Canada’s Debate

I’ve stayed out of the latest Tory scandal (involving Chuck Cadman) because I’ve been somewhat underwhelmed by it all. When the news first broke I told my family that these sorts of deals happen all the time; the only thing that surprised me (and still does) is how apathetic Harper was in basically admitting it to the press. Tells me he just doesn’t care what people think of him, so long as they think he’s a Prime Minister.

But this story really infuriates me, and is a telling lesson of the true character of the Conservative party. I can’t remember the last time the Federal government issued such a mealy-mouthed and ineffectual response to a Canadian being sentenced to execution overseas.

Should I be surprised? Their defense of the kangaroo-court proceedings towards Arar is at least couched in the terms of due-process and fairness, but Saudi Arabia is hardly a bastion of balanced and fair jurisprudence. Harper and the Tories have clearly stated that defending Canadian citizens overseas is not their highest priority. Say what you will about the Liberals; they never directly put the immediate-lives of Canadians abroad on the back-burner for political or economic reasons.

At least once a week I come across an editorial, blog or essay lamenting the death of the Middle Class. The Middle Class is “shrinking” or under pressure, etc.

I think it’s time as post-modern thinkers to accept facts; the Middle Class no longer exists because only vestigial traces of the manufacturing economy that it supported remain. As markets have expanded and manufacturing has become automated it is no longer labour which drives economic activity.

In the same way that the Agricultural Revolution allowed the societal elite to move away from labour and pursue non-agricultural efforts (religion, art, philosophy… the bedrocks of a culture-based society); the Industrial revolution allowed those who were skilled to turn their wealth into owned property, something only the elite had until the 18th century. Unfortunately, almost as soon as this started to happen, middle-class labourers started to purchase material goods which they had otherwise made themselves or gone without.

Well, the scale has finally tipped; the “Middle Class” no longer exists because labour is no longer a gateway to ownership, it is a gateway to consumption. With the decreasing value of consumer goods and the shrinking of labour pools widespread and consistent consumption is driving the economy almost exclusively. Home-ownership has skyrocketed, but it has been financed by debt and questionable practices. Owning four walls while borrowing money to pay for your groceries and clothes is indicative of an economy of consumption, not ownership. And so I give you the new Consumption Class. The “middle class” is still there; it’s just the at the centre of a new economy, and centuries-old labels no longer apply.

Censorship and “hate speech” has been the focus of attention of the blogosphere lately, with the usual suspects leading the charge, with Warren Kinsella on the left, and Small Dead Animals on the right. The latest conflagration is over Human Rights tribunals, and their role in trying to stamp-out hate speech. Specifically Ezra Levant, who is widely acknowledged as an idiot, is the subject of these tribunals. Odd how a single person can be used as the foundation for both sides of an argument about hypocrisy…

Anyways, I’ve been watching this back-and-forth for some time. I read a discussion today on America’s Debate which got me thinking (in the shower, where 75% if my blog posts originate.) Are tribunals censorship? Yes. Do they infringe in our rights? Yes. Are they necessary? Absolutely. Racism comes in many shapes and sizes; and the aforementioned discussion on America’s Debate reminded me of the David Rosenzweig murder in 2002. (Continue reading…)

I was flipping through an editorial by Ezra Levant the other day and I caught something which made me chuckle. You see, Ezra Levant is a bottom-scraping Conservative hyperbolist… sort of an Anne Coulter, only with hairer legs and a slightly less libellous attitude. While his tongue may not be as severe, his academic background and intelligence (however poorly applied it may be) delude him into thinking that he has genuine insight.

This latest editorial was a critique of a recent lawsuit being brought to the Supreme Court by Chris Palaire, trying to force the Court to order the Government to create a Kyoto action plan. I agree with Ezra inasmuch as this is a serious stretching of the Court’s jurisprudence; on principle the courts should not legislate, and since none of the previous Acts of Government regarding Kyoto legally oblige the current government to do more than they have done, I don’t see what standing the Court has to intervene. What I find amusing is the bombastic criticism of Kyoto that Levant is engaged in. It’s pretty stupid so I don’t delve in great detail, I will just say this: He proves to the world he is an idiot by defeating his own argument, and I want to share that with you.

Kyoto compliance is impossible without shrinking our economy by one third, and then shrinking it more for every new baby or immigrant, because the amount of carbon we’re allowed to emit never grows.

Where does he get the “one third” number? Well, earlier in the paragraph he points out that Canada’s GDP has increased by 55% since 1990. See, according to Ezra the only way to reduce emissions would be to “undo” all that economic growth and return to our pre-1990 GDP level. What is interesting is that Canada’s emissions haven’t grown by 55% since 1990. Sure they’ve gone up, and the government has done nothing to fight them… but economic growth has outstripped emissions growth, which demonstrates that intensity is not fixed to economic output. Then again, anyone with a grade 9 education should know that… Now, Canada at this point probably cannot meet its Kyoto obligations by 2012, in no small part due to the stalling and fear-mongering that Ezra and his comrades engage in; but the supposition that reducing emissions without reducing GDP is impossible is flat-out idiotic, and I think we should all show Ezra Levant the ‘respect’ that he deserves as a result.

Boy, my prognostications are getting better and better aren’t they? I write a post about the Harper/Flaherty response to the infrastructure deficit report issued this week and suggest that it is a part of their plan to encourage the privatization of as many government services/programs as possible, and the very same day they suggest that P3’s are the solution to this problem.

Ok, enough horn-tooting. What’s important here is that the Conservatives’ feathers are showing, and badly. Private-public-partnerships may seem inocuous enough, but they are always the result of politics and/or desperation: governments pursue them either as a way to quietly disengage from the public sector, or to avoid paying for something that they are responsible for and cannot afford. Given the recent massive surpluses announced by the Tories, and projections for matching future windfalls, I think we can eliminate desperation as a motive for encouraging privatization. The fact that he is willing to suggest it so casually and quickly really betrays his motives, and in Harper’s government, you’d better believe that what the Finance Minister wants, the Prime Minister wants as well.

That Flaherty is suggesting them as an out for cities and provinces comes as no surprise… that he would do so less than a day after rejecting a desperate (and justified) funding plea tells me that he doesn’t care if people finally grasp his intentions, or he figures that the issue is low on everyone’s radar and nobody will make the connection. My concern is that he is correct on the latter.

Make no mistake, Flaherty isn’t suggesting P3’s so he can avoid funding costly infrastructure repairs and keep paying for his ill-advised GST cuts, he is suggesting it because he wants it. Once the private sector gets its foot in the government-service door, law, economics and politics make it almost impossible to close them out… and nothing would make Stephen Harper and his ultra-conservative Finance Minister happier.

I’ve talked about the infrastructure deficit a couple of times in the past; and have even mentioned it on AD Radio on a couple of ocassions when I’ve called in. Well, the subject is in the news once again, as is Harper (and primarily) Flahertys’ appallingly weak response.

Here are the basic facts: Canada’s municipal and rural infrastructure is in staggeringly poor repair, most of it (in adjusted capital spending) being built between 1900 and 1970. A large amount of that infrastructure is so old/dicrepid that it is impossible to project it’s long-term lifespan, and a large majority of it will pass the point that it is repairable in the next decade. The cost to repair/replace this infrastructure is well over $100 Billion dollars. Almost all of it is municipal.

I highlight that last fact because it is at the root of both the problem, and the above-mentioned weak response. Municipal/regional governments depend largely on property taxes for their revenues, and property taxes usually increase along with the rate of inflation, if that. Most of Canada’s urban infrastructure was built during periods of economic expansion and intense urban growth. Toronto’s infrastructure was built in the early part of the 20th century during the two major influxes of European settlers, and during the 1960’s when monied newcomers from Asia started to arrive. (The story is similar in Vancouver, Calgary, etc.) During the periods of expansion the cost of labour and material was relatively stable, and maintenance was inexpensive as the systems being built were being used at rates well below capacity. End result, cities could afford to build infrastructure as they expanded. Fast forward to the 21st century: labour and material costs have far out-stripped inflation, infrastructure systems are being used at peak capacity (or higher), and perhaps most significantly, municipalities are required to use the money raised from property taxes to pay for obligations that didn’t exist during previous build-cycles. (Continue reading…)

Ignoring for a moment the fact that Peter Van Loane is an idiot, and Dalton McGuinty is fighting a losing battle; Ontario’s place in Canada seems to be a prominent subject of discussion these days. For those not in-the-know I will summarize:

The Tories have decided that some provinces are under-represented in the House of Commons, and are going to increase the number of seats, in total and for these specific provinces. Seems sensible so far, does it not? The catch is that B.C. and Alberta will get an increase that brings their number in line with their respective populations; while Ontario’s increase will only go half-way towards that goal (a deficit of 10 seats.)

Expanding the House of Commons is tricky; provinces can not have the number of seats reduced, and any expansion is bound to create political tension. Space is of course also limited… which provides a convenient explanation for Ontario’s exclusion. It is also pure bullshit; if there was only enough room to expand the House by X number of seats and three provinces were identified as needing expansion then the fair thing to do would be to determine the amount of seats to be added based on space available, and proportionally divide them among the three provinces based on population of the total group (Alberta, B.C., and Ontario.) (Continue reading…)

There was an interesting (and much better written) column in the Star yesterday which discusses pretty much everything I discussed in my post of the same day; Dion’s ineffectiveness, Liberal disorganization, Harper’s relatively-free reign of the public debate, etc. Ironically, the author thinks that this is the time for silence. He suggests that Dion can use this time to regroup and let Harper catch some heat in the spotlight. This argument relies on two assumptions: that Harper will look bad in the public eye when this is all said and done, and subsequently lose support; and that time away from the spotlight will help Dion and the Liberals.

I can certainly see how he could draw that conclusion, but I believe that this is a case where the media is perhaps having trouble seperating itself from the public. (Continue reading…)