request not to. Worse, the news came as U.S. Vice-President Joe Biden was in Israel, professing America's unshakeable support. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called it "insulting." The White House cancelled a planned visit by Mideast envoy George Mitchell.
So what was Ottawa's reaction? Last Thursday, March 11, Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon merely voiced tepid "regret" and "concern." No surprise there, given Harper's reflexively pro-Israel stance. However by Tuesday Cannon told a Commons committee, "We feel that this is contrary to international law and therefore condemn it." That sounded more like Washington's angry reaction.
Yet when Harper was questioned in Parliament that same afternoon about a call he put in to Netanyahu, he pointedly declined to reinforce Cannon's tough stance. All he would say was that Canada's "position is well known," and that he hoped peace talks would resume.
To cap it all off, Cannon's office issued a backtracking statement later in the day insisting his condemnation wasn't "an escalation in our diplomatic language," just business as usual.
So there it stands. The United Nations, the European Union, the U.S. and Russia have all condemned the new housing, unequivocally. Even Israeli Labour leader Ehud Barak, who is Netanyahu's coalition partner and defence minister, called the move "unnecessary and damaging." Meanwhile Canada's political leaders bob and weave, lost in a fog of their own making.
I wrote a response that doesn't have a chance of being published. I decided to share it here.
While in Israel Joe Biden was insulted by the announcement of a construction project to build much needed housing. On the very same trip PA President Abbas attended the inauguration of a square named after a terrorist who killed 37 Israelis. While an insult to Israel this move didn't warrant any attention from the US Administration.
I am rather baffled by the Toronto Star editorial staff for condemning Stephen Harper and Lawerence Cannon for not following the American lead in over reacting to this minor announcement.
It is likely that Palestinian negotiators have already agreed it would remain on the Israeli side of any border with a Palestinian State. If it doesn't Israel has proven over and over again they are willing to throw their own citizens out of their homes to make peace. Palestinians would get 1600 brand new housing units.
Obama's Administration created an international incident that caused violence without any diplomatic gain. The little more level headedness by world leaders, exhibited by Harper and Cannon would much more practical for creating a practical peace arangement.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Should Prorogue Be a Bad Word?
The ability to prorogue parliament has always been a procedural tool that has always been available to the Government. It is an opportunity for the Government to reset their agenda without calling an election. Last year Prime Minister Harper used it to postpone a confidence vote that threatened to topple the Government that had been elected 6 weeks earlier.
Harper has once again used the tool of prorogation to extend the Parliamentary break until March. The thrown speech will be on March 3rd, immediatly followed by the budget on the 4th. The current break had been scheduled to end on January 25th.
Opposition parties and critics are upset that Harper is once again playing the "take the ball and go home" strategy. He is trying to delay the hearings on the Afghan detainee issues to avoid the truth from coming out. This issue isn't hurting the Conservatives in the polls. It would hardly enough of a reason to prorogue Parliament. There are more important motivations in this decision.
The most obvious reason is the Olympics. No party wants Parliament to be sitting during the Olympics. If anything of importance happens it would either be overshadowed by the Olympics or attract negative attention from the entire world. This is why if you wish to draw attention to a particular cause to be addressed by the Government you don't hold a press conference when Parliament is in session. It is too risky that your issue is overshadowed by a big news day in the Legislature. The focus during the Olympics should be about sports and promoting Canada. Politics can take a back seat for two weeks.
From a strategy point of view the most important reason to Prorogue Parliament comes from the Senate. The Prime Minister in a position to appoint 5 new Senators. This will shift the standings in the Senate to Conservatives 51, Liberals 49. Factoring in the two Progressive Conservative Senators they will have a majority in the 105 seat Senate. For the first time Harper will have minimal concern about the Senate blocking legislation. Prorogation or an election are the only ways to adjust the committees to reflect the new majority. Without the changes they would have an easier time stalling or stopping legislation.
Unfortunately politics is often more about strategy than substance. Harper is taking advantage of an opportunity to improve his ability to do what he was elected to do; Govern. He would not be doing his job if he missed out on this oppurtunity. If the Opposition parties don't like it they can take down the Government on the budget. In the mean time Harper is demonstrating he is a master strategist. He may have a minority Government but his hold on his job is as solid as any other majority government.
Harper has once again used the tool of prorogation to extend the Parliamentary break until March. The thrown speech will be on March 3rd, immediatly followed by the budget on the 4th. The current break had been scheduled to end on January 25th.
Opposition parties and critics are upset that Harper is once again playing the "take the ball and go home" strategy. He is trying to delay the hearings on the Afghan detainee issues to avoid the truth from coming out. This issue isn't hurting the Conservatives in the polls. It would hardly enough of a reason to prorogue Parliament. There are more important motivations in this decision.
The most obvious reason is the Olympics. No party wants Parliament to be sitting during the Olympics. If anything of importance happens it would either be overshadowed by the Olympics or attract negative attention from the entire world. This is why if you wish to draw attention to a particular cause to be addressed by the Government you don't hold a press conference when Parliament is in session. It is too risky that your issue is overshadowed by a big news day in the Legislature. The focus during the Olympics should be about sports and promoting Canada. Politics can take a back seat for two weeks.
From a strategy point of view the most important reason to Prorogue Parliament comes from the Senate. The Prime Minister in a position to appoint 5 new Senators. This will shift the standings in the Senate to Conservatives 51, Liberals 49. Factoring in the two Progressive Conservative Senators they will have a majority in the 105 seat Senate. For the first time Harper will have minimal concern about the Senate blocking legislation. Prorogation or an election are the only ways to adjust the committees to reflect the new majority. Without the changes they would have an easier time stalling or stopping legislation.
Unfortunately politics is often more about strategy than substance. Harper is taking advantage of an opportunity to improve his ability to do what he was elected to do; Govern. He would not be doing his job if he missed out on this oppurtunity. If the Opposition parties don't like it they can take down the Government on the budget. In the mean time Harper is demonstrating he is a master strategist. He may have a minority Government but his hold on his job is as solid as any other majority government.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Protesting the Enviornment Protestors
This week 20 people were arrested for climbing to the roof of the Parliament building in Ottawa to bring attention to global warming. The incident was to coincide with the launch of the world wide enviornment conference in Copenhagen. Protestors had to be physically removed from the House of Commons when they decided to shout down governmental proceedings to protest failure to pass enviornmental legislation before the conference. Greenpeace who was behind the latest stunt has declared it a success because everyone is talking about it and the environment.
A handful of people protesting a cause doesn't warrant much attention. The extremism of these last two stunts may get more attention but it does not help the cause. People are more drawn to the lack of respect for the democratic process (and in this case safety concerns) than the message of the protest. The conference in Coppenhagen is huge. If anything the Greenpeace protest was a distraction from the already heavy media coverage of the event. To try to claim that a few people hanging from a roof accomplished anything is giving them way to much credit. They would have accomplished more by being delegates at the conference.
The enviornmental movement is showing their frustration in as they try to avert what they believe to be a worldwide catastrophe. The truth is that while people care about the enviornment it does not necissarily take priority over other important issues. The fact that the best Green Party candidate could only muster 3% of the votes in the most recent round of by elections shows where Canadians priorities are.
The problem with any world wide agreement is that it puts more emphasis on social and political issues rather than the environment. The Canadian tar sands are being singled out as the most dangerous contributer to global warming. On a per capita basis that may or may not be true but in the big picture shutting them down completely would have a negligible effect on the enviornment. On the flip side countries like China and India who are major contributers due to population size are not seen as major threats to the environment.
Most of the negotiations revolves around the issues of have and have nots. Should level of wealth determine how environmentally responsible a country must be? Another report came out today that the cheapest way to reduce global warming is birth control. Obviously the target would be 3rd world countries with high birth rates. Using current environmental logic it should be the have countries that reduce their populations. This would necessitate immigration from 3rd world countries to sustain current economies and stop poverty around the world. Of course this is a nonsensicle stretch of logic (for now).
The bottom line is the world needs to find affordable alternatives to fossil fuels and other enviornmental issues. In the mean time efforts to reduce the amount of energy consumed and waste generated. Major social-economic policy is designed for just that and will do very little to help the environment (unless the goal is to complete economic collapse).
A handful of people protesting a cause doesn't warrant much attention. The extremism of these last two stunts may get more attention but it does not help the cause. People are more drawn to the lack of respect for the democratic process (and in this case safety concerns) than the message of the protest. The conference in Coppenhagen is huge. If anything the Greenpeace protest was a distraction from the already heavy media coverage of the event. To try to claim that a few people hanging from a roof accomplished anything is giving them way to much credit. They would have accomplished more by being delegates at the conference.
The enviornmental movement is showing their frustration in as they try to avert what they believe to be a worldwide catastrophe. The truth is that while people care about the enviornment it does not necissarily take priority over other important issues. The fact that the best Green Party candidate could only muster 3% of the votes in the most recent round of by elections shows where Canadians priorities are.
The problem with any world wide agreement is that it puts more emphasis on social and political issues rather than the environment. The Canadian tar sands are being singled out as the most dangerous contributer to global warming. On a per capita basis that may or may not be true but in the big picture shutting them down completely would have a negligible effect on the enviornment. On the flip side countries like China and India who are major contributers due to population size are not seen as major threats to the environment.
Most of the negotiations revolves around the issues of have and have nots. Should level of wealth determine how environmentally responsible a country must be? Another report came out today that the cheapest way to reduce global warming is birth control. Obviously the target would be 3rd world countries with high birth rates. Using current environmental logic it should be the have countries that reduce their populations. This would necessitate immigration from 3rd world countries to sustain current economies and stop poverty around the world. Of course this is a nonsensicle stretch of logic (for now).
The bottom line is the world needs to find affordable alternatives to fossil fuels and other enviornmental issues. In the mean time efforts to reduce the amount of energy consumed and waste generated. Major social-economic policy is designed for just that and will do very little to help the environment (unless the goal is to complete economic collapse).
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Giving it the full 10%
Under Steven Harper the Conservatives have made a major shift in election strategy. Campaigning is no longer reserved for elections. Controlling their branding with aggressive marketing has insured they are well defined in the eyes of the public. This strategy minimizes the risk of political fallout from a mistake on the short campaign trail. Kim Campbell, Stephane Dion and John Tory have all learned the hard way that campaigns are not the time to discuss major policy shifts. This startegy also allowed the Conservatives to attack Dion at his weakest. The strategy was extra effective as the Liberals did not have the financial resources to proeperly respond to the attacks.
The Conservatives have been using a strategy called ten percenters. This allows an MP to send flyers to other ridings under certain conditions. This Junk Mail strategy has annoyed many but the Conservatives seem to believe they work. The most recent controversy was 10 percenters sent to 5 Jewish ridings outlining the holes in the Liberals Israel foreign policy. The facts in the flyer were technically accurate but did not reflect the complete Liberal policy. There has been debate as to how much the Conservatives meant to imply in their criticism.
A committee is now reviewing the rules regarding the use of the ten percenters. The approach being taken by the opposition parties is that the Conservatives are abusing the system therefore the rules need to be changed. While the Government has spent $6 million on the flyers the opposition parties have spent $4 million. The wrong approach is being taken for meaningful change.
Originally the 10 percenters were designed to inform specific groups of government programs that applied to them that they not be aware of. There is also a secondary consequence. During an election the advantage always goes to the incumbent. They have a track record in government. Government accomplishments are their accomplishments. Plus people don't vote for change unless there is a major reason to. MP send notices to their own riding letting them know the job they as individuals and the government is doing. 10 percenters allows mailings to go out to deliver a similar message even if the riding is currently controlled by another party. They can help balance the playing field already tipped in favour of the incumbent.
The questions that should be asked are in an today's age of communication are mailings really an effective way to MPs to communicate with constituents? What is the balance between communicating with constituents for effective governing versus building on the incumbent advantage? What limitations can be put in place to limit partisan nature of communication with the riding without damaging the ability to represent a riding effectively? Addressing these issues will produce a new set of guidelines to improve the MP to voter relationship. Taking an approach with the intent to simply stop Conservative Party propaganda will simply replace the current system with a different partisan based system.
The Conservatives have been using a strategy called ten percenters. This allows an MP to send flyers to other ridings under certain conditions. This Junk Mail strategy has annoyed many but the Conservatives seem to believe they work. The most recent controversy was 10 percenters sent to 5 Jewish ridings outlining the holes in the Liberals Israel foreign policy. The facts in the flyer were technically accurate but did not reflect the complete Liberal policy. There has been debate as to how much the Conservatives meant to imply in their criticism.
A committee is now reviewing the rules regarding the use of the ten percenters. The approach being taken by the opposition parties is that the Conservatives are abusing the system therefore the rules need to be changed. While the Government has spent $6 million on the flyers the opposition parties have spent $4 million. The wrong approach is being taken for meaningful change.
Originally the 10 percenters were designed to inform specific groups of government programs that applied to them that they not be aware of. There is also a secondary consequence. During an election the advantage always goes to the incumbent. They have a track record in government. Government accomplishments are their accomplishments. Plus people don't vote for change unless there is a major reason to. MP send notices to their own riding letting them know the job they as individuals and the government is doing. 10 percenters allows mailings to go out to deliver a similar message even if the riding is currently controlled by another party. They can help balance the playing field already tipped in favour of the incumbent.
The questions that should be asked are in an today's age of communication are mailings really an effective way to MPs to communicate with constituents? What is the balance between communicating with constituents for effective governing versus building on the incumbent advantage? What limitations can be put in place to limit partisan nature of communication with the riding without damaging the ability to represent a riding effectively? Addressing these issues will produce a new set of guidelines to improve the MP to voter relationship. Taking an approach with the intent to simply stop Conservative Party propaganda will simply replace the current system with a different partisan based system.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Poll puts Conservatives in majority territory. Is it time for a coalition?
The latest poll by Strategic Counsel put the Conservatives in majority territory.
Without getting into the merits of a coalition government the reality of FPTP make this a poor decision for the Liberal and NDP.
First of all it would require an efficient ABC campaign where every vote in every riding is dedicated to a candidate that would beat the Conservatives.
It would require Iggy to campaign on the fact he can't beat Harper. This is a sign of weak leadership that would be unappetizing to voters.
A major problem in countries with pure PR and guaranteed coalitions government, is that voters never know what they are voting for. The issues that draw a person to a party may be the ones that get bartered away in the quest for power. While this is the current state of the Liberal platform, the differences between the parties should become cleared during an election. Voting for the ABC candidate takes away the ability for a voter to express their preference for differences Liberal or NDP policy.
The right side of the political spectrum were unable to defeat the Liberals due to vote splitting. Their merger helped put them on equal footing with the Liberals. A formal Liberal/NDP merger or the collapse of the BQ are the only realistic way to win an election on the basis of "We don't like the Conservatives" How important are the differences between the two parties? That is a strategic decision for the parties to make.
- Conservatives: 41 per cent (+6)
- Liberals, 28 per cent (-2)
- NDP: 14 per cent (none)
- Green Party: 9 per cent (none)
- Bloc Quebecois: 9 per cent (-3)
Without getting into the merits of a coalition government the reality of FPTP make this a poor decision for the Liberal and NDP.
First of all it would require an efficient ABC campaign where every vote in every riding is dedicated to a candidate that would beat the Conservatives.
It would require Iggy to campaign on the fact he can't beat Harper. This is a sign of weak leadership that would be unappetizing to voters.
A major problem in countries with pure PR and guaranteed coalitions government, is that voters never know what they are voting for. The issues that draw a person to a party may be the ones that get bartered away in the quest for power. While this is the current state of the Liberal platform, the differences between the parties should become cleared during an election. Voting for the ABC candidate takes away the ability for a voter to express their preference for differences Liberal or NDP policy.
The right side of the political spectrum were unable to defeat the Liberals due to vote splitting. Their merger helped put them on equal footing with the Liberals. A formal Liberal/NDP merger or the collapse of the BQ are the only realistic way to win an election on the basis of "We don't like the Conservatives" How important are the differences between the two parties? That is a strategic decision for the parties to make.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Loyal versus Effective Opposition
During Stephane Dion's reign as the leader of the Liberal Party the NDP lay claim to the title of "Effective Opposition". They opposed government confidence no matter what. They even declared their intention to vote against the budget without even reading it. This forced Dion to explain why he was going to be against legislation he would allow to pass. At the same time Liberals were digging through old closets for scandals, the NDP were bringing up current issues that were relevant to the current Government.
Michael Ignatieff was supposed to bring change with the Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition performing their duties to keep the government in check. With the threat of an election as the spring session wrapped up, the Liberals reached a deal for government compromises on EI in order not to take down the government. Things appeared to be back on track.
With the return from summer break the Liberals were not satisfied with the promised changes and Ignatieff declared they would bring down the government at the first oppurtunity. It seemed like a simple turning the tables on the NDP to make them look bad the same way they had been battered by the NDP.
Jack Layton turned the tables on the Liberals by declaring their support for the EI changes. They would keep the government afloat until they are delivered. Other government funding would not face being lost in the shuffle of another election. By voting in favour of popular legislation they have once again demonstrated they are able to be the effective opposition. Canadians have noticed as the Liberals have once again started dropping in the polls. In the long run effective government will trump a constant change in government. Ignatieff better tread carefully or he may find himself on the losing side of an election he could have avoided.
Michael Ignatieff was supposed to bring change with the Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition performing their duties to keep the government in check. With the threat of an election as the spring session wrapped up, the Liberals reached a deal for government compromises on EI in order not to take down the government. Things appeared to be back on track.
With the return from summer break the Liberals were not satisfied with the promised changes and Ignatieff declared they would bring down the government at the first oppurtunity. It seemed like a simple turning the tables on the NDP to make them look bad the same way they had been battered by the NDP.
Jack Layton turned the tables on the Liberals by declaring their support for the EI changes. They would keep the government afloat until they are delivered. Other government funding would not face being lost in the shuffle of another election. By voting in favour of popular legislation they have once again demonstrated they are able to be the effective opposition. Canadians have noticed as the Liberals have once again started dropping in the polls. In the long run effective government will trump a constant change in government. Ignatieff better tread carefully or he may find himself on the losing side of an election he could have avoided.
Monday, September 14, 2009
New Employment Benefits Target Older Workers
The last session of Parliament ended with the threat of another election. The reason for going to the polls would have been the Government's refusal to reduce the qualifying period for unemployment benefits to 360 hours. Instead an agreement was reached between the Liberals and Conservatives to use the summer to come up with a solution.
The Government announced their plans for temporary changes to employment insurance. Benefits will be extended by 5 to 20 weeks for people who have been working 7 of the last 10 years with limitations based on if they have collected benefits during that time. A ways and means motion on Friday will determine if this will be approved or if Canadians will once again go to the polls.
The Liberals and NDP took the approach of focusing on the benefits for people unable to hold jobs for a long period of time. The Conservatives have focused on older workers who have been in the work force for a long time. This demographic tends tend to have the hardest time adjusting to unemployment. The extra time may be enough to make the difference between time to retrain properly or jumping back into the job market. If all it takes is a few more weeks for upgrading skills the entire economy benefits.
Election fever has hit Ottawa once again. It will be hard to sell why this improvement is worth bringing down the government. The NDP and Liberals have an inverse relationship in terms of when is best for them to go to the polls. They target many of the same voters, the Liberals want a majority government and the NDP want a minority Liberal government. This leaves the Conservatives in the best position to serve up legislation that the opposition parties will have no choice but to vote down. That will not happen until the polls put them in clear majority territory. When you are playing a game of chicken, anyone can lose. The best scenario for Canadians is to hold of on an election and have the government get some work done, followed by a majority government to put an end to the election fever games.
The Government announced their plans for temporary changes to employment insurance. Benefits will be extended by 5 to 20 weeks for people who have been working 7 of the last 10 years with limitations based on if they have collected benefits during that time. A ways and means motion on Friday will determine if this will be approved or if Canadians will once again go to the polls.
The Liberals and NDP took the approach of focusing on the benefits for people unable to hold jobs for a long period of time. The Conservatives have focused on older workers who have been in the work force for a long time. This demographic tends tend to have the hardest time adjusting to unemployment. The extra time may be enough to make the difference between time to retrain properly or jumping back into the job market. If all it takes is a few more weeks for upgrading skills the entire economy benefits.
Election fever has hit Ottawa once again. It will be hard to sell why this improvement is worth bringing down the government. The NDP and Liberals have an inverse relationship in terms of when is best for them to go to the polls. They target many of the same voters, the Liberals want a majority government and the NDP want a minority Liberal government. This leaves the Conservatives in the best position to serve up legislation that the opposition parties will have no choice but to vote down. That will not happen until the polls put them in clear majority territory. When you are playing a game of chicken, anyone can lose. The best scenario for Canadians is to hold of on an election and have the government get some work done, followed by a majority government to put an end to the election fever games.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Parliament Ready to Pack up for the Summer
Parliament has been busy wrapping up the summer. The last major order of business was the Federal Government Economic Update report which will be voted on Friday before Parliament rises for the summer. As it is a budget it is a monetary issue it is subject to a confidence vote.
The opposition parties did not like what they saw. None of them are in a favourable position to go to the polls. The question was how to avoid an election without sacrificing any future political capital. The BQ and NDP came out against the government before reading the report. This scores points with those who don't like the government and would like to see it changed as soon as possible. The Liberals have been eroding their support so an election may change the government at the expense of their own parties.
The Liberals are climbing in the polls. Taking down the government on the economic update would force the focus of their campaign to be on the government is not spending enough money, the defecit is too high and the EI eligibility should be given to people before they have worked passed their probation period (360 hours). These are not issues to grap voters attention in the middle of the summer, when an election was not wanted in the first place. The Conservatives have very little to gain from an election. It is not likely they would get a majority government and there is a risk they could lose. The longer they wait the better their chances are as the economy recovers.
All the parties played the game of chicken threatening an election. The only logic choice was for the Liberals and Conservatives to work out an agreement to avoid an election. The parties will work together over the summer on how to improve the EI system. In case they cannot come to an agreement the Liberals have been given an opposition day in September where they can table a non-confidence vote.
This is how minority governments are supposed to work. There will be some sort of agreement on how to best help Canadians the same way an agreement was made on the budget. Aside from being unwanted an election would also have frozen some of the funds that the opposition has complained is not being distrubted fast enough. For now this is a good arrangement for all Canadians.
The opposition parties did not like what they saw. None of them are in a favourable position to go to the polls. The question was how to avoid an election without sacrificing any future political capital. The BQ and NDP came out against the government before reading the report. This scores points with those who don't like the government and would like to see it changed as soon as possible. The Liberals have been eroding their support so an election may change the government at the expense of their own parties.
The Liberals are climbing in the polls. Taking down the government on the economic update would force the focus of their campaign to be on the government is not spending enough money, the defecit is too high and the EI eligibility should be given to people before they have worked passed their probation period (360 hours). These are not issues to grap voters attention in the middle of the summer, when an election was not wanted in the first place. The Conservatives have very little to gain from an election. It is not likely they would get a majority government and there is a risk they could lose. The longer they wait the better their chances are as the economy recovers.
All the parties played the game of chicken threatening an election. The only logic choice was for the Liberals and Conservatives to work out an agreement to avoid an election. The parties will work together over the summer on how to improve the EI system. In case they cannot come to an agreement the Liberals have been given an opposition day in September where they can table a non-confidence vote.
This is how minority governments are supposed to work. There will be some sort of agreement on how to best help Canadians the same way an agreement was made on the budget. Aside from being unwanted an election would also have frozen some of the funds that the opposition has complained is not being distrubted fast enough. For now this is a good arrangement for all Canadians.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Ignatieff Takes Time Deciding to Topple Government
The Conservative Government released the quarterly Economic Progress report. The reports were started in exchange for Liberal support for the 2009 budget. The report is an update as to how well the Government is doing at distributing the economic stimulus package.
The BQ and the NDP were quick to condemn the report during question period. Michael Ignatieff has decided he will wait until tomorrow to make a final decision. This gives him time to read the 234 page report. He has also promissed not to leave Canadians hanging by making a decions on Friday.
"What they expect of me is to do my job properly and I'm trying to do it properly. So I'm going to look at the report tonight if I get a minute and tomorrow, and then we'll make a decision," he said after giving a speech to Quebec business leaders.
Ignatieff gets full credit for not jumping to a decision. Either he has basically made a decision already or he better get his priorities in order and clear his schedule to give this more thought. Taking the time to make the right decision instead of jumping to conclusions or at the very least not playing with an open hand is an improvement under Dion's leadership.
The Liberals are climbing the polls and the economy will probably be on it's way to recovery if they wait to pull the plug on the Government. On the other hand this would be 4 elections in 5 years. The Liberals have been complaining the government has not been spending enough money while the deficit is too high. They also want to reduce qualifications for unemployment insurance to a bare minimum. These are not strong planks for building an election platform.
Hopefully the Liberals will take more time to rebuild before jumping into another election. The party needs to build itself up on principles and solid policies. Voters can sense opportunism and it will hurt them in both the long run and in the short run.
The BQ and the NDP were quick to condemn the report during question period. Michael Ignatieff has decided he will wait until tomorrow to make a final decision. This gives him time to read the 234 page report. He has also promissed not to leave Canadians hanging by making a decions on Friday.
"What they expect of me is to do my job properly and I'm trying to do it properly. So I'm going to look at the report tonight if I get a minute and tomorrow, and then we'll make a decision," he said after giving a speech to Quebec business leaders.
Ignatieff gets full credit for not jumping to a decision. Either he has basically made a decision already or he better get his priorities in order and clear his schedule to give this more thought. Taking the time to make the right decision instead of jumping to conclusions or at the very least not playing with an open hand is an improvement under Dion's leadership.
The Liberals are climbing the polls and the economy will probably be on it's way to recovery if they wait to pull the plug on the Government. On the other hand this would be 4 elections in 5 years. The Liberals have been complaining the government has not been spending enough money while the deficit is too high. They also want to reduce qualifications for unemployment insurance to a bare minimum. These are not strong planks for building an election platform.
Hopefully the Liberals will take more time to rebuild before jumping into another election. The party needs to build itself up on principles and solid policies. Voters can sense opportunism and it will hurt them in both the long run and in the short run.
Monday, May 25, 2009
Government to Offer Training Assitance for EI Recipients
The Federal Government announced changes to the EI plan to help unemployed workers retrained to reenter the work force. The benefactors of the $500 million that was allocated in the budget are those who have been on a career track for a significant period of time which is now a deadend. Extra benefits including, extended time frame will be granted to those who enter the training program.
The best way to get the economy moving again is to get people back to work. Any moves that help make it easier for people to find jobs is a step in the direction. Those who are willing to put the time and effort to help themselves deserve the extra little boost to help make their career jump a reality.
The Liberals and NDP have focussed in on the minimum qualifications to receive EI benefits. Currently, the number of hours works varries from 420 - 910 depending on unemployment rates and other factors. They would like to have the number reduced to 360 hours.
360 hours for most full time jobs is 9 to 10 weeks. A standard probabtion period for a new job is 3 months. The idea that someone can qualify for a full year of EI benefits without even complting the probation period. This creates an oppurtunity for someone to bounce from job to job and collecting full government benefits. This is not the type of employee the government should be focusing on to get the economy back on it's feet.
There are still problems with the current EI system. A universal system of qualification would stream line the system and allow workers facing unemployment to easily figure out what they are entitled to as they adjust for the job search.
The government is demonstrating an effort to help people find employment. The opposition parties are focusing on the wrong areas to criticize the government. The workers that have been employed for a longer period of time are in more need of assistance. The EI system could still use major improvements. Attacking this plan for additional support to the unemployed as a means to force an election would be a mistake by the opposition parties.
The best way to get the economy moving again is to get people back to work. Any moves that help make it easier for people to find jobs is a step in the direction. Those who are willing to put the time and effort to help themselves deserve the extra little boost to help make their career jump a reality.
The Liberals and NDP have focussed in on the minimum qualifications to receive EI benefits. Currently, the number of hours works varries from 420 - 910 depending on unemployment rates and other factors. They would like to have the number reduced to 360 hours.
360 hours for most full time jobs is 9 to 10 weeks. A standard probabtion period for a new job is 3 months. The idea that someone can qualify for a full year of EI benefits without even complting the probation period. This creates an oppurtunity for someone to bounce from job to job and collecting full government benefits. This is not the type of employee the government should be focusing on to get the economy back on it's feet.
There are still problems with the current EI system. A universal system of qualification would stream line the system and allow workers facing unemployment to easily figure out what they are entitled to as they adjust for the job search.
The government is demonstrating an effort to help people find employment. The opposition parties are focusing on the wrong areas to criticize the government. The workers that have been employed for a longer period of time are in more need of assistance. The EI system could still use major improvements. Attacking this plan for additional support to the unemployed as a means to force an election would be a mistake by the opposition parties.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Court Upholds Decision to Keep George Galloway Out of Canada
A Canadian Federal Court has upheld the CBSA decision to prevent British MK from entering Canada. Immigration Minister Jason Kenney was the only person with the power to overturn the decision agreed that Galloway should not be allowed into Canada.
For many Canadians this is a case of free speech and punishing a person for sending aid to the Palestinians. From this angle it appears that the government is carrying out a gross injustice in an attempt to silence it's critics. What could possibly be wrong with providing humanitarian aid?
First step is to exam how he choose to deliver aid. The aid convoy started it's 3 week journey in London, crossed through Northern Africa before arriving at the Egyptian border. The size of his convoy at the beginning was just slightly less than the amount of aid Israel was allowing into Gaza during the 3 hour ceasefires during Operation Cast Lead. Israel was letting the aid through despite the fact that Hamas did not hold by the humanitarian cease fire.
The convoy was stopped at the Egyptian/Gaza border for 4 days. Egyptian officials said the aid was not urgent and some of it would have to go through Israel. Galloway refused insisting that the entire convoy together because he "would not accept any special favour from Israel." While claiming victory he let the Red Crescent bring in some of the aid. The Red Crescent makes all of their crossings thorugh Israel.
While waiting at the border his followers did have a clash with police with a couple of injuries. The night before they finally crossed their convoy was stoned and vehicles spray painted with anti-Hamas graffiti. While he supports Palestinians right to throw stones he was unhappy about being on the receiving end of the welcome. He did decide to avoid bringing up the embarrassing incident.
While in Gaza he happily met with the leaders of Hamas giving them $45,000 in cash. He was also photographed with Hamas in front of their map of the Middle East. That would be the one that does not include Israel.
Every other country in the world sends their aid to the Palestinian people through Israel via United Nations organizations. It is the only way to guarantee that aid gets to the Palestinian people instead of being siffened off to buy weapons to attack Israel. Even then the UNRWA had problems with Hamas hijacking their trucks. Galloway choose the slowest most inefficient method for delivery the so called emergency help. The entire convoy was a huge publicity stunt in order to show his support for Hamas.
Hamas is listed as a terrorist organization in Canada. This means their assets in Canada are frozen and it is illegal for a Canadian to provide them with funding. Galloway argued that his only intention was helping the Palestinian people and that meant giving money to the legitimate government of the Palestinian people. The fact they happen to be the same party as a terrorist organization is irrelevant. It is clear he wanted to legitimize Hamas as much or more so than he was concerned where the aid would be delivered.
The second argument was making this an issue of free speech. On two occasions Galloway was on the record in full support of the British government to ban politicians from visiting England. It is hypocritical to make the free speech argument when he is on the other side of the coin.
Galloway gave cash directly to a terrorist organization. His intention of the cash transaction was to legitimize the terrorist government. These actions would be illegal if done by a Canadian. Therefore they constitute grounds for refusing his entry into Canada.
For many Canadians this is a case of free speech and punishing a person for sending aid to the Palestinians. From this angle it appears that the government is carrying out a gross injustice in an attempt to silence it's critics. What could possibly be wrong with providing humanitarian aid?
First step is to exam how he choose to deliver aid. The aid convoy started it's 3 week journey in London, crossed through Northern Africa before arriving at the Egyptian border. The size of his convoy at the beginning was just slightly less than the amount of aid Israel was allowing into Gaza during the 3 hour ceasefires during Operation Cast Lead. Israel was letting the aid through despite the fact that Hamas did not hold by the humanitarian cease fire.
The convoy was stopped at the Egyptian/Gaza border for 4 days. Egyptian officials said the aid was not urgent and some of it would have to go through Israel. Galloway refused insisting that the entire convoy together because he "would not accept any special favour from Israel." While claiming victory he let the Red Crescent bring in some of the aid. The Red Crescent makes all of their crossings thorugh Israel.
While waiting at the border his followers did have a clash with police with a couple of injuries. The night before they finally crossed their convoy was stoned and vehicles spray painted with anti-Hamas graffiti. While he supports Palestinians right to throw stones he was unhappy about being on the receiving end of the welcome. He did decide to avoid bringing up the embarrassing incident.
While in Gaza he happily met with the leaders of Hamas giving them $45,000 in cash. He was also photographed with Hamas in front of their map of the Middle East. That would be the one that does not include Israel.
Every other country in the world sends their aid to the Palestinian people through Israel via United Nations organizations. It is the only way to guarantee that aid gets to the Palestinian people instead of being siffened off to buy weapons to attack Israel. Even then the UNRWA had problems with Hamas hijacking their trucks. Galloway choose the slowest most inefficient method for delivery the so called emergency help. The entire convoy was a huge publicity stunt in order to show his support for Hamas.
Hamas is listed as a terrorist organization in Canada. This means their assets in Canada are frozen and it is illegal for a Canadian to provide them with funding. Galloway argued that his only intention was helping the Palestinian people and that meant giving money to the legitimate government of the Palestinian people. The fact they happen to be the same party as a terrorist organization is irrelevant. It is clear he wanted to legitimize Hamas as much or more so than he was concerned where the aid would be delivered.
The second argument was making this an issue of free speech. On two occasions Galloway was on the record in full support of the British government to ban politicians from visiting England. It is hypocritical to make the free speech argument when he is on the other side of the coin.
Galloway gave cash directly to a terrorist organization. His intention of the cash transaction was to legitimize the terrorist government. These actions would be illegal if done by a Canadian. Therefore they constitute grounds for refusing his entry into Canada.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Taxing Together in Perfect Harmony
The PST and GST seem like similar sales taxes to the average consumer. Aside from which items are exempt there is a huge different in the way they are structured.
The PST is a tax on a goods sold. Items that are considered basic needs are exempt from this tax. If a business is buying a product for resale they are exempt from paying PST on the purchase. The exemption must be applied at the point of sale. Their is no mechanism to recuperate over payment of PST.
GST is a general tax on everything. The cost of basics is factored into a tax credit that is distributed based on income. The big difference is businesses can use GST collected to pay for their GST expenses, with only the balance going to the government. This can help with a companies cash flow. In general as long as a business is profitable, their customers will be paying all of their GST expenses. It is a much more favourable system for businesses.
When the Federal Government was implementing the cut in the GST from 6% to 5%, it was suggested that the Ontario government should harmonize their PST with the GST. The PST would be collected by the Federal Government and follow the same rules as the PST. It would have the benefits of less bureaucracy with a single tax collector plus businesses who want to upgrade their equipment. The draw back would be the numerous items that are not subjected to PST would be subjected to the harmonized tax.
Although the Ontario Government did not want to admit it, the economy was already showing signs of decline. Harmonization could help out the struggling manufacturing business by allowing them to upgrade their capital equipment with the new tax break. They also had the opportunity to use leverage to exchange support for the GST cut with the Federal Government agreeing to waive the GST on some items that are already PST exempt. At the time the Government decided it was not a good idea and passed on trying to take advantage of the opportunity.
Last week the Ontario government announced the budget with the plan to implement a harmonized sales tax. They will get all of the benefits as stated above. The cost of some items that were considered basic in Ontario will immediately rise 8% to reflect the new tax structure. The government is giving out cash to try to ease the burden of the tax increase. They would have been in a much better position if they choose to make the same decision earlier. This is a missed opportunity that Ontario tax payers will keep on paying for.
The PST is a tax on a goods sold. Items that are considered basic needs are exempt from this tax. If a business is buying a product for resale they are exempt from paying PST on the purchase. The exemption must be applied at the point of sale. Their is no mechanism to recuperate over payment of PST.
GST is a general tax on everything. The cost of basics is factored into a tax credit that is distributed based on income. The big difference is businesses can use GST collected to pay for their GST expenses, with only the balance going to the government. This can help with a companies cash flow. In general as long as a business is profitable, their customers will be paying all of their GST expenses. It is a much more favourable system for businesses.
When the Federal Government was implementing the cut in the GST from 6% to 5%, it was suggested that the Ontario government should harmonize their PST with the GST. The PST would be collected by the Federal Government and follow the same rules as the PST. It would have the benefits of less bureaucracy with a single tax collector plus businesses who want to upgrade their equipment. The draw back would be the numerous items that are not subjected to PST would be subjected to the harmonized tax.
Although the Ontario Government did not want to admit it, the economy was already showing signs of decline. Harmonization could help out the struggling manufacturing business by allowing them to upgrade their capital equipment with the new tax break. They also had the opportunity to use leverage to exchange support for the GST cut with the Federal Government agreeing to waive the GST on some items that are already PST exempt. At the time the Government decided it was not a good idea and passed on trying to take advantage of the opportunity.
Last week the Ontario government announced the budget with the plan to implement a harmonized sales tax. They will get all of the benefits as stated above. The cost of some items that were considered basic in Ontario will immediately rise 8% to reflect the new tax structure. The government is giving out cash to try to ease the burden of the tax increase. They would have been in a much better position if they choose to make the same decision earlier. This is a missed opportunity that Ontario tax payers will keep on paying for.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Immigrants Need to Learn the Official Language
There is a great deal of concern regarding the amount of Canadian Immigrants who are not able to speak English or French. Not having basic skills in your Country's official language can cause a great deal of difficulty in functioning in society. Many of these people end up in low paying customer service jobs, causing even more frustration and resentment towards the immigration population. There was a case last year where a nurse was not hired even though she was bilingual because she could not speak the language of the local immigrant population.
Immigration Minister Jason Kenney has expressed concern about this issue. He said that he had sat in on immigration interviews were the applicant was not able to carry out the interview in either English or French. This includes people who have been living in Canada for 10 - 15 years. The interview stage is designed to review applicants who failed the 20 question multiple choice test. He suggested that he is considering adding a language requirement to the application process.
The problem with such a proposal is that it is not easy to learn a new language. It harder as you get older, especially if you are struggling to put food on the table. While bringing in basic language requirements is a good idea, it needs to be implemented in a way that would also address these concerns. There are also concerns that it is possible to be a good citizen without the language skills.
In Israel, every new immigrant is entitled to up to approximately 500 hours of free language training. Plus their is some financial assistance during the first 6 months while people are getting settled. Canada could easily take some ideas from this system.
The Canadian government should require a minimum amount of language skills. They should also make language classes affordable to those who need it. The end result would be immigrant who are better able to function in society. The cost would be minimal compared to the benefit of a well functioning society. People need to be able to speak the official language. This is just a practical solution.
Immigration Minister Jason Kenney has expressed concern about this issue. He said that he had sat in on immigration interviews were the applicant was not able to carry out the interview in either English or French. This includes people who have been living in Canada for 10 - 15 years. The interview stage is designed to review applicants who failed the 20 question multiple choice test. He suggested that he is considering adding a language requirement to the application process.
The problem with such a proposal is that it is not easy to learn a new language. It harder as you get older, especially if you are struggling to put food on the table. While bringing in basic language requirements is a good idea, it needs to be implemented in a way that would also address these concerns. There are also concerns that it is possible to be a good citizen without the language skills.
In Israel, every new immigrant is entitled to up to approximately 500 hours of free language training. Plus their is some financial assistance during the first 6 months while people are getting settled. Canada could easily take some ideas from this system.
The Canadian government should require a minimum amount of language skills. They should also make language classes affordable to those who need it. The end result would be immigrant who are better able to function in society. The cost would be minimal compared to the benefit of a well functioning society. People need to be able to speak the official language. This is just a practical solution.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
World follows Canada's foreign policy example
The first ever United Nations Anti-Racism conference in Durban South Africa was a complete disaster. Instead of dealing with improving living conditions and preventing racism around the world it became a massive Israel bashing session. The conference accomplished nothing productive.
Durban II is scheduled to take place next month. Canada out of concern that it would be a repeat embarrassment of the first conference declared their intention to boycott. Israel eventually followed suit.
The United States sent a delegation to try to have the objectionable language removed from the conference. They had a few major concerns. Once again Israel was going to be the only country singled out for Human Rights violations, by countries who have enough problems granted human rights to their own citizens. Another issue was to make it a human right violations to criticize another religion. This would justify the riots following the publication of the Muhammad cartoons as response to a human rights violation. It also flies in the face of free speech which is highly regarded in the West. A demand for reparations for slavery were also on the table. The United States announced their intention to boycott if the text was not changed.
Italy became the first European to announce their intention to boycott. It is interesting that it was an Italian reporter that went to Gaza and said that the humanitarian situation was not that drastic. England then expressed reservations about the conference, followed by a possible boycott by the EU.
The text has now been changed. It will probably be enough for most countries to call of the boycott. Although, there is still a great deal of concern that all the elements are in place to still have a repeat of the last conference. Canada has not announced they have changed their mind about attending
Canada was the first country to stand up to this pending injustice. The world has fallen suit. Even if the conference does turn into a disaster the actions of Canada, United States, Italy and EU have minimized the amount of damage that can be done.
Durban II is scheduled to take place next month. Canada out of concern that it would be a repeat embarrassment of the first conference declared their intention to boycott. Israel eventually followed suit.
The United States sent a delegation to try to have the objectionable language removed from the conference. They had a few major concerns. Once again Israel was going to be the only country singled out for Human Rights violations, by countries who have enough problems granted human rights to their own citizens. Another issue was to make it a human right violations to criticize another religion. This would justify the riots following the publication of the Muhammad cartoons as response to a human rights violation. It also flies in the face of free speech which is highly regarded in the West. A demand for reparations for slavery were also on the table. The United States announced their intention to boycott if the text was not changed.
Italy became the first European to announce their intention to boycott. It is interesting that it was an Italian reporter that went to Gaza and said that the humanitarian situation was not that drastic. England then expressed reservations about the conference, followed by a possible boycott by the EU.
The text has now been changed. It will probably be enough for most countries to call of the boycott. Although, there is still a great deal of concern that all the elements are in place to still have a repeat of the last conference. Canada has not announced they have changed their mind about attending
Canada was the first country to stand up to this pending injustice. The world has fallen suit. Even if the conference does turn into a disaster the actions of Canada, United States, Italy and EU have minimized the amount of damage that can be done.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Ignatieff Continues with Rebuilding
Stephane Dion is just a tiny blip on the history of the Liberal Party. His most notable accomplishment was "The Clarity Act". It is supposed to be a clear guideline of how the question should be asked, should Quebec separatists decide to hold another referendum. Just like Stephane Dion's hopes of becoming Prime Minister, hopefully there will never be a need to apply this legislation.
Michael Ignatieff has brought an immediate change of course to the Liberal Party. He has announced that the Green Party will not get any kind of free ride from the Liberals in the next election. He believes the environment plank of their platform will be able to stand on it's own. He also acknowledged that the Alberta Oil sands are an important part of the Canadian economy. He will not alienate Western Canada. This a change from Dion who tried to make them the major target of his environmental plan.
Ignatieff has earned respect from Harper because he is willing to stand up to the government if ti is the right thing to do. This change of course continues to take the Liberal Party on the path as being a viable alternative to lead the country. Governments are more in tuned with the public, when they are battling to keep their jobs. A strong Liberal Party is good for Canada whether they are in the government or sitting on the opposition benches.
Michael Ignatieff has brought an immediate change of course to the Liberal Party. He has announced that the Green Party will not get any kind of free ride from the Liberals in the next election. He believes the environment plank of their platform will be able to stand on it's own. He also acknowledged that the Alberta Oil sands are an important part of the Canadian economy. He will not alienate Western Canada. This a change from Dion who tried to make them the major target of his environmental plan.
Ignatieff has earned respect from Harper because he is willing to stand up to the government if ti is the right thing to do. This change of course continues to take the Liberal Party on the path as being a viable alternative to lead the country. Governments are more in tuned with the public, when they are battling to keep their jobs. A strong Liberal Party is good for Canada whether they are in the government or sitting on the opposition benches.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Federal Budget Passes
The federal budget has been passed, officially putting an end to the attempted coalition takeover of the government and putting the government on track to attempt to try to spend it's way out of the economic turn down. There are a few interesting side stories with this budget.
The Newfoundland Liberal MPs were given permission to vote against the budget. Under Dion an MP would be booted from the party for even suggesting the budget would be beneficial to their constituents. Ignatieff is acknowledging that from his perspective it is not perfect it is in the best interest of the country to pass. MPs are free to acknowledge that it does not universally benefit everyone. This tolerance of free expression bodes well for rebuilding the Liberal party.
This also marks the 4th budget past by the Conservative minority government. Despite the vocal opposition from anti-Harper advocates, he has managed to offer enough to stay in power. Like him or hate him he has proven to be a master politician in getting legislation through parliament. If Ignatieff can continue to demonstrate he is an equally skilled politician Canada will return to the days of prosperity as quickly as possible.
The Newfoundland Liberal MPs were given permission to vote against the budget. Under Dion an MP would be booted from the party for even suggesting the budget would be beneficial to their constituents. Ignatieff is acknowledging that from his perspective it is not perfect it is in the best interest of the country to pass. MPs are free to acknowledge that it does not universally benefit everyone. This tolerance of free expression bodes well for rebuilding the Liberal party.
This also marks the 4th budget past by the Conservative minority government. Despite the vocal opposition from anti-Harper advocates, he has managed to offer enough to stay in power. Like him or hate him he has proven to be a master politician in getting legislation through parliament. If Ignatieff can continue to demonstrate he is an equally skilled politician Canada will return to the days of prosperity as quickly as possible.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
An Upside Down Budget for a Backwards World
Classic economic theory was that governments should have small operating surpluses during the good times and small deficits during the tough times. This would help balance out the extremes of the business cycle without a massive raid on the treasury. During the 1970s and 1980s this theory was abandoned as governments racked up massive deficits and massive amounts of debt. Towards the end of the 1980s early 1990s there were warnings that if this pattern was not corrected Canada would be in severe economic trouble. The Brian Mulroney Conservative Government introduced the GST. In 1993 the Liberals and Jean Chretien with Finance Minister Paul Martin brought down the $40 billion+ deficit. Eventually they reached a point of year after year of double digit surpluses. Canada was the only country in the G8 that was consistently producing budget surpluses.
When the Conservatives took power in 2006 they considered the massive surpluses as over taxation. Through cutting the GST by 2% and other tax reductions they acted to minimize the size of budget surpluses without going into deficit. The Liberals consistently accused them of taking the country back into deficit.
In October the Canadians went back to the polls. The economic collapse had already begun in the US and was an important consideration during the elections. The Liberals promised a massive spending program to be paid for by a massive tax increase. The Conservatives offered fiscal responsibility and staying the course. They had to change gears when the opposition parties rejected their economic update.
Parliament returned this week with a new budget and a massive economic stimulus package. Many people are referring to this as 'Liberal' budget. This is a very interesting term considering their years of condemning the Conservatives for what they believed was the road to deficit. The good news is it looks like it is a big enough compromise to prevent Canadians from going back to the polls once again.
Economic theory seems to have been turned on it's head. Hopefully this will be the right kind of economic stimulation to help a disastrous economic situation. Hopefully once this passes people will remember that in the long run the government is better off with small surpluses rather then massive deficits.
When the Conservatives took power in 2006 they considered the massive surpluses as over taxation. Through cutting the GST by 2% and other tax reductions they acted to minimize the size of budget surpluses without going into deficit. The Liberals consistently accused them of taking the country back into deficit.
In October the Canadians went back to the polls. The economic collapse had already begun in the US and was an important consideration during the elections. The Liberals promised a massive spending program to be paid for by a massive tax increase. The Conservatives offered fiscal responsibility and staying the course. They had to change gears when the opposition parties rejected their economic update.
Parliament returned this week with a new budget and a massive economic stimulus package. Many people are referring to this as 'Liberal' budget. This is a very interesting term considering their years of condemning the Conservatives for what they believed was the road to deficit. The good news is it looks like it is a big enough compromise to prevent Canadians from going back to the polls once again.
Economic theory seems to have been turned on it's head. Hopefully this will be the right kind of economic stimulation to help a disastrous economic situation. Hopefully once this passes people will remember that in the long run the government is better off with small surpluses rather then massive deficits.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)