Making Canada Relevant Again- The Economic Super-Thread

[GAP]

Anyone who would argue that it is in in my opinion is an idiot.

You do realize you just called the LPC and the NDP idiots...?

 

[Redeye]

You do realize you just called the LPC and the NDP idiots...?

The NDP, yes. The Liberals, not quite so much. The Conservatives often can fit the mold too, since they seem content propose injecting government into lots of places it really shouldn't belong. Mainly people's personal lives.

 

[PuckChaser]

The Conservatives often can fit the mold too, since they seem content propose injecting government into lots of places it really shouldn't belong. Mainly people's personal lives.

What? The Conservatives campaigned on making SMALLER government, and have done so by deregulating some industries and are working at removing the long gun registry. If the Liberals and NDP wielded absolute power your daily bathroom trips would be logged in a Federal government database and taxed accordingly.

 

[Redeye]

What? The Conservatives campaigned on making SMALLER government, and have done so by deregulating some industries and are working at removing the long gun registry. If the Liberals and NDP wielded absolute power your daily bathroom trips would be logged in a Federal government database and taxed accordingly.

Smaller government full of people who want to reopen the debate about abortion? Who seemed (although it's been watered down I hear) bent on following failed American ideas about law and justice and the prison industry? That's not small government in my books, and it was when social conservatism started to take hold in the CPC that I stopped renewing my membership and supporting them.

 

[PuckChaser]

Smaller government full of people who want to reopen the debate about abortion? Who seemed (although it's been watered down I hear) bent on following failed American ideas about law and justice and the prison industry? That's not small government in my books, and it was when social conservatism started to take hold in the CPC that I stopped renewing my membership and supporting them.

What spoonfed Liberal party propaganda have you been reading? You sound just like a radio attack ad that failed during the last election because the CPC has no intention of opening the abortion debate as Canadians have no intention of having that opened. Its been stated numerous times. There are some social conservatives within the party that would love to do those things, however they are thankfully such a small minority that the main body of the party will not follow their direction.

 

[Redeye]

What spoonfed Liberal party propaganda have you been reading? You sound just like a radio attack ad that failed during the last election because the CPC has no intention of opening the abortion debate as Canadians have no intention of having that opened. Its been stated numerous times. There are some social conservatives within the party that would love to do those things, however they are thankfully such a small minority that the main body of the party will not follow their direction.

I'll leave aside the hilarious irony of the nonsense you just spouted about taxing going to the bathroom.

Notwithstanding what the party has said, on numerous occasions, they have a number of members who'd be only too happy to do so. I was a so-called "Red Tory" who things government has no place in social issues, but it seems like they've faded. I don't have any imminent paranoia that it will change in the near term (because it would likely mean the end of the CPC's being electable), but the fringe is there, and not as small I suspect as many would like to think.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Fringe or not, members or not. Harper stated in his year end interview that they would not be going there on abortion. He's the boss.

Drop that line. It's stale and you've got nowhere to stand. Go find something else.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Smaller government full of people who want to reopen the debate about abortion?

And so do/did a whole slew of Liberals: Tom Wappell left the HoC in 2008, but John McKay, Paul Szabo, Dan McTeague, Derek Lee, Gurbax Malhi, Alan Tonks, Lawrence MacAuley, and Jim Karygiannis were all, reliably, anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage. The Liberals are not as vocal about it as the Conservatives because, generally, to be a Liberal is to be a raging hypocrite!


Edit: typo

 

[dapaterson]

And do di/did a whole slew of Liberals: Tom Wappell left the HoC in 2008, but John McKay, Paul Szabo, Dan McTeague, Derek Lee, Gurbax Malhi, Alan Tonks, Lawrence MacAuley, and Jim Karygiannis were all, reliably, anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage. The Liberals are not as vocal about it as the Conservatives because, generally, to be a Liberal is to be a raging hypocrite!

John Baird.


Paging John Baird.

 

[Infanteer]

Is thread going to talk about economics and Canadian relevance, or is it going to compare what politicians are idiots and hypocrites.  If it sticks with the latter, it's heading for a lock.

The Staff.

 

[Edward Campbell]

A good commentary, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/commentary/neil-reynolds/why-canadas-corporate-tax-cuts-rate-a-collective-cheer/article2290427/

Why Canada’s corporate tax cuts rate a collective cheer

NEIL REYNOLDS

OTTAWA— From Wednesday's Globe and Mail
Last updated Wednesday, Jan. 04, 2012

In an end-of-year review of his government’s achievements in 2011, Prime Minister Stephen Harper noted Forbes magazine’s selection of Canada as the No. 1 country in the world to do business. (“Credit a reformed tax structure,” Forbes declared.) Mr. Harper was right to cite this distinction. On New Year’s Day, Canada’s corporate tax rate – federal and provincial rates combined – fell to 25 per cent, giving Canada the lowest rate in the Group of Seven countries, and a more competitive economy on a global basis.

The provinces (especially British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario) collaborated with Ottawa to reach this strategic objective, announced shortly after Mr. Harper formed his first minority government in 2006. But the federal government did the heavy lifting: a 33-per-cent tax rate cut, implemented incrementally over five years, in the stridently antagonistic environment of successive minority parliaments. In annual steps, the government lowered the federal rate from 22 per cent to 15 per cent. (The provincial collaborators now have a common rate of 10 per cent.)

Remarkably, the gradual lowering of the corporate tax rate appears to have resulted in little loss in corporate tax revenue (when compared with long-term, prerecession revenues). Corporate tax revenue did take a big hit ($10-billion) in 2008, the year of the market meltdown. But the tax cuts were barely started in 2008.

By 2010-2011, federal corporate tax revenue reached $30-billion, substantially more than the average of $25-billion in the last four years of the prior Liberal government: 2002 through 2005. Further, federal corporate tax revenue equalled 1.8 per cent of Canadian gross domestic product, a much higher percentage than the revenue produced during the recessionary years in the early 1990s. In tough-times 1992, for example, corporate revenue, with higher tax rates, fell to 1 per cent of GDP.

Economists predictably disagree on the economic importance of corporate tax rates, mostly on an ideological basis, but it makes good sense to keep this particular tax as low as possible. These taxes, after all, are a direct cost of doing business – and Canada’s corporate cuts ensure that this country will have a cross-border edge for the next two or three years at least. With a combined federal-state rate of 39.2 per cent, the United States has the second-highest rate in the world (after Japan, with 39.5 per cent).

Eventually, the U.S. will respond. Republican presidential candidates have embraced deep corporate tax cuts; some of them, such as Texas Governor Rick Perry, propose a federal corporate rate of 12.5 per cent. Mr. Perry’s position reflects the judgment of his tax adviser, Steven Forbes – owner and editor of the eponymous magazine that ranked Canada as the best business domicile in the world. Mr. Forbes takes taxes seriously. (He declined to support Mitt Romney because the former Massachusetts governor wouldn’t endorse a single-rate personal income tax. Mr. Forbes has mocked Mr. Romney’s 59-point platform for its complexity, saying: “God only had 10 points.”)

Former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum proposes a permanent zero-per-cent corporate tax rate on all manufacturing companies – and says he would tax capital gains at 12 per cent (or half the rate that a typical Canadian now pays). Former speaker of the House of Representatives Newt Gingrich proposes an optional 15-per-cent flat tax on personal income and the elimination of capital gains taxes for people who choose the flat-tax alternative. Mr. Romney proposes to eliminate capital gains taxes for people with less than $200,000 (U.S.) a year in taxable incomes.

In his own end-of-year review, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty noted the completion of his corporate rate-cut assignment. He set out six years ago to brand Canada as a low-tax jurisdiction for business investment. He succeeded. On this file, Mr. Flaherty’s performance was as good as it gets. Mr. Harper and Mr. Flaherty probably don’t expect coast-to-coast hosannas. Nevertheless, it’s seems a bit much that the most audible applause has come from a business magazine based in New York. In fact, the Canadian government achieved a great legislative success in pursuit of an important economic objective. For this, it deserves a round of Canadian-based applause.

Mr. Flaherty’s job isn’t finished. He acknowledged this last year when he said the government would proceed, in due course, with personal income tax reform by reducing the number of tax brackets from five to two or three. In a world of vast and highly entropic complexity, simplicity is always an indispensible public-policy goal.

First: I have heard that Ontario might want to back away from its commitment to a 10% tax rate - based on its current ugly financial situation. That would be a mistake - good politics, given Ontario's pink, anti-corporate, tendency but bad policy.

Second: I am not convinced that all economists who oppose corporate taxes do so for (purely) ideological reasons, as Neil reynolds, suggests. In my opinion corporate taxes are wasteful and inefficient. They are, de facto, just a sales tax with many complex and expensive steps in between the ultimate taxpayer, you and me, and the federal and provincial coffers. Although "corporations are people" they do not pay taxes like ordinary people, like you and I. Instead they collect all their income from real people, like you and I again, and then, as their fiduciary duty demands, they pay their owners, you and I (if we own shares, have a mutual fund or RRSP or even belong to a pension plan), their suppliers, their employees and then the government. Eventually every red cent that a corporation gets comes from your pockets or mine; it would be more efficient to drop the corporate tax rate to zero and hike the HST - same money, from the same sources goes to the same people, without as many tax lawyers and accountants in the middle.

Thitd: kudos to Prime Minister Harper for doing the right thing and for doing it right.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Early to bed and early to rise makes a man healthy, wealthy, and wise.
Benjamin Franklin
US author, diplomat, inventor, physicist, politician, & printer (1706 - 1790)
(In "Poor Richard's Almanac")


Making us all "healthy, wealthy and wise" might, if we expand our definitions slightly, be accepted as the productive roles of government.

Healthy includes making us safe and it, therefore, includes the national defence, police and fire services, clean water, sewage and garbage disposal and so on;

Wealthy includes maintaing a strong, stable currency, balanced budgets, and the infrastructure we all use to go about our business roads, seaports, telecomm networks and so on; and

Wise includes education, above all, and R&D.

There are other, less productive, things governments do - not all of which are objectionable; there are counter-productive things that governments do - including some that might save some of the lives of e.g. drug addicts - that are objectionable. Most things that most governments do to, for and about most people are unproductive and, to the extent that they take money away from productive efforts (most of which do not involve governments), are also objectionable.

Governments are not charities. Scrooge was right.*


__________
* 'Are there no prisons?'

‘Plenty of prisons,’ said the gentleman, laying down the  pen again.’And the Union workhouses.’ demanded Scrooge. ‘Are  they still in operation?’

‘Both very busy, sir.’

‘Oh. I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,’ said Scrooge. ‘I’m very glad to hear it.’

A Christmas Carol
Charles Dickens

Although he is an American, some of Ron Paul's prescriptions read well for Canada, too. Here is an interesting insight in to some of his views, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from Time:

http://swampland.time.com/2011/12/22/12-days-till-iowa-ron-paul-is-not-a-politician/

Ron Paul Is Not a Politician

By JOE KLEIN | @JoeKleinTIME

December 22, 2011

Washington, Iowa

I watched Ron Paul deliver his stump speech — to large and loving crowds — twice on Wednesday, and he did a very strange thing for a political front runner. He emphasized the things traditional Republicans are least likely to approve of in his libertarian appeal. He began each speech with a long, discursive section on foreign policy — citing George Washington, Dwight Eisenhower and George W. Bush, among others — and spoke of the perils of entangling alliances, the military-industrial complex and nation building. He minced no words. He said the money we saved overseas could be used to bolster programs like Social Security and Medicare, until we transition away from them. Then he devoted another long section to civil liberties, to his opposition to the Patriot Act and the illegality — he believes — of assassinating Anwar al-Awlaki, the al-Qaeda leader who was an American citizen, in Yemen. This was not political comfort food.

He didn’t spend much time at all on the stuff he favors that Republicans love — cutting $1 trillion from the federal budget in a year, cutting five Cabinet departments, lowering taxes, restricting abortion and so forth. And yet the audiences seemed thrilled with him, gave him standing ovations, replete with cheers and whistles, before and after each speech. Afterward, when he took questions, they tended toward the worshipful:

“How do you stay so fit?”

“Who’s going to be your Vice President?”

“Do you think [Iowa Governor] Terry Branstad and the party establishment have it in for you?”

Whatever you might say about Paul, this is not politics as usual. He’s not a great speaker; he rambles in a thin voice, garbling some of his best applause lines. He doesn’t give the same speech twice but wanders around through his favorite topics — last time I saw him, in October, he gave an extended, abstruse lecture on currency policy. Now that he’s a front runner in Iowa, he hasn’t trimmed or changed his message at all, except, perhaps, to become more defiantly at odds with the Republican establishment.

He can sum up his philosophy in a paragraph: “[The Washington establishment] believes that if you have the freedom to keep what you earn and take care of yourself, you won’t do it. They want to do it for you — and they’ve been trying for the past 70 years, since the Great Depression. But we’ve learned that government can’t do it either.”

This is a bit too neat for my taste, but it has far more resonance now than it has had in the past. Part of it is Paul himself — he is who he is, and given the Trump-Cain-Newt-Mitt disappointments, he is a man who can be trusted. That is enormously important this year. He is palpably different from every other candidate in the race: he doesn’t seem at all like a politician. I’m not sure he is one. Another part of his sudden appeal is the sense that nothing seems to work these days. “I was a Democrat. I voted for Obama last time,” said a truck driver and, yes, stand-up comedian named Dave Johnson after Paul’s speech in the town of Washington. “But look what he’s done. The bailouts, the spending. Right now, he wants to cut Social Security taxes even though the trust fund is in trouble. I voted for him because I thought he was going to be the opposite of Bush — end the wars, reduce the deficit, improve the economy — and we’ve only gotten more of the same.”

Paul seems more comfortable dealing with abstractions like the money supply rather than the day-to-day problems of actual people. When he gets a real question, he fumbles about and eventually seeks refuge in the free market. In Mount Pleasant, a man asked what Paul would do about retraining people who had lost their jobs. “There are about 1,000 jobs available for trained welders here in Iowa,” the man said. “What do we do to train them?” After some circumnavigation, Paul suggested we go back to the days of apprenticeships that paid less than skilled craft jobs. O.K. But there’s a more up-to-date free-market answer: be more like Germany, where companies advise vocational schools on their curriculum and develop programs that train young people for technical production and construction work. (I saw Jon Huntsman give a chapter-and-verse response to this question a few weeks ago.)

In Washington, Paul took a question from a young woman who had survived cancer. “We have good insurance,” she said. “But what happens if my husband gets laid off? I now have a pre-existing condition. Where do we get insurance?” Paul acknowledged that it was a tough question. In the old days, before the government mucked things up, the churches ran a lot of hospitals and would take all comers. “The insurance companies and drug companies control Obamacare,” he said, which is not inaccurate, but is also not very comforting either.

And that is where Paul’s libertarianism falls down. This is a complicated society, undergoing an ever more rapid transformation in the midst of a potentially long economic slump. There are a lot of people who have lost jobs and need help getting new skills (admittedly, the current government training programs are, as Romney points out, a complete, ineffective mess). There are a lot of people who can’t get insurance — certainly not at a reasonable price.

On an even more basic level, it would be nice to believe that people could take care of themselves without government help, but it just hasn’t proved true: programs like Social Security and Medicare — which run directly against the Jeffersonian-libertarian tradition — were necessary because people couldn’t take care of themselves. The elderly, especially, had trouble paying medical bills after their working days ended. The American people, through their government, decided to make a rudimentary deal, to make sure their parents didn’t starve or sleep in the streets and were able to get medical care. There was nothing unconstitutional about that — just as there’s nothing unconstitutional about requiring people to have medical insurance now. The deal was made with the consent of the governed. In the real world, these are the most popular programs the government offers — about 80% of the American people are happy with them.

There is vast frustration with … with … everything right now. And so it’s not a bad moment to review the most basic assumptions of our public life, to question the most basic functions of government. It may well turn out that we’ve tried to do too much. It will certainly turn out that we didn’t have the Keynesian discipline to run budget surpluses when times were good to pay for the deficits when times were bad. (Paul’s hero Friedrich Hayek had a meeting of the minds with Keynes on that point after World War II.) It may be that we need a different sort of safety net for a more competitive global economy. It may be that we’re going to have to do with less.

It’s these sorts of times that raise up people with simple answers: ideologues and demagogues. Paul is an ideologue and — we’re lucky — an entirely honorable one. His is an important voice. It helps frame the debate; it helps keep his opponents honest. The big surprise is that the harsh measures he advocates seem almost a comfort in the sea of  blather that is inundating Iowans this week. But, I suppose, the real story here is, finally, the total discomfort with the sort of no-risk, no-sacrifice nonsense that politicians have been selling for the past 40 years.

As Klein says, "it’s not a bad moment to review the most basic assumptions of our public life, to question the most basic functions of government. It may well turn out that we’ve tried to do too much. It will certainly turn out that we didn’t have the Keynesian discipline to run budget surpluses when times were good to pay for the deficits when times were bad. (Paul’s hero Friedrich Hayek had a meeting of the minds with Keynes on that point after World War II.) It may be that we need a different sort of safety net for a more competitive global economy. It may be that we’re going to have to do with less."

Regarding the existing welfare state: Paul is right in saying that the statists, correctly in my view, believe that the people cannot make provisions for their own social safety net if they are given adequate resources to do so; Paul is also right in saying that governments, as currently structured in Canada and the USA, cannot do so either. So what should we do? I'm not sure, but ...

 

[GAP]

In a  similiar vein.....

The seven habits of spectacularly unsuccessful executives
ERIC JACKSON Forbes.com Thursday, Jan. 05, 2012
Article Link

Part of the allure of being a CEO is the opportunity to espouse a vision. Yet, when CEOs become so enamoured of their vision, they often overlook or underestimate the difficulty of actually getting there. And when it turns out that the obstacles they casually waved aside are more troublesome than they anticipated, these CEOs have a habit of plunging full steam into the abyss. For example, when Webvan’s core business was racking up huge losses, CEO George Shaheen was busy expanding those operations at an awesome rate.

Why don’t CEOs in this situation re-evaluate their course of action, or at least hold back for a while until it becomes clearer whether their policies will work? Some feel an enormous need to be right in every important decision they make, because if they admit to being fallible, their position as CEO might seem precarious. Once a CEO admits that he or she made the wrong call, there will always be people who say the CEO wasn’t up to the job. These unrealistic expectations make it exceedingly hard for a CEO to pull back from any chosen course of action, which not surprisingly causes them to push that much harder. That’s why leaders at Iridium and Motorola kept investing billions of dollars to launch satellites even after it had become apparent that land-based cellphones were a better alternative.

Warning sign of #6: Excessive hype

Habit #7: They stubbornly rely on what worked for them in the past

Many CEOs on their way to becoming spectacularly unsuccessful accelerate their company’s decline by reverting to what they regard as tried-and-true methods. In their desire to make the most of what they regard as their core strengths, they cling to a static business model. They insist on providing a product to a market that no longer exists, or they fail to consider innovations in areas other than those that made the company successful in the past. Instead of considering a range of options that fit new circumstances, they use their own careers as the only point of reference and do the things that made them successful in the past. For example, when Jill Barad was trying to promote educational software at Mattel, she used the promotional techniques that had been effective for her when she was promoting Barbie dolls, despite the fact that software is not distributed or bought the way dolls are.

Frequently, CEOs who fall prey to this habit owe their careers to some “defining moment,” a critical decision or policy choice that resulted in their most notable success. It’s usually the one thing that they’re most known for and the thing that gets them all of their subsequent jobs. The problem is that after people have had the experience of that defining moment, if they become the CEO of a large company, they allow their defining moment to define the company as well – no matter how unrealistic it has become.

Warning sign of #7: Constantly referring to what worked in the past

The other six are just as interesting.....
More on link

 

[a_majoor]

Government pensions finally get put on the block. The final line in the article sums it up for the Canadians who actually foot the bill for these pensions:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/01/10/john-ivison-lavish-mp-pensions-on-chopping-block/

John Ivison: Lavish MP pensions on chopping block

John Ivison  Jan 10, 2012 – 6:01 AM ET | Last Updated: Jan 9, 2012 8:40 PM ET

Members of Parliament are likely to see the generous terms of their gold-plated pensions significantly eroded as part of the Harper government’s deficit reduction budget this spring.

Stephen Harper had hinted in an interview last week that part of the strategy to reduce the deficit will include changes to programs that are likely to see ballooning costs as the number of retirees increases, such as public service pensions and Old Age Security. “We’ve got to make sure that we have, with an ageing population, a series of programs that are sustainable over the long-term,” he said.

As the National Post has written, the government is considering moves that could phase out lucrative defined benefit pension schemes for new hires in the public service and raise the age at which Canadians qualify for OAS from 65 to 67.

However, the Prime Minister knows that he cannot ask public servants and Canadian seniors to suffer austerity measures while MPs benefit from one of the most lavish pension plans in the country. Possible reforms to the MPs’ scheme could include raising the minimum retirement age (currently 55) to lengthening the period of time it takes to qualify for a pension (currently just six years).

Senior sources said that a decision on public service pensions has not yet been made, largely because of legal and legislative barriers to unilateral changes. But the source confirmed the government could still move on MPs’ pensions, even if it holds off on reforms covering the bureaucracy. He said all three strands of pension policy are linked as part of the government’s plan to make sure there is sustainability and fairness in the system.

Ian Lee, a professor at Sprott Business School, said the government would be smart to address what he called “the profound unfairness of MPs’ pensions” before it moves on broader reforms.

“The government cannot ask ordinary Canadians to put their shoulder to the wheel and carry to the burden of austerity – if the elites are not sharing in the pain,” he said.

MPs’ pensions have long been a lightning rod for criticism. Preston Manning and his Reform Party MPs “opted out” of the government pension plan when they came to Ottawa in 1993, but opted back in when then-prime minister Jean Chrétien gave them the chance in 2000.

The formula that determines MPs’ pensions has been reduced since then but remains extremely prodigal. The latest numbers show that taxpayers pay $5.50 for every $1 that MPs and senators contributed to their pension plan. Most private schemes call on the employer to contribute $1 for every $1 added by the member. The parliamentary pension scheme paid out $48.8-million in the 2009/2010 fiscal year to 503 former MPs and senators collecting pension benefits. The report said 117 of them received more than $70,000 a year, with the average for senators being $56,512 and for MPs $53,586.

Since then, 113 more MPs were defeated at the last election and will receive millions more in pensions and severance payments. There was an outcry last May when it emerged that defeated Bloc Québécois leader, Gilles Duceppe is in line to receive $140,000 a year from taxpayers, despite devoting his career to breaking up the country.

Handout

MP Pierre-Luc Dusseault can aim for Freedom 25.

MPs are eligible for a pension after serving in the House for six years, and pensions are calculated on the best five earnings years. On a current salary of $157,000 a year, MPs qualify for an indexed lifetime pension of $27,000 when they reach 55. That means a six-year MP who reaches the age of 80 could receive a minimum of $675,000.

The absurd munificence of the scheme is apparent from just one example: Pierre-Luc Dusseault, who became Canada’s youngest ever MP when he was elected as a member of the NDP in Sherbrooke, will qualify for his pension before his 26th birthday, if he is re-elected.

As Sprott’s Mr. Lee put it: “Presently there are three classes of Canadians concerning pensions: First-class Canadians who receive MPs pensions; government-class Canadians, who get public service pensions, with retirement at 50 or 55; and cattle-class Canadians, who collect OAS at 65. Or, as Orwell said: ‘All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others’.”

 

[GAP]

If the GOC goes after the PS pensions and the MP's pensions, do you not think the CF and RCMP pensions are not going to be on the chopping block also?

 

[Redeye]

If the GOC goes after the PS pensions and the MP's pensions, do you not think the CF and RCMP pensions are not going to be on the chopping block also?

Beat me to it!

 

[a_majoor]

And an opinion from the UK on how we have been managing. A refreshing change from "the world is going to end because Steven Harper is PM" meme:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100128854/o-canada-our-only-hope/

O Canada our only hope

By James Delingpole World Last updated: January 10th, 2012

277 Comments Comment on this article

I love Canada. I love Canadians. I like very much what their government is doing. I have great faith in their future. And if it weren't for their winters, I'd go and live there like a shot. Weird, huh?

Well it's certainly weird enough for those of us old enough to remember Canada in the Seventies, Eighties and Nineties when it was little more than an embarrassing liberal-lefty joke. Sure we still remembered the suffering and courage of those plucky Canucks from Vimy Ridge to Dieppe to the Low Countries, but that spirit appeared long since to have vanished under the noisome regime of Pierre Trudeau and his grisly communitarian successors. Canada was like a pale imitation of the US with all the worst aspects of European Socialism and political correctness tacked on to it.

But suddenly – sorry South Park – but Canada-is-crap jokes just aren't funny any more because they lack the key ingredient of truth.

And the truth is that right now, of all the great Western nations Canada is probably the only one left still standing up for the values that made the West great. What better evidence of this could there be than the glorious news that Stephen Harper's Conservative administration has declared war on the anti-growth, anti-energy, hair-shirt eco-loons who are trying to destroy the Canadian economy? (Mega H/T Benny Peiser at GWPF)

Terence Corcoran has the story:

    It is a cliché in journalism to declare metaphorical wars at the drop of a news release. In this case, it looks like war is exactly what Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver launched Monday in an unprecedented open letter warning that Canada will not allow “environmental and other radical groups” to “hijack our regulatory system to achieve their radical ideological agenda.”

    “These groups,” said Mr. Oliver, “seek to exploit any loophole they can find, stacking public hearings with bodies to ensure that delays kill good projects. They use funding from foreign special interests to undermine Canada’s national economic interest. They attract jet-setting celebrities with some of the largest personal carbon footprints in the world to lecture Canadians not to develop our natural resources.”

The "foreign special interests" are the ones exposed by Vancouver investigative blogger Vivian Krause in articles like this – on how America's Tides Foundation has spent at least $6 million funding a propaganda war on Alberta's oil sands production – and this blog post.

    According to my preliminary calculations, since 2000 USA foundations have poured $300 million into the environmental movement in Canada. The David Suzuki Foundation alone has been paid at least $10 million by American foundations over the past decade. Why are American foundations spending so much money in Canada instead of in their own country or in other countries around the world that are far more needy than Canada?

Actually I think the sinister-foreign-interests-trying-to-destroy-Canada angle is overdone. It's not Canada these green activists specifically want to ruin: it's Western industrial civilisation generally. The only reason Canada may be attracting more flak than most at the moment is because of its courageous position on Kyoto (it wants to pull out), on fossil fuels (it has lots and wants to exploit them) and on economic growth (controversially among the current crop of Western administrations it considers it to be a desirable thing).

Now let us pause for moment and weep for America where sadly rather different attitudes to the environment and economic growth now obtain:

    Oil and politics are a volatile mix for President Barack Obama, as he weighs whether to approve a pipeline to bring crude oil from Canada to Texas. On the merits, Obama should greenlight construction of the Keystone Pipeline. Our economy runs on oil. Given the political volatility in some oil-rich regions of the world, it's just common sense to help maximize the oil-producing capacity of our friend to the north.

    But Obama tried to put off the issue until after the election. That's because to decide is to antagonize either labor unions, who want pipeline jobs, or environmentalists, who fear pollution and climate change.

America's problem is that Canada isn't going to wait for it to make up its mind.

    “I am very serious about selling our oil off this continent, selling our energy products off to China,” said Prime Minister Stephen Harper last week. “I ran into several senior Americans, who all said, ‘Don’t worry, we’ll get Keystone done. You can sell all of your oil to us.’ I said, ‘Yeah we’d love to but the problem is now we're on a different track.’”

So now the battle lines are drawn. On one side are China, Brazil, India, Korea and the other emerging economies whose priority is growth – and, by extension, jobs, a higher standard of living and a future for their citizens. On the other are the moribund economies of the West – weighed down by regulation, hamstrung by activist pressure groups on issues ranging from equality and diversity to environmentalism and elf and safety – whose slow demise will meant that for the first time in two centuries the latest generation is all but guaranteed to enjoy a worse standard of living than its parents. Canada, by joining the former, has chosen well for its children.

As I outline in my expose of environmentalism Watermelons, the green movement bears a huge amount of responsibility for our economic decline. Greens are not kind, they're not fluffy, and they're definitely not caring. At least not unless you're one of those ruddy, completely un-endangered polar bears.

 

[RangerRay]

Reminds me of when former NDP BC Premier Glen Clark declared Greenpeace to be an "Enemy of BC". 

Mind you, the main difference being that at the time (late 90s) the BC economy, forest industry and NDP poll numbers were in the tank.

 

[a_majoor]

Spending cuts are happening faster than predicted (although still small overall). Oddly, while spending alarmists had predicted the apocalypse if spending were to be cut, this rapid trimming seems to have had little effect on economic growth, unemployment etc.

WRT Pensions, GAP noted that military and RCMP pensions could also be on the block. One could argue this is a proper response (and given that government pensions are an unfunded liability and part of the $500 billion in unfunded liabilities, they are not as secure as you think). Don't forget all government wages and benefits are funded by taxpayers, most of whom don't have any pensions or benefits at all. It is a complex question, and finding a just solution (as opposed to a "fair" one) will be difficult:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/tories-waste-no-time-hitting-brakes-on-spending-watchdog-finds/article2298838/

Tories waste no time hitting brakes on spending, watchdog finds

OTTAWA— Globe and Mail Update
Posted on Wednesday, January 11, 2012 11:44AM EST

The Conservative government is already cutting costs faster and more deeply than planned, with new data showing Ottawa has quietly trimmed overall government spending by 3 per cent.

That’s the conclusion of a new report by Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page, which reviewed all government spending over the first six months of the current fiscal year.

The 3 per cent decrease suggests Ottawa is on track to beat its plan to hold total spending growth to 1.5 per cent this fiscal year.

The downward spending trend might explain why the Conservatives are now signalling future cuts could be more aggressive than originally planned.

The government’s 2011 budget laid out a plan that targeted a 5-per-cent cut to the government’s roughly $80-billion direct program spending budget by 2013-14, which works out to a permanent cut of about $4-billion a year.

But according to the PBO’s analysis, Ottawa is well on its way. Spending on operating expenditures is down 4 per cent and capital spending is down 15 per cent.

In an interview, Mr. Page said the savings are the result of earlier spending restraint plans. “This environment of austerity seems to have taken hold, and I think you do see that in the numbers,” he said.

However the spending watchdog noted it could make future cuts more difficult if this year’s numbers come to be used as the starting point for future cuts. He said it is unclear how Ottawa plans to measure future restraint.

Also, Mr. Page said it’s important to note that the lower spending comes after a few years of very large spending increases as a result of government stimulus spending. “Spending is coming down, but that’s after we put a lot into the system,” he said.

Federal departments only recently began publishing quarterly spending reports and the PBO assessment is an analysis of those numbers. It is possible that spending could rise in the last two quarters of the fiscal year.

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty – who is preparing his 2012 budget – said Wednesday that some departments could be cut by more than 10 per cent as part of a government-wide spending review to erase the deficit and ensure Ottawa’s finances are stable over the long term.

Broken down by department, one big boost to Ottawa’s numbers is Finance’s expectation that it will get back the $1.9-billion it gave British Columbia to transition toward a harmonized sales tax. The province has since pulled out of the plan and has promised to give the money back, but the timing of that transfer has not been confirmed.

The government also expects to save money through reduced capital spending at National Defence and winding down stimulus grants at Human Resources Development Canada and other agencies.

Major sources of increased spending include increases to the Canada Health Transfer and Old Age Security payments, as well as growing expenses at Canada Border Services Agency and Correctional Service Canada.

In terms of percentage, spending in the first half of the fiscal year is up 270 per cent at the border security agency, while new crime legislation and a projected increase in the offender population is cited as the reason for a 146 per cent increase in spending on the federal prison system.

Finance Canada spokesman Jack Aubry said spending for this year is in line with the government’s November fiscal update. He noted in an email that differences between the Expenditure Monitor figures used by the PBO and the fiscal update numbers used in the November fiscal update are because the update uses accrual accounting and the expenditure monitor presents figures on a near-cash basis.

 

[a_majoor]

And an interesting response in support of Resource Minister Oliver's stance against foreign interference with our economy:

http://centerforindustrialprogress.com/2012/01/10/canadas-minister-of-natural-resources-condemns-the-green-gauntlet/

Canada’s Minister of Natural Resources Condemns The Green Gauntlet
January 10, 2012, by Alex Epstein No comments yet

The most important story about the American economy is the one that gets the least attention. America has enormous, incalculable, untapped potential to revolutionize its economy through industrial progress–through far greater productivity in energy production, in manufacturing, in construction, in mining, in transportation. But our industrial progress is halted by a labyrinth of so-called “green” policies–policies that have nothing to do with protecting Americans from pollution, and everything to do with protecting wilderness from Americans. At Center for Industrial Progress, we call this The Green Gauntlet.

One of our neighbors to the North, Canada’s Joe Oliver, Minister of Nature Resources, recently released a vivid rebuke of this gauntlet.

    As a country, we must seek new markets for our products and services and the booming Asia-Pacific economies have shown great interest in our oil, gas, metals and minerals. For our government, the choice is clear:  we need to diversify our markets in order to create jobs and economic growth for Canadians across this country.  We must expand our trade with the fast growing Asian economies. We know that increasing trade will help ensure the financial security of Canadians and their families.

    Unfortunately, there are environmental and other radical groups that would seek to block this opportunity to diversify our trade.  Their goal is to stop any major project no matter what the cost to Canadian families in lost jobs and economic growth. No forestry.  No mining.  No oil.  No gas. No more hydro-electric dams.

    These groups threaten to hijack our regulatory system to achieve their radical ideological agenda.  They seek to exploit any loophole they can find, stacking public hearings with bodies to ensure that delays kill good projects.  They use funding from foreign special interest groups to undermine Canada’s national economic interest. They attract jet-setting celebrities with some of the largest personal carbon footprints in the world to lecture Canadians not to develop our natural resources.  Finally, if all other avenues have failed, they will take a quintessential American approach:  sue everyone and anyone to delay the project even further. They do this because they know it can work.  It works because it helps them to achieve their ultimate objective: delay a project to the point it becomes economically unviable.

    Anyone looking at the record of approvals for certain major projects across Canada cannot help but come to the conclusion that many of these projects have been delayed too long.  In many cases, these projects would create thousands upon thousands of jobs for Canadians, yet they can take years to get started due to the slow, complex and cumbersome regulatory process.

    For example, the Mackenzie Valley Gas Pipeline review took more than nine years to complete.  In comparison, the western expansion of the nation-building Canadian Pacific Railway under Sir John A. Macdonald took four years.  Under our current system, building a temporary ice arena on a frozen pond in Banff required the approval of the federal government.  This delayed a decision by two months.  Two valuable months to assess something that thousands of Canadians have been doing for over a century.

It is exciting to see a prominent official blast Green obstruction of industrial progress. Unfortunately, Oliver’s statement of the solution is not nearly as compelling as his statement of the problem.

    Our regulatory system must be fair, independent, consider different viewpoints including those of Aboriginal communities, review the evidence dispassionately and then make an objective determination.  It must be based on science and the facts. We believe reviews for major projects can be accomplished in a quicker and more streamlined fashion.

In other words, Canadians have no right to use and develop their property as they see fit–but we should “streamline” the process of determining whether a plethora of pressure groups will grant them permission or not.

As long as anti-industrial voices have a say in the use of other people’s property, it’s hard to see how Canada’s industrial situation will progress much.

The solution to the Green Gauntlet is universal property rights, the original American industrial and environmental policy. As I wrote recently:

    The [original American] policy was simple and profound: the government’s job was to protect everyone’s property rights–whether a developer who wanted to build a pipeline or a potential victim of the pipeline’s pollution.

    …As for the “environmental impact” on other species, that was up to land-owners. Everyone was free to buy property for whatever purpose he chose, whether to run a pipeline or build a house or enjoy wildlife or all three. But no one could dictate what someone else did with his land. Companies with new projects bought up land or acquired land-use rights from others, and they could build factors, railroads, oil refineries, etc. to the best of their ability.

    The result of such a policy was profound: when individuals truly owned and could use their own property, there was no gap between their ideas and their implementation. This is the phenomenon I have referred to as“Energy at the Speed of Thought”–or, more broadly, industry at the speed of thought.

Right now, both Canada and the US are experiencing industry at the speed of government permission. It’s time for our politicians to rediscover property rights.