Canada's New Lustre in the World

Opinion: Canada's new lustre in the world

 

Once harsh critics, American conservatives now look north for ideas on governance and public policy. But we shouldn't be smug

 

BY ADAM DAIFALLAH, SPECIAL TO THE GAZETTE JULY 28, 2011 11:01 AM

 

1

 

• STORY
• PHOTOS ( 1 )

 

 

Karen Hale waves the flag as she walks along the parade route during Canada Day festivities in downtown Vancouver.

Photograph by: Stuart Davis, PNG

About 10 years ago, the American conservative magazine National Review ran an issue whose cover featured some Mounties with the word "WIMPS" printed across the page. The cover and the accompanying article by Jonah Goldberg, "Bomb Canada: The Case for War," was a semi-satirical attack piece, taking Canada to task for its perceived anti-Americanism and lack of contribution on the world stage.

Making fun of Canada has long been a U.S. national pastime. Recall the contest held by Michael Kinsley, then editor of the New Republic, to find the world's most boring headline. The winner? "Worthwhile Canadian Initiative." As recently as 2006, Goldberg, writing again about Canada, called us "arguably the most deluded" industrialized nation in the world" because "elite Canadians" think "being different than the U.S. and sucking up to the United Nations will buy them grace on the cheap."

Today, no one is laughing at the Great White North - especially Americans - and certainly no one would accuse the Harper government of kowtowing to the UN.

As economic confidence south of the border plunges to a 15-year low and the debt-ceiling fiasco edges toward catastrophe, many U.S. experts are praising Canada as an attractive low-tax environment and a beacon for sound fiscal policy and good governance. The opportunities before us are immense - and the last to take note, as usual, are Canadians themselves. This week, for example, Canadian business titan Peter Munk said that Canada now has the same opportunity to do with the mining sector what Britain did with the financial sector at the turn of the last century - that is, to become its global centre.

What's most surprising about all the plaudits is that much of them are coming from the heretofore most critical corners - particularly from U.S. conservatives.

Fred Barnes, editor of the Weekly Standard, recently took to the pages of the Wall Street Journal to argue that the government of Jean Chrétien set the example on how to right an economically failing ship: cut government spending and do not raise taxes. As Barnes noted, between 1995 and 1998 Canada turned a $36.6-billion deficit into a $3-billion surplus.

(The Wall Street Journal was a fitting avenue for the article; in 1995 that newspaper ran an editorial suggesting that Canada was close to bankruptcy. Many credit the attention the editorial received for jolting Chrétien and then-finance minister Paul Martin into action.)

Meanwhile, a surprising new article in Maclean's notes that Canada is emerging as the go-to destination for the world's wealthy. Tax specialists apparently now refer to Canada as the "Great White tax haven" and the "Switzerland of the North." The inflow of high-net-worth individuals to our country (last year, 12,000 people moved here under a special immigration program for the wealthy) is giving Canada a net economic boost of roughly $2-billion a year - and the trend is likely to continue.

The U.S. conservative movement is also looking to the Harper Conservatives for ideas. A consensus has emerged in the U.S. that Canada handled the 2008-2010 economic crisis better than any other western country, and conservatives there have been particularly impressed with the Harper government's campaign strategies of microtargeting defined blocs of voters to broaden its support.

At the moment, everything from our immigration laws to the GST is being praised by Americans as examples of good public policy.

A quick pat on the back is more than deserved, and we should give credit to our successive national governments for the sound economic policies that have led us to this place. But we shouldn't get caught up in self-congratulation either.

It wasn't that long ago that we were battling the brain drain (which has now effectively reversed direction) and paying $1.45 to buy a U.S. dollar.

Canada seems to perform well when the global economy doesn't. Europe and the U.S. are in the gutter, but we are holding our own. When things are going well elsewhere, Canada is perceived as an overregulator, and to a great extent that perception is true.

Canada-enviers ought to tread carefully. They should look to Canada as a model in terms of outcome, not of process. In the past we have too often drifted into over-regulation of the economy. With the continuing emergence of the dynamic and risk-prone economies of the group known as BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China), this is not the time to take the safe route by turning to increased red tape, particularly in the U.S.

We obviously have many challenges ahead of us, but let this international admiration remind us that things in Canada are going extremely well - though we have to work hard to hold on to our status as an enviable economy. That status is, for lack of a better term, worth something.

Adam Daifallah is a partner at Hatley Strategies, a montreal public-affairs firm,and a lecturer at McGill University's Department of North American Studies

Read more:http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Opinion+Canada+lustre+world/5170300/story.html#ixzz1TQ7TB8xa

My Fix For Big Labour!

O.K., I may have said this before but for anyone new to reading this blog I just want to explain my theory on how to fix the problem with big labour.

First thing is we need to figure out that there is a problem to begin with, if our politicians can't figure this out then they need to be ousted.  Once we have decided we need to do something about the contracts signed with big labour then we need to make the changes to fix the problem.

$200 billion dollars, that is how much the federal government has in Unfunded Pension Liabilities going forward. That means there is no money set aside to pay for the pensions that are on the horizon.  This needs to be addressed now and not later.

First thing that needs to be looked at is something called "right to work legislation"  This simply implies that if you have a job in any sector be it private or public that you have the right to join the union or not.  This is being done in a lot of States right now and is proving out to be very successful, in fact it has made it possible for many states to show budget surpluses this year all the while the federal government is drowning in debt and on the verge of defaulting.

When you get a job, is it not a basic human right to decide whether you want to be represented by a labour group or not?  I mean this is a democratic country is it not?  If I were to go and get a job tomorrow as a welder at a local steel plant, why should I be forced to join a union?  Can I not keep my union dues and just go and do my job, that is all I want.  I do not feel my money should go to pay for a bunch of bureaucrats in the union so that they can get paid 24/7/365, even though the contract only expires every 3-4 years.  I want to be able to spend my $1000/year how I see fit, be it on my family, a vacation, whatever but I will have the right to do what I want with my own money.  I should not be forced to pay for something I do not believe in, that in my mind, is not democratic.

Now some will say without unions the labour pool will be taken advantage of by corporations, and to that I say we already have labour standard board that for on intents and purpose do the same thing that the unions do.  And if the worker feels something is wrong, the labour board is there to step in and represent the worker.

But what about negotiations?  You can't expect every person to negotiate their own contract?  No, I don't, but what I do think is very possible, is for the worker to vote for hiring a law firm to represent the group as a whole.  This is democratic and the law firm would only get paid during negotiations(other than a small yearly retainer).  The cost to the worker would be far less than what they pay in dues on a yearly basis meaning more take home pay.

The next step would to be to change pensions.  The worker needs to fund more of their own pensions, it is done this way by the private sector and is proven to be sustainable. Especially when it comes to the public sector, the taxpayers should not be on the hook for large pensions that you would not get in the private sector.  The public and private sector need to be more aligned on the pension and benefit front, what you get should not vary that much between the two.  With employees paying more into their pension it would alleviate the future liability that the country has and make sure that the pension is there for you when you do go to retire.

As you can see the worker is still represented, and more than likely represented better by a law firm than say some Joe who rose up through the ranks and does not know law at all.  This is a common sense approach to one of the problems facing our country.  I know that a final version of this would need some polish but I feel it is a great starting point and is a large step in the right direction.  If you agree, talk to your MP, MLA, council members, we need to make these changes for the whole of our country.

Is It Time To Live Within Our Means In Canada?

It is my belief that all governments should live within their means.  This means balanced budgets, cuts to programs that are either ineffective, outdated or simply not run as lean as it can.  Our governments have allowed the pigs to sit at the trough long enough and it is time to tighten the belt strings before it really affects our economies.  The cuts really need to start within government where they have been guilty of growing governments at unprecedented rates over the last 10-20 years.  This means more salaries being paid, more benefits and more pensions going unfunded.  The federal government alone has a $200,000,000,000 unfunded pension shortfall, where is this going to leave the younger generations?  They are going to have to pay for our failures?  Doesn't seem fair now does it?


This is why I am calling on all governments in Canada to make it law to have balanced budgets.  Governments should be run just like any business or family, which means living within it's means.  No more hiring, spending cuts and unfortunately maybe even some small tax increases when and where needed.  Governments should have the ability to raise and lower the GST, PST & HST on a yearly basis in order to meet their budget needs.  This will put them in the position where they know the people will not stand for much in the way of tax increases and learn how to make do with what they have coming in with taxes and other means of revenue, just like any business or family has to.


P.S. Just how long do we continue to pay these high amounts to Quebec? $7.8 billion in one year alone, should they be forced to make do with much less?  I think it is time for them to stand up and become more productive and develop their economy better.  But in order to do that they must vote the right way and I am afraid that will not happen until we(the rest of Canada) cut them off.

Growing equalization payments to Ontario threaten country: expert

Aaron Lynett/National Post

Federal equalization payments to Ontario have risen 534% in the two years since the province received its first payment.

• Comments 
• Twitter
• LinkedIn 
• Email 

Postmedia News  Jul 20, 2011 – 6:35 AM ET | Last Updated: Jul 19, 2011 8:16 PM ET

By Lee Greenberg

TORONTO — In just three years, Ontario has become the second-largest recipient of equalization payments in the country, with $2.2-billion set to flow into its “have-not” coffers this year.

Only Quebec, which takes in $7.8-billion in such payments, receives more.

More ominously, Ontario’s burgeoning take threatens to destabilize Confederation, says one of the country’s leading academics, by creating problems for Quebec, Manitoba and the Atlantic provinces.

Tom Courchene, an economist at Queen’s University and a senior scholar at the Institute of Research on Public Policy says those other have-not provinces will find themselves increasingly squeezed out of a fixed pot of equalization money as Ontario takes a bigger share of the pie.

Federal equalization payments to Ontario have risen 534% in the two years since the province received its first payment. The program has been capped at Canada’s GDP growth since 2009.

Courchene says, that as a result, a “crowding out” effect will make flaws in the oft-criticized federal program harder to ignore.

“The poorer Ontario is, the less other provinces are going to get,” he says. “It’s a big issue and it’s going to get bigger.”

Matthew Mendelsohn, director of the Mowat Centre for Policy Innovation, says Ontario’s growing equalization take will likely cause tension between recipient provinces and the federal government.

“The growth cap has certainly not been happily received by many provinces,” he says. “They’re pushing for change here. And as Ontario’s take grows, that may put even more pressure on other provinces, who may escalate their argument with the federal government, that the federal government should stop the artificial (limit on) growth of equalization.”

Ontario’s diminishing status is partially a result of the demise of its manufacturing industry, says Courchene. The decline is also a relative one, however.

Compared to the soaring economies in B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland, all resource-rich provinces whose oil and gas are fuelling growth in India and China — Ontario is looking increasingly impoverished.

“(Equalization) really isn’t a reflection of a province’s underlying economic strength,” says Mendelsohn. “It’s a reflection of whether they are dominantly a natural resource, carbon petro-economy or not . . . .That’s what’s driving the equalization program right now. It makes sense now to think of oil provinces and non-oil and gas provinces rather than poor provinces and rich provinces.”

The resource boom in those petro economies has had a double effect on Ontario, having sent the Canadian dollar soaring by roughly 40% since 2004.

The higher dollar has in turn clobbered Ontario’s struggling manufacturing sector, which has hemorrhaged 290,000 full-time jobs over the past decade.

In economic theory, that scenario is known as “Dutch disease”, so coined by the Economist in 1977 after manufacturing in the Netherlands was decimated by the discovery of a large natural gas field.

“We’re just too small an economy to try to have one of the largest resource operations in the world at the same time as trying to have a world class manufacturing sector,” says Courchene, one of the most prolific and well-respected scholars in Canada.

The Kingston-based academic suggests implementing a fixed exchange rate with the U.S.

“We need to be part of a larger currency so when oil prices rise, we stay with the U.S. dollar, we don’t go up by 20-30% and destroy manufacturing.”

Meanwhile, Ontario continues to struggle even after its equalization top up, with lower levels of public services than many other provinces.

A report by a Winnipeg-based think tank in 2010 stated Ontario had fewer public servants, nurses, doctors, teachers, day-care spots and long-term care beds than in most other provinces.

That runs counter to the objectives of equalization, introduced in 1957 as a means to ensure comparable public services in all 10 provinces.

It costs Ontario roughly 10% more, on average, to provide a “bundle” of public services — one doctor, one nurse, one social worker, a judge and a police officer, for example — than it does in other have-not provinces, says Courchene.

While federal MPs from traditional have-not provinces have long fought for greater funding for their home turf, Ontario MPs have typically considered themselves federal first.

In negotiating a range of federal allocations for such things as immigration settlement, training funds, infrastructure and social housing, Ontario has had to settle for inferior agreements in recent years.

“There’s still a perception out there that Ontario is the fat cat,” says Courchene. “It’s all part of a pattern where everybody assumes Ontario is big enough to look after itself. The answer is increasingly it isn’t. It’s not able to provide the level of public services that other provinces can.”

Although Ontario was eligible for payments for five years from 1977 to 1981, federal politicians at the time balked at sending money to the country’s most populous province. Ontario received its federal transfer, $347-million, in 2009-10.

In 2010, equalization jumped to $972-million. This year it will total $2.2-billion.

Ottawa Citizen

Feds plan to revoke fraudulent citizenship of 1,800

 

 

BY ALTHIA RAJ, POSTMEDIA NEWS JULY 19, 2011 8:53 PM

 

 

• STORY
• PHOTOS ( 1 )

 

 

The federal government believes some 1,800 Canadian citizens have obtained their citizenship through fraudulent means and it intends to revoke their status, Postmedia News has learned.The federal government believes some 1,800 Canadian citizens have obtained their citizenship through fraudulent means and it intends to revoke their status, Postmedia News has learned.

Photograph by: Richard Lam, Reuters

OTTAWA — The federal government believes some 1,800 people have obtained their Canadian citizenship through fraudulent means and it intends to revoke their status, Postmedia News has learned.

After a lengthy investigation by police and the department of Citizenship and Immigration, letters have been issued to hundreds of Canadians telling them the federal government intends to revoke their citizenship.

Individuals can challenge the decision in Federal Court but if they don't, cabinet will move to void their passports and strip them of their citizenship.

Some of the people targeted are believed to have used crooked consultants who submitted fraudulent applications on behalf of people who didn't meet the qualifications for citizenship — such as residency requirements.

"The bottom line is three years residency in Canada but a lot of people misrepresent the amount of time they spend here . . . (They) are actually living and working in Dubai, for example, but claiming they are in Canada and may be using consultants to manufacture evidence that they are here," immigration lawyer Andrew Wlodyka explained Tuesday.

Many people benefit from Canada's generosity while living in places where they don't pay income tax nor do they declare their worldwide income as they are required to under Canadian law, he said.

"I know some people who declare their income to be $30,000 when they live in a $5,000,000 house and they have a lot of property in Asia," he said from his office in Vancouver.

"We lose a lot of clients because we demand full disclosure, and a lot of the really good lawyers in town do the same, but clients don't want to disclose so they find consultants that will do whatever they want as long as they pay them," he added.

It is difficult for the government to track such cases because Canada doesn't have exit controls, residents can move easily across borders and it is difficult to track how long some have been gone.

Still, Wlodyka, acknowledged it is possible that some of the 1,800 may be victims themselves and have unknowingly committed immigration fraud by hiring unprincipled consultants.

Citizenship revocation is relatively uncommon in Canada. According to data from 2010 only 63 people have had their citizenship revoked since 1977, when the revocation process was established. Most were for reasons related to residence fraud, criminality, false identity and seven were for concealing their involvement in war crimes.

Speaking in Vancouver Tuesday, Immigration Minister Jason Kenney said the federal government was trying to discourage immigration fraud.

"For those who simply touch down and try to get a Canadian passport as a . . . passport of convenience, who don't pay our taxes but who do consume our social benefits, I think that's dishonourable," he told a group of reporters after delivering a speech to a Vancouver Board of Trade.

"There are many ways that we are combating immigration fraud and abuse of our generosity, whether it is from (bogus) asylum claimants, crooked immigration consultants, people smugglers, people who are abusing out citizenship program," he added.

During a trip to the Punjab capital of Chandigarh in India in January 2009, Kenney said he was "floored" after seeing thousands of faked documents that had been submitted with visa applications. Many of the documents came from unscrupulous document vendors, counterfeit artists and fake immigration consultants who can charge $15,000.

Canadian citizenship can at times be a safety-net. Approximately 15,000 passport holders in Lebanon used their citizenship to get out of a war zone in 2006. The federal government spent almost $100 million bringing them home only to find out that some had rarely, if ever, set foot in Canada and that most returned to their Lebanon, their real home, as soon as situation calmed.

Last year, the Conservative government introduced legislation to streamline the time-consuming and expensive revocation process. The Tories wanted to remove the decision making from cabinet and place it in the hands of the Federal Court, which could also issue removal orders earlier in the process.

more:http://www.canada.com/Feds+plan+revoke+fraudulent+citizenship/5127302/story.html#ixzz1Sc3zmqkV

Bring in the 3 Strike You're Out Laws!

This many should never see the light of day again, I know this happens more often than we hear and the only reason it is in the news is because it is Don Edwards, ex NHL goalie. But, it does get me angry to see a person like this who is up for parole and may go free to be on our streets. Is society any better off by letting a person like this go, all the while taking the risk that he may re-offend and could return to do more damage to the Edwards family? Tell me why this many should ever be let out? He has many past convictions from assault, to rape, battery, homicide and many more. This man is one of those lost causes and should be held by the state for the rest of his life. Our politicians need to hear our voices when we say enough is enough, it is time to take crime seriously and make people pay the price for their actions. In the U.S. this man would never be out, is sentences would not run concurrent and life in prison means life, not 20 years!

Roy Green: Former NHL star seeks to block release of parents’ killer

• Comments 
• Twitter
• LinkedIn 
• Email 

National Post  Jul 12, 2011 – 10:41 AM ET | Last Updated: Jul 12, 2011 11:06 AM ET

“At one time I was a very proud Canadian. In 1981, I was asked to represent my country in sports competition as a member of Team Canada. Standing on the ice in the Montreal Forum, listening to the national anthem being played, the tenor voice of Roger Doucet singing, with my parents watching, that moment in time had special meaning. I know they were proud.” — Words from Don Edwards victim’s impact statement.

This week the former Buffalo Sabres star goaltender and co-winner of the Vezina trophy appears with his family before the Parole Board of Canada. Don and Tannis Edwards and their children will deliver a plea for rejection of any form of prison release for George Harding Lovie, convicted of the March,1991 murders of Don’s parents Donna and Arnold Edwards and the attempted murder of his sister Michele.

Michele had begun to date George Lovie in 1990. After a short period she attempted to break off the relationship. Lovie took Michele hostage for six hours, raping her repeatedly. Arrested, Lovie appeared before a non-legally trained justice of the peace who — despite Lovie’s record of convictions for assault — granted bail. George Lovie was instructed not to contact his victim. No prohibition on firearms ownership was issued.

Was the justice of the peace even aware Lovie was in possession of a Firearms Acquisition Certificate? Unencumbered by any restriction, George Lovie purchased a rifle and ammunition.

On March 21, 1991, George Harding Lovie attempted to abduct Michele Edwards at her home. She managed to escape and ran across the street to the home of her parents. Lovie followed. He almost immediately shot Donna to death. Then he repeatedly and fatally stabbed Arnold. A desperate 911 call hears Arnold Edwards pleading “leave my family alone” and Lovie shouting “How do you like me now, do you like me now, do you like me now”?

Later the same day Don Edwards entered a house usually filled with joyous childhood memories. His impact statement describes the scene. “Bullet holes were riddled through the cupboards, sink, window and walls. The counter spattered, the floor smeared and saturated with a large pool of moist blood. A clear reminder of where my father had fought for his life, took his last breath while repeatedly being stabbed to death.”

Twenty years distant, George Lovie remains a fearful presence in the lives of the Edwards family. From Tannis Edwards’ impact statement: “our son fears for his safety so much that he wants this offender to only be able to recognize him as he looked when he was five years old.”

To the Edwards, their victims’ impact statements represent the sole possibility to speak to their pain while honouring the memory of Donna and Arnold before a hopefully attentive criminal justice system.

How caring is the system?

An e-mail from Don and Tannis details communication from the Parole Board of Canada to the Edwards.

“Victims have no avenue for appeal. Only the offender can appeal.

It is the offender’s right to receive our victim impact statements 15 days prior to the hearing. We do not have any right to see the offender’s statement or any other statement prior to the hearing.

We are granted no access to a record of the offender’s behaviour or actions since incarceration.

Very disturbing is the indication from the parole board’s communications officer that some of our victims impact statements may possibily be omitted due to length and graphic detail. I continue to call and attempt to get answers. The communications officer said perhaps the night before the hearing we would know something.”

The Edwards may also not know the nature of George Harding Lovie’s parole request.

Don and Tannis Edwards impression, like that of other crime victims, is that they are considered an irritant and/or nuisance presence.

Don Edwards is a shell of the man Tannis married and his fellow Buffalo Sabres and Team Canada players knew. This from Tannis Edwards’ victims impact statement: “My husband continues to suffer from post traumatic stress disorder and his symptoms have resurfaced. Don struggles to focus and is unable to concentrate on simple everyday tasks. He is impatient, irritable, unhappy, distant, and nothing seems to spark his humour.”

Perhaps the Parole Board of Canada will consider those words inflammatory and choose to excise them from the record. The parole board communications officer’s warning would lead one to suspect censorship of the Edwards victims’ impact statements will likely occur.

I have read the statements. They chronicle the suffering of a Canadian family. To strip them of even one word would be an official and sanctioned compounding of cruelty.

National Post

 Roy Green hosts a weekend news talk program nationally on the Corus radio network.  Read more here.