First Liberal Leadership "Debate"

I made plenty of notes from the debates while I eagerly watched in hopes of seeing something interesting. I wasn't too impressed that Newsworld cut off their coverage a mere 30 minutes in, but I think I had seen enough by then anyhow.

There seemed to be alot of argument about the definition of Liberal values. Best I could gather most candidates thought Social Justice, Universal Healthcare and Environmental Stewarship were Liberal values. There was alot of talk about "Aboriginal issues" - probably a direct result of the Conservatives canning Kelowna and the recent and ongoing dispute (read: illegal activity) in Caledonia. In fact, EVERY candidate went out of thier way to espouse a commitment to multiculturalism, minority rights AND aboriginal issues. Why aren't first nations people's considered minorities? I don't know.

Anyhow, a lot of interesting topics were covered by the candidates. One particular debate-like event occurred between Stephane Dion, Bob Rae and Micheal Ignatieff regading the recent extension of the Canadian commitment in Afghanistan:

Ignatieff - "We must be present in both Darfur and Afghanistan. We must have a combat capable military force. I supported the extention to our commitment in Afghanistan. We are a serious country… If we are to remain serious we should stay in Afghanistan until we get the job done"

Rae - "I disagree with Micheal profoundly on this issue. I really do think its unfair that we are put in the position where if we don’t support the motion to extend the commitment that somehow we don’t support the troops. The risk we run is that the missions must be very carefully chosen… with a combat force engaged in counter insurgency we will lose our way as peacekeepers. Are we prepared to craft an independent foreign policy that goes back to Pearson and Trudeau?"

Stephane Dion was very animated, and switched frequently between French and English - and the translation on Newsworld was terrible.... here are my notes on his thoughts on Afghanistan:

"Afghanistan… we dont have adequate information now… Harper made the decision and it was irresponsible."

Some other interesting quotes/thoughts:

Scott Brison on Equalization - "...is fundamental. I got a good education because of it in Nova Scotia. I think a 10 prov standard makes sense. Equalization is based on tax revenue, I don’t think that makes sense. It should be based on GDP." (My comments: Yes, EQ made his education affordable even though NS has more post secondary institutions than Alberta and BC. Dalhousie, SFX, UCCB, St Marys, etc etc. Glad Equalization is paying for that)

Stephane Dion on Equalization - "This a debate. No one here has even expressed an opinion. Fiscal capacity must be equal. We’re not talking about economy… we need to count all ten provinces including resource revenues". (My comments: At least he gave an opinion)

Overall, I was impressed with Gerard Kennedy, who really seems to want to get the party back to it's progressive social roots. Stephane Dion, Micheal Ignatieff and Bob Rae were also very impressive. Not much policy talk, except from Dion who is very impassioned and very obviously has more experience than everyone else.

Many of the candidates showed inexperience with foreign policy questions. In particular (no offense meant here) the female candidates got lost with the Afghanistan Question and Foreign Aid. Hedy Fry was particularly unimpressive.

Round 2 is next Saturday - I will be in Montreal and likely unable to watch! Someone take notes?!

Fiscal Imbalance or Inequity?

The Fiscal Imbalance (or balance, depending who you talk to). Is it really the most important issue in Canada today?

Equalization has become such a convoluted and mathematical process as to make it nearly irrelevant. The way transfer payments are calculated makes even the most prominent mathematicians blush. We're all taught from a fairly early age the 5 keys in any situation - Who, What, Where, When and Why (sometimes how). Equalization makes sense in a Federation such as ours. The economies of all the provinces are entirely, at times, divergent. Alberta has a resource based economy... Ontario manufacturing... Newfoundland a burgeoning resource economy. How can we possibly calculate how the federal government distributes monies...

Here's a more apt question - Why don't we take services into account? Everyone is talking about whether resource amounts should be included. Shouldn't Quebec's generous social programs be included? Why isn't PEI's subsidization of Gasoline included? Ontario spends money running a provincially regulated liquor chain... BC runs it's own Insurance Corporation. All the talk lately has been about resource income. Not just any resources, but those of a non-renewable kind. Finally, there is plenty of talk about Economic "capacity". What exactly does that mean?

To find out, I checked some fairly accessible references. I took a look at Andrew Spicer's well referenced blog.... very good stuff... lets look at some numbers:

Below is each province's share of contribution to equalization:

PEI: $31M
NB: $176M
NL: $129M
NS: $244M
MB: $311M
QC: $2,218M
BC: $1,315M
SK: $317M
ON: $4,283M
AB: $1,751M

Here's how much each province received:

PEI: $277M
NB: $1,326M
NL: $762M
NS: $1,313M
MB: $1,607M
QC: $4,155M
BC: $652M
SK: $682M
ON: $0
AB: $0

Therefore, the net for each province was:

PEI: +$246M
NB: +$1,150M
NL: +$633M
NS: +$1,069M
MB: +$1,296M
QC: +$1,937M
BC: -$663M
SK: +$365M
ON: -$4,283M
AB: -$1,751M

A couple interesting things to note:

BC actually got back less than it would have saved if there was no equalization program at all
Nearly 44% of the contribution to equalization revenues comes from "have not" provinces

Here is something interesting - and it's worth restating:

Nearly 44% of the contribution to equalization revenues comes from "have not" provinces

Can anyone explain to me why - logically - have not provinces are even paying into Equalization?

Notwithstanding my own opinions on Equalization, I can't really fathom why provinces that recieve an INCOME from the program are having to pay monies at all.

Frankly, I don't understand why Albertans and Ontarians have to pay for the social excess of Quebec or the gasoline policy of PEI. Face it, many of us have lived or travelled to many provinces - every place has certain benefits. I'll tell you, if I had kids I would KILL to live in Quebec. On the other hand, as a single guy living in Quebec is fiscally retarded. Provincial tax rates here are 124% of the federal rate! Why?

Is it because the economy is so poor? Hardly. Quebec had excellent new employment numbers in the last report - all signs are pointing towards a thriving economy here.

Contrast some social services yoou can get in Quebec with Alberta or British Columbia. While the latter two provinces have the LOWEST tax rates in the country - federal and provincial combined - they don't have the same social benefits. But whose economy is hotter? Well, you don't need a degree in economics to figure that out.

Interestingly, BC was a have not province for years. Can you believe that?! Sure, the pragmatist might point at balooning Provincial NDP spending in BC at the time... but I digress. (Actually, they might well re-elect those morons soon enough – foolish)

There is a strong voice in the nation that says:

"Alberta used to be a dust bin of agricultural failure, and was supported by the rest of the country"

This is true. And it was appreciated at the time. Albertans don’t hate giving money to other provinces – everyone just wants to see the money spent wisely.

It's key to note that in the 70’s and 80’s Albertans never wanted help from the Federal Government. In fact, any time the feds tried to "help" during that period we got the NEP and revised Equalization formulae. Thanks.

Dalton McGuinty said it best during the premiers conference (keep in mind this man represents the LARGEST and most ECONOMICALLY powerful province in the country):

"Equalization in it's present form is fiscally unsustainable for Ontario"

The perfect Equalization formula might just be a baseline of services that ALL provinces currently provide at a generally accepted “equal” level. The budgets of all the provinces should be ripped apart to see where monies are spent – find out which provinces can afford these basic services and, more importantly, at what median tax rate.

Essentially assuming all programs are equal and all tax rates are equal the provinces that need help (those that geniunely cannot afford basic services at a reasonable tax rate) would receive Equalization on a per capita basis for the shortfall. An example:

PEI (Pop 120,000) is 120 million dollars short when a reasonable tax rate is assumed. The Equalization formula would kick in the shortfall at 1,000 dollars per resident. Why is the per capita important? Populations change and so do the costs of various services. The only way to really keep track of relative change in cost is on a per capita basis. This also ensures the provinces don’t “cheat”. I.E. Pass legislation that increases the cost of services just to increase Equalization payments. It also allows for a formula that anyone can understand. And the best part: PEI doesn’t pay into it under this system.

Now there are, obviously, a few problems with this system:

1) We need to have all provinces and the Federal government agree on acceptable median levels of services – and more importantly – establish a framework to evaluate compliance
2) We need to establish a base tax rate to supply minimum services – likely based on a provincial average

Now all the hoopla about resource revenues is garbage. Under the current Equalization formula they SHOULD NOT be included simply because it punishes the nation’s poorest province (NL) and rewards the ever outstretched hand of Quebec for no good reason. I DON’T CARE THAT IT INCLUDES NON RENEWABLE RESOURCES – JUST THAT IT IS OBVIOUSLY COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE

People argue that resource revenues are money that the provinces spend on services. This is very true – and they should be included under a new formula that respects the differences between the provinces and treats all of them in a fair and equitable manner.
Isn’t that how a Federation is supposed to work?

Caledonia - A true paradise of ignorance

Why is it that we, as a nation, can't possibly be too "righteous" with obvious criminality? This whole situation has made me very mad since the very beginning. It's not as though we've asked nicely and went to court (actually we have)... enforce the legally binding injunction already!

Notwithstanding the fact that I've had a few beer - here's the latest from Caledonia (thanks Kate and smalldeadanimals.com)

We do not negotiate with bank robbers or drunk drivers. We arrest them and throw them in jail. If they resist? Well, that’s why cops have handcuffs, nightsticks and tear-gas grenades.

http://www.thepolitic.com/archives/2006/06/08/a-good-liberal-on-caledonia/

Even better - and more frustrating:

"If we see these pictures anywhere, we know where you live."

http://www.therecord.com/links/links_06060211027.html

Again, thanks to SDA for the links (not to mention the disgust and frustration at the resultant links).

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/

Aboriginal Leader Requires Forgiveness

I can't even express the words

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/06/08/ahenakew-newtrial.html

A quote:

Ahenakew told Parker that the Holocaust was a good thing and praised Adolf Hitler for having "fried" six million Jews during the Second World War.

And

Following a trial, Irwin found Ahenakew guilty and fined him $1,000.

Wow... I want my taxpayer dollars back

Property Challenges

Click for the link to the whole thread http://http://www.vwdov.ca/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=98279&pagenumber=3

As already pointed out, enjoyment and ownership are - legally - two completely seperate issues and have very distinct meanings. Property rights are enforced by the Provinces, and to date ALL of the provinces could take an individuals property WITHOUT compensation.

Some key pieces before legislators in BC are:

Heritage Conservation Act (this allows the province to UNILATERALLY decide a property is historic - therefore making it impossible for the owner to renovate, alter or submit his property for sale for another use)

-and-

Streamside Protection Regulation within the Fish Protection Act (BC) (this allows the provincial government to UNILATERALLY decide a property or portion thereof become provincial lands in order to effect protection of streamside species - effectively stealing land from the rightful owner - again all WITHOUT compensation)

Let's take a look at "without due process of law"

This basically means - "until so legislated". So, the two aforementioned pieces of legislation effectively make regard for "due process of law". Keep in mind, while PRECEDENT may exist dealing with private property rights, they are NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED. In fact, it is quite the opposite, the provinces are passing legislation to ensure they remain unprotected.

If private property rights were covered in the Charter (which they aren't) provinces wouldn't be able to enact legislation like the two noted above without using the NOTWITHSTANDING clause. Remember, unless protected withing the FEDERAL document specifically (I.E. ownership of property vice enjoyment of property) the Federal government cannot enact any laws infringing on provincial powers over property. (Read Ultra Vires)

What bothers most people about it's lack of constitutional protection is the lack of Compensatory regulation. The government can simply take your property.

"Enjoyment of property" IS most certainly protected. This is the basis for arguments about loud neighbours etc etc - they negatively affect your enjoyment. Once again, however, the government can simply take your property without compensation.

The Heritage Conservation Act includes the following line with regards to compensation:

(8) Nothing in this section authorizes the government to give any financial or other benefit to an owner except that which is commensurate with the reduction in market value of the designated property as caused by that designation.

Pretty piss poor really.

My house is worth 500,000 on the day before a Provincial designation is made on my property (at least that is what the property value was assessed at by the province). I have an independant inspection done (at my own cost, mind you) and it turns out that my house is actually worth 550,000. I get no compensation AND I get the joy of living in a Heritage home with the added benefit of no longer being able to alter my property OR building without writing to the provincial government to get permission. I know this is getting off topic for the thread, but let me just finish with another quote from the Heritage Conservation Act:

(2) Except as authorized by a permit issued under section 12 or 14, or an order issued under section 14, a person must not do any of the following:

(a) damage, desecrate or alter a Provincial heritage site or a Provincial heritage object or remove from a Provincial heritage site or Provincial heritage object any heritage object or material that constitutes part of the site or object;

(b) damage, desecrate or alter a burial place that has historical or archaeological value or remove human remains or any heritage object from a burial place that has historical or archaeological value;

(c) damage, alter, cover or move an aboriginal rock painting or aboriginal rock carving that has historical or archaeological value;

(d) damage, excavate, dig in or alter, or remove any heritage object from, a site that contains artifacts, features, materials or other physical evidence of human habitation or use before 1846;

(e) damage or alter a heritage wreck or remove any heritage object from a heritage wreck;

(f) damage, excavate, dig in or alter, or remove any heritage object from, an archaeological site not otherwise protected under this section for which identification standards have been established by regulation;

(g) damage, excavate, dig in or alter, or remove any heritage object from, a site that contains artifacts, features, materials or other physical evidence of unknown origin if the site may be protected under paragraphs (b) to (f);

(h) damage, desecrate or alter a site or object that is identified in a schedule under section 4 (4) (a);

(i) damage, excavate or alter, or remove any heritage object from, a property that is subject to an order under section 14 (4) or 16.

So I can petition the government to let me... renovate, put in an in ground pool, paint my siding, replace my gutters, put in a garden on the front lawn, buy new curtains.... I mean come on...Oh, and just to ensure the government has you by the proverbial balls:

35 (1) Except as provided in section 11 or 14 (9), no compensation is payable to a person for any loss or damage, or for any reduction in the value of property, that results from the operation of this Act, the performance in good faith of any duty under this Act or the exercise in good faith of any power under this Act.

and

2) An action for damages must not be brought against the minister, an employee of the government, a member of a committee established or authorized under section 22 or a person who is subject to the direction of the minister, because of anything done or omitted to be done in good faith in the performance or intended performance of a duty or in the exercise or intended exercise of a power under this Act or the regulations.

Quite lovely indeed

Media Terrorism

Part of my morning routine here in Quebec includes turning on CBC Newsworld for the morning news show. I've been watching fairly extensive coverage of the Toronto arrests - especially interesting (and revealing) are the CBC's interviews with family members of the accused.

I can't remember the last time a group of people were arrested and CBC made efforts to speak to the family. I'm sure, however, that speaking to family members expands substantially on the information the public needs to know. Sarcasm aside, I can't yet convince myself that ANYONE would believe in the culpability of thier own children in these sorts of activities. First of all, why the hell hasnt any Muslim person interviewed by CBC denounced the supposed activities of these terrorist groups? I keep hearing how they are worried about a backlash against the community (I'll get to that in particular later on), or how they feel religion is irrelevant (That too - later) but not even the Imam of the local mosque that was "vandalized" denounced terrorist activities. I am, if the media is to be believed, to have sympathy for a whole community of some 750,000 (minus 17 - as it turns out) because they may be singled out by "average" (read white) Canadians for hatred. Does this actually make any sense?

Further, apparently we're supposed to sympathize with the accused:

The lawyers also complained about a number of restrictions placed on their clients. They are in solitary confinement, under 24-hour surveillance and have been denied access to family members.
Donald McLeod said he and his colleagues have only been able to speak to their clients through Plexiglas and want private visits with them. (CBC)

I mean, come on, these guys aren't accused of drug trafficking or impaired driving. They are suspected of being TERRORISTS. Not radicals, or misunderstood malcontents - the word is Terrorist people. Do terrorists pose potentially more of a risk than other violent criminals? Should terrorists be allowed to talk to each other while in custody? Should they not be surveilled 24/7?! These people are accused of what i would consider to be fairly terrible things - let's review:

"My client's alleged to have been part of a plot to blow up Parliament buildings in Canada, storm the CBC, take over the CBC, as well as, among other things, behead the prime minister," lawyer Gary Batasar said. (CBC)

Wow. Those sound like pretty rational crimes. Sure, they should all be released on thier own recognisance. Wake up Canada. We have lived so long in this imaginary cocoon of invulnerability. Doesn't anyone remember Air India?! That was all planned (and generally excecuted) in CANADA. The FLQ? The reign of terror wrought by biker gangs in Quebec? Why does everyone profess "shock" that people were arrested? Is it because our history of conviction for terrorism charges is - ummm - less than stellar?

We live in a first world nation who actively pursues it's own, independant, foreign policy. We will be liked by some and hated by others. Is it so hard to fathom that Canadians would want to harm thier own country?

It's more than about time we realize that we aren't this perfect nation. We have had the blinders pulled over our eyes by the media - who is, quite frankly, sensationalizing this. One piece on the CBC was particularly funny to watch. They asked people on the streets of downtown Toronto if they were "Worried about terrorism". I laughed so hard when the ONLY person who actually answered in the affirmative looked much like half the tree hugging population living around Clayoquot sound. Everyone else didn't much care.

So, let's be like 95% of those interviewed on CBC. Let's carry on with life - maybe finally realizing we're not immune from Islamic fundamentalist terror attacks. And while we're at it why don't we also admit that religion had everything to do with this. And yes, they were all Muslims. Whatever happened to reporting the "facts"? Oh well, the media will learn soon enough - just ask Stephen Harper.

Laptop Fever

I recently purchased my very first laptop. I had always thought a laptop would be a good idea. For too long I've lugged my home computer around whenever I'm out of town for lengthy periods of time. This is not a fun process - especially when you have other bags and suitcases to go with you.

When I first started going to the West Coast for summer employment I would leave Calgary with everything I deemed essential. Clothes, Pillows and, of course, my computer and monitor. If you've ever lugged around a 19 inch CRT monitor and a fairly heavy computer tower, you can understand my pain.

So, finally the day arrived when I had enough. We were quickly coming up to a period at sea, and I wasn't looking forward to moving my computer onto the ship once again. (It's actually more of a pain when we get back home, when lugging it off the ship with all my crap becomes more than slightly inconvienient). I went to Dell and surfed through some computing options (their words, not mine). My main reason for not buying a laptop years ago was the big performance hit you used to take for the sake of portability. I'm a fairly big fan of graphically intensive games, so I was still skeptical I would find a laptop that met my needs.

In order of importance then, I made up my top five priorities:

1. Powerful processing
2. Minimum 256MB Video Car
3. Good battery Life
4. Portability
5. Larger screen size

So, with those set out, I went surfing through the dell site like a madman. I looked at various models and quickly realized that it was MORE than possible to find a good laptop that met all my priorities. So I added a sixth priority:

6. Not ugly or full of useless LED lights

Any of you who have gone around the Dell site know what I'm talking about here. The dreaded XPS series laptops. While VERY powerful, they look more like a laptop a 12 year old transformer fan would own.

So I was stuck. The XPS had the performance and terrible looks. The 9400 didn't seem to have the performance. I felt dejected.

Then, after a chat with a buddy I realized something that most people would have recognized right away - YOU CAN CONFIGURE THE 9400 BEYOND WHAT IT SHOWS YOU INITIALLY. Well duh, I guess clicking that link could have helped.

Suddenly I got excited. I felt a wave of nervousness come over me. "Is it possible to XPS this much better looking laptop?".

The answer.... YES!

So, I am now the proud owner of a not ugly at all computing powerhouse:

2.0GHZ Dual Core Centrino Processor
2 GB of RAM
256MB ATI X1400 Video Card
DVD Burner

Now, many will say, "But Lucas, the X1400 is a dog of all laptop video cards". I will admit that it certainly isn't the most powerful - but it is easily a leap ahead of the 9800 PRO in my home computer. But, aside from it's performance (which is more than adequate by the way) it meets another one of my priorities far better than the NVidia Go series would:

3. Good Battery Life

All told, I can sit here quite happily surfing the net and listening to music for over 4 hours. Try that with a comperably equipped NVidia graphics laden beast.

So, I have now, after years of being nothing more that an internet geek, finally moved into the portability enhanced future...

Now I just need to find another wireless spot closer to my current temporary residence.

Quebec City - Vacation in the Nation

"Welcome to Quebec - The National Capital"

This is the first sign you see when you come across the border into Quebec City from it's surrounding communities (Ste Foy in my particular case). It's really like stepping into a time machine - the Old City is, after all, the oldest walled city in North America. I'm not going to speak to he politics of this place, since most already know my thoughts (and I have to save something for a blog later on down the line).

It's been a while since I've posted anything new on here (January in fact). It's time to break out the keyboard once again and speak my mind.

I'm here for another three weeks of fun and frolic in the seemingly endless rain. It's like being in Victoria in February!