Tuition costs, child care costs, and housing costs are all going up way faster than the rate of inflation and on the flip side of things wages for a good chunk of the population have been frozen in real terms for decades.
Now what is true for Canada is true for most of the Western world. However, things are going down hill a lot faster in Canada than most other Western countries. Instead of introducing policies to curb the out of control costs of the aforementioned, Harper has either done nothing or he has introduced policies that have made things worse. Take housing. The cost of housing gone through the roof since 2006 and the main reason for that is the Conservative government decided pour fuel on an already red hot real estate market. The Conservatives extended the mortgage amortization period from 25 years to 30 years in February 2006, extended it to 35 years in July of 2006 and extended it yet again to 40 years in November 2006 During this period they also reduced the needed down payment on second properties from 20% to 5% and allowed for 0 down on one's primary residence. Now in fairness to Flaherty, ever since the down turn he has been scrabbling to undo some of the damage his past actions have done. Flaherty first reduced amortization period from 40 years to 35 and again mandated a 20% down payment on secondary properties and 5% on primary properties in October 2008 and on March 18th he reduced the maximum amortization period to 30 years. Never once acknowledging that it was he who raised the amortization period to begin with, Jim Flaherty has repeatedly over the course of the last 2 and half years that reducing the amortization and increasing the minimum downplayment was the right thing to do. "In 2008 and again in 2010, our government acted to protect and strengthen the Canadian housing market," The problem is it is too little too late. The best Flaherty and Conservatives can do is prevent further damage. Weather it be Bloomberg, Paul Krugman and, if you read between the lines, Mark Carney many are worried that Canada is headed for a crash that would drive Canada deep into debt. For one thing, since 2006 Canadian mortgage and housing corporations liabilities have gone from 100 billion to 500 hundred billion. If the housing bubble bursts and Canadians start defaulting on their mortgages, the Canadian tax payer will be picking up the tab. The Canadian government guarantees all that debt.
Wages are another example. The Conservatives decision to allow in a huge number of unskilled guest workers into Canada has hurt workers whose wages have been frozen in real terms of decades. To add insult to injury, Conservatives allowed temporary foreign workers to be brought by Gordan Campbell to work on projects associated with Canada's Action Plan. This meant that money that was designed to stimulate the BC economy was instead stimulating the recovery in Mexico instead. Most of the these workers were from Mexico.
Of course, when it comes to public spending, outside of Canada's Action plan the Conservatives have increased spending in areas (e.g., the military and corrections) that offer no direct financial benefit at all to Canadians.
The Liberals need to drive this point home by pointing out in ads just how much college tuition, housing and child care have gone up since 2006.
Monday, April 25, 2011
Sunday, April 24, 2011
It is all about Ontario
What will determine whether there will be a Conversative majority is the gap between the Liberals and the Conservatives in the Province of Ontario. An 8% difference or more probably means a Conservative majority. Right now Nanos shows a 12 point gap.
Brampton West
Brampton Springdale
Eglinton-Lawrence
York Center
Don Valley West
Ajax Pickering
Mississauga South
Richmond Hill
Kington and the Islands
Guelph
London North Center
All of the above and maybe more are in danger of going blue.
The Liberal Plan for the next week is simple. Drive the Conservative vote below 40% in Ontario.
Brampton West
Brampton Springdale
Eglinton-Lawrence
York Center
Don Valley West
Ajax Pickering
Mississauga South
Richmond Hill
Kington and the Islands
Guelph
London North Center
All of the above and maybe more are in danger of going blue.
The Liberal Plan for the next week is simple. Drive the Conservative vote below 40% in Ontario.
Saturday, April 23, 2011
An elected Senate is a Stupid Idea
Constitutionally senators have all kinds of power and every once in a blue moon the Senate has stalled major pieces of legislation (e.g., free trade and the GST). However the aforementioned instances of stalling are so rare they are the exceptions that prove just how "ineffective" the senate truly is. Moreover, no senate I can think of has pursued a legislative agenda of its own accord; opposing legislation is one thing; purposing legislation is quite another. The reason the senate is not an "effective" body is that senators are not elected and as such lack legitimacy. Furthermore, senators are members of legitimate federal political parties and the parties that they belong to are loath to have their unelected members exercise real authority least their actions undermine the party. Finally, the fact that it is the ruling federal party and not, say, provincial governments that appoint senators defines a clear pecking order, with the Senate answerable to the House.
Harper, of course, wants to reform the Senate. Being unable to reform the Senate in one fell swoop, Harper has proposed electing Senators piece meal. Under the Conservative plan, new senators would be elected and would be limited to serving out a 8 year term. The elephant in the living room is that if the senate's lack of effective powers flows from the senate's lack of legitimacy, then electing senators might provide the senate with a degree of legitimacy it currently does not hold. One problem with proceeding thusly is that current senators are free to serve until the age of 75. As a result, Harper's actions could either transform an unelected political body with no real power into a largely unelected political body with real political power or commit Canadians to the farcical and expensive act of electing people to office who hold no real power. Always content to play the Tin Man and Lion to Conservatives scarecrow, the Liberals remain largely mum on the subject.
Setting aside problems associated with implementation, is the cause of democracy even served by reforming the Senate? Well, the Reformers always held that the regions needed more say and an “equal” “effective” and “elected” senate is the best way of achieving a balance between population centers in Eastern Canada and the rest of us. However, such a conception, and for that matter an "effective" version of the current senate, does not stand up to scrutiny. The problem is fivefold.
First such an argument rests on a false contrast; seats in the House of Commons are supposed to be assigned on basis of population, but in actuality that is not the case. Consider the 905. There are currently 4 plus million living in the 905 and there are currently 32 seats for an average of just over 127,000 people per riding. There are 6 ridings with over a 140,000 people in the 905, Bramalea - Gore - Malton (152,698) Brampton West (170,422) Halton (151,943), Mississauga - Erindale (143,361) Oak Ridges - Markham (169,642) and Vaughan (154,206). By contrast there are 4.5 million people in Sask, Man, NWT, Nuv, Yuk, PEI, NS, NFLD, and NB and there are 62 seats for an average of 72,000 people per riding. Moreover, there is but one riding in the 9, Selkirk Interlake (90,807), with over 90,000 people. Given current growth trends, there will be more people in the 905 than the aforementioned provinces and territories by 2011. Given population growth, Harper would have to give Ontario alone another 70 seats to make things half way equal.
Second, the people living in Canada’s less populated provinces have a mechanism to assure that regional concerns are addressed; it is called provincial jurisdiction and provincial representation. By the very nature of living in a province with a small population, the 135,851 people in PEI have plenty of ways of addressing regional concerns that are not available to, for example, the 136 470 people living in Mississauga - Brampton South.
The third reason is that while one person one vote is bedrock principle of any democracy, one province one senate vote is something else entirely. People, not provinces, deserve equal representation. A province is no more or less than the people that make up that province. Giving the 135,851 in PEI the power to determine everything under provincial jurisdiction, provincial representation and 4 MPs well all the while giving the 170, 422 residents of Brampton West one MP is bad enough as it is. Piling on and giving the 135,851 people in PEI the same number of “effective” senators, as per the American Triple E Senate model, as 12,160,282 Ontarians is beyond stupid and grossly undemocratic. Equally silly is having one "effective" Senator for every 72,997 New Brunswick residents (10 senators in total) versus one Senator for every 685, 581 BC residents (6 senators in total). And that is what the current configuration gives us.
Four, as Benjamin Franklin put it, having two equally matched houses makes as much sense as tying two equally matched horses to either end of a buggy and having them both pull. Having two houses is not only a lobbyists dream, it is a recipe for political gridlock and pork barrel politics. The only thing that would be worse is if one needed 60% of the votes in the senate to overcome a filibuster.
Five, leaving aside the fact that no province has a second chamber, most having abolished them long ago, and that there are numerous examples of unicameral nation states (e.g., New Zealand, Denmark, Finland, Israel, Sweden, Iceland, Liechtenstein, South Korea and Portugal), we already have a de facto unicameral state as it is -- just ask the supporters of a Triple E senate. After all, one can not argue on the one hand that the current senate is undemocratic and so contributes to the "democratic deficit" and on the other hand argue that the senate is “ineffective”. A body that adds nothing to the genuinely "effective" process can not take away anything either.
Harper, of course, wants to reform the Senate. Being unable to reform the Senate in one fell swoop, Harper has proposed electing Senators piece meal. Under the Conservative plan, new senators would be elected and would be limited to serving out a 8 year term. The elephant in the living room is that if the senate's lack of effective powers flows from the senate's lack of legitimacy, then electing senators might provide the senate with a degree of legitimacy it currently does not hold. One problem with proceeding thusly is that current senators are free to serve until the age of 75. As a result, Harper's actions could either transform an unelected political body with no real power into a largely unelected political body with real political power or commit Canadians to the farcical and expensive act of electing people to office who hold no real power. Always content to play the Tin Man and Lion to Conservatives scarecrow, the Liberals remain largely mum on the subject.
Setting aside problems associated with implementation, is the cause of democracy even served by reforming the Senate? Well, the Reformers always held that the regions needed more say and an “equal” “effective” and “elected” senate is the best way of achieving a balance between population centers in Eastern Canada and the rest of us. However, such a conception, and for that matter an "effective" version of the current senate, does not stand up to scrutiny. The problem is fivefold.
First such an argument rests on a false contrast; seats in the House of Commons are supposed to be assigned on basis of population, but in actuality that is not the case. Consider the 905. There are currently 4 plus million living in the 905 and there are currently 32 seats for an average of just over 127,000 people per riding. There are 6 ridings with over a 140,000 people in the 905, Bramalea - Gore - Malton (152,698) Brampton West (170,422) Halton (151,943), Mississauga - Erindale (143,361) Oak Ridges - Markham (169,642) and Vaughan (154,206). By contrast there are 4.5 million people in Sask, Man, NWT, Nuv, Yuk, PEI, NS, NFLD, and NB and there are 62 seats for an average of 72,000 people per riding. Moreover, there is but one riding in the 9, Selkirk Interlake (90,807), with over 90,000 people. Given current growth trends, there will be more people in the 905 than the aforementioned provinces and territories by 2011. Given population growth, Harper would have to give Ontario alone another 70 seats to make things half way equal.
Second, the people living in Canada’s less populated provinces have a mechanism to assure that regional concerns are addressed; it is called provincial jurisdiction and provincial representation. By the very nature of living in a province with a small population, the 135,851 people in PEI have plenty of ways of addressing regional concerns that are not available to, for example, the 136 470 people living in Mississauga - Brampton South.
The third reason is that while one person one vote is bedrock principle of any democracy, one province one senate vote is something else entirely. People, not provinces, deserve equal representation. A province is no more or less than the people that make up that province. Giving the 135,851 in PEI the power to determine everything under provincial jurisdiction, provincial representation and 4 MPs well all the while giving the 170, 422 residents of Brampton West one MP is bad enough as it is. Piling on and giving the 135,851 people in PEI the same number of “effective” senators, as per the American Triple E Senate model, as 12,160,282 Ontarians is beyond stupid and grossly undemocratic. Equally silly is having one "effective" Senator for every 72,997 New Brunswick residents (10 senators in total) versus one Senator for every 685, 581 BC residents (6 senators in total). And that is what the current configuration gives us.
Four, as Benjamin Franklin put it, having two equally matched houses makes as much sense as tying two equally matched horses to either end of a buggy and having them both pull. Having two houses is not only a lobbyists dream, it is a recipe for political gridlock and pork barrel politics. The only thing that would be worse is if one needed 60% of the votes in the senate to overcome a filibuster.
Five, leaving aside the fact that no province has a second chamber, most having abolished them long ago, and that there are numerous examples of unicameral nation states (e.g., New Zealand, Denmark, Finland, Israel, Sweden, Iceland, Liechtenstein, South Korea and Portugal), we already have a de facto unicameral state as it is -- just ask the supporters of a Triple E senate. After all, one can not argue on the one hand that the current senate is undemocratic and so contributes to the "democratic deficit" and on the other hand argue that the senate is “ineffective”. A body that adds nothing to the genuinely "effective" process can not take away anything either.
The Conservatives and the Economy
1) It was not that Canada performed particularly well; it was that the other G-8 countries were particularly hard it. Compare us against other OCED countries and the picture is not nearly as Rosy. For example, we rank 18th out 30 in terms of unemployment.
2) The Conservatives do not deserve credit for 10% growth in China and more than anything else that is what has kept the Canadian economy strong relative to the other G8 countries. It has kept the price of commodities up.
3) The opposition parties forced the Conservatives into passing The stimulas package. They were able to do that because Michael Igantieff was at 36% in the Spring 2009. Ever since the Conservatives have spent tens of millions of dollars celebrating "Canada's action plan".
4) The Conservatives have shown a similar degree of chutzpah in celebrating a conservative lending culture in Canada that they had begun to undermine prior to the downturn.
5) The cost of housing gone through the roof since 2006 and the main reason for that is the Conservative government decided pour fuel on an already red hot real estate market. The Conservatives extended the mortgage amortization period from 25 years to 30 years in February 2006, extended it to 35 years in July of 2006 and extended it yet again to 40 years in November 2006 During this period they also reduced the needed down payment on second properties from 20% to 5% and allowed for 0 down on one's primary residence. Ever since the down turn, Jim Flaherty has been scrabbling to undo the damage his past actions have done. Flaherty first reduced amortization period from 40 years to 35 and again mandated a 20% down payment on secondary properties and 5% on primary properties in October 2008 and on March 18th he reduced the maximum amortization period to 30 years. Never once acknowledging that it was he who raised the amortization period to begin with, Jim Flaherty has repeatedly over the course of the last 2 and half years that reducing the amortization and increasing the minimum downplayment was the right thing to do. "In 2008 and again in 2010, our government acted to protect and strengthen the Canadian housing market," The problem is it is too little too late. The best Flaherty and Conservatives can do is prevent further damage. Weather it be Bloomberg, Paul Krugman and, if you read between the lines, Mark Carney many are worried that Canada is headed for a crash that would drive Canada deep into debt. For one thing, since 2006 Canadian mortgage and housing corporations liabilities have gone from 100 billion to 500 hundred billion. If the housing bubble bursts and Canadians start defaulting on their mortgages, the Canadian tax payer will be picking up the tab. The Canadian government guarantees all that debt.
2) The Conservatives do not deserve credit for 10% growth in China and more than anything else that is what has kept the Canadian economy strong relative to the other G8 countries. It has kept the price of commodities up.
3) The opposition parties forced the Conservatives into passing The stimulas package. They were able to do that because Michael Igantieff was at 36% in the Spring 2009. Ever since the Conservatives have spent tens of millions of dollars celebrating "Canada's action plan".
4) The Conservatives have shown a similar degree of chutzpah in celebrating a conservative lending culture in Canada that they had begun to undermine prior to the downturn.
5) The cost of housing gone through the roof since 2006 and the main reason for that is the Conservative government decided pour fuel on an already red hot real estate market. The Conservatives extended the mortgage amortization period from 25 years to 30 years in February 2006, extended it to 35 years in July of 2006 and extended it yet again to 40 years in November 2006 During this period they also reduced the needed down payment on second properties from 20% to 5% and allowed for 0 down on one's primary residence. Ever since the down turn, Jim Flaherty has been scrabbling to undo the damage his past actions have done. Flaherty first reduced amortization period from 40 years to 35 and again mandated a 20% down payment on secondary properties and 5% on primary properties in October 2008 and on March 18th he reduced the maximum amortization period to 30 years. Never once acknowledging that it was he who raised the amortization period to begin with, Jim Flaherty has repeatedly over the course of the last 2 and half years that reducing the amortization and increasing the minimum downplayment was the right thing to do. "In 2008 and again in 2010, our government acted to protect and strengthen the Canadian housing market," The problem is it is too little too late. The best Flaherty and Conservatives can do is prevent further damage. Weather it be Bloomberg, Paul Krugman and, if you read between the lines, Mark Carney many are worried that Canada is headed for a crash that would drive Canada deep into debt. For one thing, since 2006 Canadian mortgage and housing corporations liabilities have gone from 100 billion to 500 hundred billion. If the housing bubble bursts and Canadians start defaulting on their mortgages, the Canadian tax payer will be picking up the tab. The Canadian government guarantees all that debt.
Friday, April 22, 2011
How to attack Harper's assertion that the choice is between a Conservative Majority a Coalition
Ignatieff has to turn the tables on Harper's coalition clap trap. This is how he could do it.
"Mr Harper says the choice is between a Conservative majority and coalition of the other parties. He said he will not form a minority led government. In other words, if he does not get his majority he is going to take his ball and go home. This shows a shocking lack of leadership and it is a slap in face of every Canadian, particularly every Canadian who supports him. If the Canadian people give Stephen Harper another minority on May 2, and obviously I hope that this is not the case and believe that it will not be the case, I expect Mr Harper to accept the Governor Generals invitation to form the next government and to work with other parties to make it work. I do not expect him to cry like a two year and proclaim that a minority is not a good enough and that all he is willing to accept is a majority."
"Mr Harper says the choice is between a Conservative majority and coalition of the other parties. He said he will not form a minority led government. In other words, if he does not get his majority he is going to take his ball and go home. This shows a shocking lack of leadership and it is a slap in face of every Canadian, particularly every Canadian who supports him. If the Canadian people give Stephen Harper another minority on May 2, and obviously I hope that this is not the case and believe that it will not be the case, I expect Mr Harper to accept the Governor Generals invitation to form the next government and to work with other parties to make it work. I do not expect him to cry like a two year and proclaim that a minority is not a good enough and that all he is willing to accept is a majority."
Euthanasia
Solid support for it nationwide: check
A very big issue in Quebec: check
Social conservatism is Harper's Achilles heel: check
Liberals are behind in the polls: check
So, why are the Liberals not talking about euthanasia?
A very big issue in Quebec: check
Social conservatism is Harper's Achilles heel: check
Liberals are behind in the polls: check
So, why are the Liberals not talking about euthanasia?
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Time for the Liberals to send up a Hail Mary or two
I very much doubt there is anything the Liberals can do to stop the bleeding and after the CBC interview and the debates I have no faith in Ignatieff whatsoever, but here is what I would do.
English Canada: The Liberals have lost the Francophone vote. There no hope of getting them back. So there is no need to pander to them anymore. Talk about the Clarity Act and its importance. Characterize Stephen Harper as once having been an Alberta separatist for having written the Firewall letter and Separation Alberta Style and blast Jack Layton as having abandoning the Clarity Act and supporting the extension of bill 101.
French Canada: Talk about social issues. Harper's Achilles heel has always been his social conservative base and the Liberals have been stupid not to attack it. At the this point in time the Liberals have to drop a bomb shell. I have always favored legalizing marijuana, but think it is too late for that now and doubt Ignatieff has the ability to make his lunch let alone the case. Maybe he could suggest that he would be willing to entertain the idea. However, Liberals definitely need to talk about legalizing euthanasia.
English Canada: The Liberals have lost the Francophone vote. There no hope of getting them back. So there is no need to pander to them anymore. Talk about the Clarity Act and its importance. Characterize Stephen Harper as once having been an Alberta separatist for having written the Firewall letter and Separation Alberta Style and blast Jack Layton as having abandoning the Clarity Act and supporting the extension of bill 101.
French Canada: Talk about social issues. Harper's Achilles heel has always been his social conservative base and the Liberals have been stupid not to attack it. At the this point in time the Liberals have to drop a bomb shell. I have always favored legalizing marijuana, but think it is too late for that now and doubt Ignatieff has the ability to make his lunch let alone the case. Maybe he could suggest that he would be willing to entertain the idea. However, Liberals definitely need to talk about legalizing euthanasia.
Liberals could be finished as a party: Big Conservative Majority looks likely
It looks like I will again be updating my seat projections.
Liberal support is going right and going left. The Liberals look like they could be finished as a political party. As things break down now, East of Toronto the party will be lucky to win a seat.
Liberal support is going right and going left. The Liberals look like they could be finished as a political party. As things break down now, East of Toronto the party will be lucky to win a seat.
Not a Minority but not a Majority either
Holy Crop. The Crop poll makes a Quebec a whole lot more interesting. I do not think this will be the last update. I suspect I will be moving more Bloc seats to the NDP and possibly some Liberal ones as well. As things stand, I have the Conservatives plus Arthur at 154 and Liberals, NDP and Bloc at 154. Imagine that.
Conservative pick ups
Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca from the Liberals
Kington and the Islands form the Liberals
Brampton West from the Liberals
Brampton Springdale from the Liberals
Avalon from the Liberals
Saint John's Mount Pearl from the Liberals
Madawaska-Restigouche from the Liberals
Western Artic from the NDP
NDP pick ups
Hull Aylmer from Liberals
Brossard-La Prairie from Liberals
Winnipeg North from the Liberals
Jeanne-Le Ber from Bloc
Ahuntsic from Bloc
Compton-Stanstead form Bloc
Alfred-Pellan from Bloc
Laval from Bloc
Brome-Missisquoi from Bloc
Drummond from Bloc
Gatineau from the Bloc
Saint-Lambert from Bloc
Shefford from Bloc
Pontiac from Conservatives
National
Conservatives 153
Liberals 67
NDP 49
Bloc 38
Independent 1
BC
Conservatives 23
Liberals 4
NDP 9
Alberta
Cons 27
NDP 1
Sask
Conservatives 13
Liberals 1
Man
Conservatives 9
NDP 4
Liberals 1
Ontario
Conservatives 55
Liberals 34
NDP 17
Quebec
Bloc 38
Liberals 12
Conservatives 10
NDP 14
Independent 1
NB
Conservatives 7
Liberals 2
NDP 1
NS
Liberals 5
Conservtives 4
NDP 2
PEI
Liberals 3
Conservatives 1
NFLD
Liberals 4
Conservatives 2
NDP 1
Yukon
Liberals
NWT
Conservatives
Nunavut
Conservatives
Conservative pick ups
Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca from the Liberals
Kington and the Islands form the Liberals
Brampton West from the Liberals
Brampton Springdale from the Liberals
Avalon from the Liberals
Saint John's Mount Pearl from the Liberals
Madawaska-Restigouche from the Liberals
Western Artic from the NDP
NDP pick ups
Hull Aylmer from Liberals
Brossard-La Prairie from Liberals
Winnipeg North from the Liberals
Jeanne-Le Ber from Bloc
Ahuntsic from Bloc
Compton-Stanstead form Bloc
Alfred-Pellan from Bloc
Laval from Bloc
Brome-Missisquoi from Bloc
Drummond from Bloc
Gatineau from the Bloc
Saint-Lambert from Bloc
Shefford from Bloc
Pontiac from Conservatives
National
Conservatives 153
Liberals 67
NDP 49
Bloc 38
Independent 1
BC
Conservatives 23
Liberals 4
NDP 9
Alberta
Cons 27
NDP 1
Sask
Conservatives 13
Liberals 1
Man
Conservatives 9
NDP 4
Liberals 1
Ontario
Conservatives 55
Liberals 34
NDP 17
Quebec
Bloc 38
Liberals 12
Conservatives 10
NDP 14
Independent 1
NB
Conservatives 7
Liberals 2
NDP 1
NS
Liberals 5
Conservtives 4
NDP 2
PEI
Liberals 3
Conservatives 1
NFLD
Liberals 4
Conservatives 2
NDP 1
Yukon
Liberals
NWT
Conservatives
Nunavut
Conservatives
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Layton's attack the Liberals first Strategy is stupid: Part 2
There is no chance whatsoever that the NDP is going to overtake the Liberals this time around.
If the NDP is going to replace the Liberals as the official opposition in the near future, one thing has to happen this election. Harper has to be held to a minority. Otherwise, the Liberals will have 5 years to recover and any momentum the NDP might have in Quebec will be lost. Hold a Harper to minority and the Layton will be able to proclaim himself as the only true opposition to Stephen Harper as both the Liberals and Bloc continually prop up the government as they search for new leaders,
If the NDP is going to replace the Liberals as the official opposition in the near future, one thing has to happen this election. Harper has to be held to a minority. Otherwise, the Liberals will have 5 years to recover and any momentum the NDP might have in Quebec will be lost. Hold a Harper to minority and the Layton will be able to proclaim himself as the only true opposition to Stephen Harper as both the Liberals and Bloc continually prop up the government as they search for new leaders,
Layton's attack the Liberals first Strategy is Stupid
Layton has chosen to focus his attacks and Ignatieff and not Harper. This is a strange strategy for three reasons. One, Harper is on the verge of a majority. Two, the number of close battle the NDP have with the Conservatives is far greater than the number of close battles the NDP have with the Liberals. Three, in most parts of the country, especially west of Ontario, voters are far more likely to move between the NDP and Conservatives than between the NDP and Liberals.
Tight NDP Conservative battles
Burnaby-Douglas
New Westminster-Coquitlam
Surrey North
Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca
Edmonton-Strathcona
Western Arctic
Saskatoon-Rosetown-Biggar
Sault Ste. Marie
South Shore-St. Margaret's
Vancouver Island North
Tight NDP Liberal battles
Vancouver Kingsway
Winnipeg North
Trinity-Spadina
Sudbury
Tight Three way races
Welland
St. John's South-Mount Pearl
Tight NDP Conservative battles
Burnaby-Douglas
New Westminster-Coquitlam
Surrey North
Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca
Edmonton-Strathcona
Western Arctic
Saskatoon-Rosetown-Biggar
Sault Ste. Marie
South Shore-St. Margaret's
Vancouver Island North
Tight NDP Liberal battles
Vancouver Kingsway
Winnipeg North
Trinity-Spadina
Sudbury
Tight Three way races
Welland
St. John's South-Mount Pearl
Prediction: Conservative Majority -- well sort of
This is a much harder election to call than 2008, but here it goes.
Conservative pick ups
Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca from the Liberals
Kington and the Islands form the Liberals
Brampton West from the Liberals
Brampton Springdale from the Liberals
Avalon from the Liberals
Saint John's Mount Pearl from the Liberals
Madawaska-Restigouche from the Liberals
Western Artic from the NDP
NDP pick ups
Winnipeg North from the Liberals
Gatineau from the Bloc
Liberal pick ups
Ahuntsic from the Bloc
Jeanne-Le Ber from the Bloc
Brome-Missisquoi from Bloc
Haute-Gaspésie-La Mitis-Matane-Matapédia from the Bloc
National
Conservatives 154
Liberals 73
Bloc 43
NDP 37
Independent 1
BC
Conservatives 23
Liberals 4
NDP 9
Alberta
Cons 27
NDP 1
Sask
Conservatives 13
Liberals 1
Man
Conservatives 9
NDP 4
Liberals 1
Ontario
Conservatives 55
Liberals 34
NDP 17
Quebec
Bloc 43
Liberals 18
Conservatives 11
NDP 2
Independent 1
NB
Conservatives 7
Liberals 2
NDP 1
NS
Liberals 5
Conservtives 4
NDP 2
PEI
Liberals 3
Conservatives 1
NFLD
Liberals 4
Conservatives 2
NDP 1
Yukon
Liberals
NWT
Conservatives
Nunavut
Conservatives
The bus driver Arthur becomes a Conservative and gives them a very slim majority indeed.
voter turnout 59%
NDP and Liberals later go on to merge
Conservative pick ups
Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca from the Liberals
Kington and the Islands form the Liberals
Brampton West from the Liberals
Brampton Springdale from the Liberals
Avalon from the Liberals
Saint John's Mount Pearl from the Liberals
Madawaska-Restigouche from the Liberals
Western Artic from the NDP
NDP pick ups
Winnipeg North from the Liberals
Gatineau from the Bloc
Liberal pick ups
Ahuntsic from the Bloc
Jeanne-Le Ber from the Bloc
Brome-Missisquoi from Bloc
Haute-Gaspésie-La Mitis-Matane-Matapédia from the Bloc
National
Conservatives 154
Liberals 73
Bloc 43
NDP 37
Independent 1
BC
Conservatives 23
Liberals 4
NDP 9
Alberta
Cons 27
NDP 1
Sask
Conservatives 13
Liberals 1
Man
Conservatives 9
NDP 4
Liberals 1
Ontario
Conservatives 55
Liberals 34
NDP 17
Quebec
Bloc 43
Liberals 18
Conservatives 11
NDP 2
Independent 1
NB
Conservatives 7
Liberals 2
NDP 1
NS
Liberals 5
Conservtives 4
NDP 2
PEI
Liberals 3
Conservatives 1
NFLD
Liberals 4
Conservatives 2
NDP 1
Yukon
Liberals
NWT
Conservatives
Nunavut
Conservatives
The bus driver Arthur becomes a Conservative and gives them a very slim majority indeed.
voter turnout 59%
NDP and Liberals later go on to merge
Monday, April 18, 2011
“It’s past time the feds scrapped the Canada Health Act"
Harper headed a organization, the National Citizens Coalition, dedicated to the privatization of public health care for 3 years and was Vice president for two more. This fact seems to be lost in the attribution kerfuffle. Whether it was Harper who said “It’s past time the feds scrapped the Canada Health Act,” or his boss David Somerville, the position of organization was clear.
Liberals need to Disseminate Harper's "Separation, Alberta-style: It is time to seek a new relationship with Canada"
Stephen Harper's "Separation, Alberta-style: It is time to seek a new relationship with Canada" is really a must read. The Liberals need to be emailing it to every Liberal in the country and telling them to email all their friends.
http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/02/09/stephen-harper-and-canada-a-love-story-iv/
Hilights
Stephen Harper "Canada appears content to become a second-tier socialistic country, boasting ever more loudly about its economy and social services to mask its second-rate status"
Stephen Harper "Any country with Canada's insecure smugness and resentment can be dangerous."
Stephen Harper "It is to take the bricks and begin building another home -- a stronger and much more autonomous Alberta. It is time to look at Quebec and to learn. What Albertans should take from this example is to become "maitres chez nous."
http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/02/09/stephen-harper-and-canada-a-love-story-iv/
Hilights
Stephen Harper "Canada appears content to become a second-tier socialistic country, boasting ever more loudly about its economy and social services to mask its second-rate status"
Stephen Harper "Any country with Canada's insecure smugness and resentment can be dangerous."
Stephen Harper "It is to take the bricks and begin building another home -- a stronger and much more autonomous Alberta. It is time to look at Quebec and to learn. What Albertans should take from this example is to become "maitres chez nous."
How to use Stephen Harper Quotes
In the past the Liberals have employed a shotgun approach when disseminating Harper quotes. This was a huge mistake. Not only was the reader overwhelmed by the sure volume, but most of the quotes were pretty tepid stuff and this tended to moderate the damage some of the real gems. The Liberals need to take a few quotes and repeat them endlessly. These are the ones I would emphasize.
1) "Canada appears content to become a second-tier socialistic country, boasting ever more loudly about its economy and social services to mask its second-rate status, .... "
2) "Any country with Canada’s insecure smugness and resentment can be dangerous".
3) "In terms of the unemployed, of which we have over a million-and-a-half, I don't feel particularly bad for many of these people."
4) "You’ve got to remember that west of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from eastern Canada: people who live in ghettoes and who are not integrated into western Canadian society"
5) "Whether Canada ends up as one national government or two national governments or several national governments, or some other kind of arrangement is, quite frankly, secondary in my opinion…"
1) "Canada appears content to become a second-tier socialistic country, boasting ever more loudly about its economy and social services to mask its second-rate status, .... "
2) "Any country with Canada’s insecure smugness and resentment can be dangerous".
3) "In terms of the unemployed, of which we have over a million-and-a-half, I don't feel particularly bad for many of these people."
4) "You’ve got to remember that west of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from eastern Canada: people who live in ghettoes and who are not integrated into western Canadian society"
5) "Whether Canada ends up as one national government or two national governments or several national governments, or some other kind of arrangement is, quite frankly, secondary in my opinion…"
Stephen Harper: "Any country with Canada's insecure smugness and resentment can be dangerous."
Stephen Harper: "Any country with Canada's insecure smugness and resentment can be dangerous."
http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/02/09/stephen-harper-and-canada-a-love-story-iv/
Stephen Harper says that a Conservative majority is the only answer to Quebec separatism. Now leaving aside the fact that Quebecers hate his guts and a Harper majority would likely increase support for separation, Harper record leaves a lot to be desired.
After all, this is man who wrote a paper called "Separation, Alberta-style: It is time to seek a new relationship with Canada."
http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/02/09/stephen-harper-and-canada-a-love-story-iv/
This is a man who said Albertans had a lot to learn from Quebec Separatists.
"It is to take the bricks and begin building another home -- a stronger and much more autonomous Alberta. It is time to look at Quebec and to learn. What Albertans should take from this example is to become "maitres chez nous."
http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/02/09/stephen-harper-and-canada-a-love-story-iv/
This is a man who held up Belgium, a country on the verge of breaking up, as a model for Canada
"I think we should look at more creative ways of dealing with some of the demands for change in the country," Harper said. "I used the Belgium model."
... "I want my party to consider how this model could be adopted to Canada," Harper said in a prepared text of the speech.
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20041019/harper_belgium_041019/
And this is man who downplayed the importance of a yes vote for separation and said it was of secondary imporatance to him.
"Whether Canada ends up as one national government or two national governments or several national governments, or some other kind of arrangement is, quite frankly, secondary in my opinion"
http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/02/09/stephen-harper-and-canada-a-love-story-iv/
Stephen Harper says that a Conservative majority is the only answer to Quebec separatism. Now leaving aside the fact that Quebecers hate his guts and a Harper majority would likely increase support for separation, Harper record leaves a lot to be desired.
After all, this is man who wrote a paper called "Separation, Alberta-style: It is time to seek a new relationship with Canada."
http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/02/09/stephen-harper-and-canada-a-love-story-iv/
This is a man who said Albertans had a lot to learn from Quebec Separatists.
"It is to take the bricks and begin building another home -- a stronger and much more autonomous Alberta. It is time to look at Quebec and to learn. What Albertans should take from this example is to become "maitres chez nous."
http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/02/09/stephen-harper-and-canada-a-love-story-iv/
This is a man who held up Belgium, a country on the verge of breaking up, as a model for Canada
"I think we should look at more creative ways of dealing with some of the demands for change in the country," Harper said. "I used the Belgium model."
... "I want my party to consider how this model could be adopted to Canada," Harper said in a prepared text of the speech.
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20041019/harper_belgium_041019/
And this is man who downplayed the importance of a yes vote for separation and said it was of secondary imporatance to him.
"Whether Canada ends up as one national government or two national governments or several national governments, or some other kind of arrangement is, quite frankly, secondary in my opinion"
Harper's Separation, Alberta-style: It is time to seek a new relationship with Canada
Stephen Harper's "Separation, Alberta-style: It is time to seek a new relationship with Canada" is really a must read. Read it, email it, post it on face book, post it on twitter and mention it in conversation.
http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/02/09/stephen-harper-and-canada-a-love-story-iv/
Hilights
Stephen Harper "Canada appears content to become a second-tier socialistic country, boasting ever more loudly about its economy and social services to mask its second-rate status"
Stephen Harper "Any country with Canada's insecure smugness and resentment can be dangerous."
Stephen Harper "It is to take the bricks and begin building another home -- a stronger and much more autonomous Alberta. It is time to look at Quebec and to learn. What Albertans should take from this example is to become "maitres chez nous."
http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/02/09/stephen-harper-and-canada-a-love-story-iv/
Hilights
Stephen Harper "Canada appears content to become a second-tier socialistic country, boasting ever more loudly about its economy and social services to mask its second-rate status"
Stephen Harper "Any country with Canada's insecure smugness and resentment can be dangerous."
Stephen Harper "It is to take the bricks and begin building another home -- a stronger and much more autonomous Alberta. It is time to look at Quebec and to learn. What Albertans should take from this example is to become "maitres chez nous."
Sunday, April 17, 2011
An Easy way of short circuiting the Conservative's Separtist Talking Point
"Conservative Leader Stephen Harper says he needs a strong result in the election to ward off resurgent sovereignists in Quebec."
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/976093--harper-says-majority-needed-to-stop-sovereignists
Now every time Harper trouts out that line, the Liberals need to fire back with this.
Stephen Harper "Whether Canada ends up as one national government or two national governments or several national governments, or some other kind of arrangement is, quite frankly, secondary in my opinion"
and Harper's Separation, Alberta-style: It is time to seek a new relationship with Canada
http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/02/09/stephen-harper-and-canada-a-love-story-iv/
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/976093--harper-says-majority-needed-to-stop-sovereignists
Now every time Harper trouts out that line, the Liberals need to fire back with this.
Stephen Harper "Whether Canada ends up as one national government or two national governments or several national governments, or some other kind of arrangement is, quite frankly, secondary in my opinion"
and Harper's Separation, Alberta-style: It is time to seek a new relationship with Canada
http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/02/09/stephen-harper-and-canada-a-love-story-iv/
Saturday, April 16, 2011
Canada needs more Skilled Immigrants
The average Canadian in 2004 was 39.7; that makes Canada one of the oldest nations on earth. However bad things are now things promise to get a lot worse. The percentage of Canadians over 65 is set to go from 14.7 now to 27.6 in 2050. If the situation was ever allowed to get this bad, the economy would at best be stagnate, the federal government would surely be in deficit, and virtually every public entitlement program would be under enormous pressure or would have already collapsed. Most notably our health care system would be in serious trouble. Indeed as it stands now "People age 65 and older accounted for 13.2% of the Canadian population but consumed an estimated 44% of provincial and territorial government health care spending in 2005."
The problem is this.
http://www.bcmj.org/canada-s-coming-age-how-demographic-imperatives-will-force-redesign-acute-care-service-delivery
This problem is not going to go away. Even if today's 60 is tomorrow's 70, we all die and most deaths are preceded by some kind of serious illness. As a critical mass of people reach whatever is the average life expectancy, they will cost the system more -- a lot more.
The notion that this problem can be addressed by encouraging Canadians to have more kids is unrealistic. Currently Canada has the 144 highest fertility rate and our birth rate is 190th in the world. http://www.photius.com/rankings/population/birth_rate_2010_0.html
What goes for Canada goes for the rest of the Western world. There is not one Western nation with a fertility rate above the replacement rate yet alone one with a fertility rate high enough to withstand the aforementioned increase in the number of seniors as percentage of the total population.
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=sp_dyn_tfrt_in&idim=country:CAN&q=fertility+rate+canada
To think that Canada has a chance to nearly double its current fertility rate of 1.6 -- and that is what it would take -- is pie in the sky nonsense. Moreover, far from making things better a massive baby boom would only increase an already mushrooming dependency rate for a good number of years. There is something perverse about wanting Canada to become a country of the very old and very young supported by taxes on a rapidly shrinking working population.
Canada has no option but to continue with a high rate of immigration.
Immigration is allowing us to make some headway. 2001 study found that based on 1996 census if Canada did not allow any immigrants, then the number of seniors as percentage of the population in 2050 would be 29. 8. If on the other hand Canada let in 225,000 annually, then that number would drop to 25.4. Finally, if Canada let in 450,000 annually that number would drop further still to 22.9. http://sociology.uwo.ca/popstudies/dp/dp03-03.pdf
That is the good news. The bad news is that Canada's immigration system badly needs to be reformed and for reform to mean anything Ottawa needs to reestablish that immigration is a federal issue. Indeed, what is the point of reworking the points system, for example, if Gordon Campbell and his ilk are working with big business to set up a rival system in which restaurant hostess is a skilled position?
Family reunification is a great place to start. There is no reason why an immigrant should be able to bring in anyone other than his spouse and dependents. After all, if the main point of a high rate of immigration is to lessen the effects of an aging population, what sense does it make to allow immigrants to sponsor their parents and grandparents?
Family reunification is part of a larger problem, viz., the ratio of skilled principle applicants as percentage of the over number of immigrants to Canada is way too small. Currently less than one in 5 immigrants is a skilled principle applicant. And however much I am loath to admit it, the Mark Steyn's of the world are right about one thing. Allowing someone to immigrant to Canada has a huge potential cost associated with it. This is especially so with regard to any other category of immigrant other the skilled principle applicants. After all, it is only skilled principle applicants that are earning anywhere close to what their Canadian peers are earning and skilled principle applicants are the only category of immigrants that are working in numbers that even approach the Canadian average.
http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/051013/d051013b.htm
If you tease out the numbers, 55% of non principal skilled applicants in the 25 to 44 age group are working after 2 years! Canada needs to do a better job of ensuring that immigrants are able to succeed and while some bleeding hearts will no doubt claim that a complete turn around is possible, an approach that is far more likely to bare fruit is eliminating or greatly limiting those categories of immigrants that are not likely to succeed economically. To say that Canada needs immigrants is only half right. We need young well educated immigrants who are proficient in English. Indeed, we need a lot more than what we are allowing in now. We do not, however, need their parents and grandparents. We also do not need refugees. Most of all what Canada does not need is cheap unskilled guest workers.
Given Jason Kenney's stated desire to avoid “the kind of ethnic enclaves or parallel communities that exist in some European countries” and Mark Steyn's rantings about second generation Islamic exterminism in Europe you would think that Kenney and Steyn would reel back before the subject of guest workers like vampires before garlic. Instead, Steyn's musings reduce to an infantile and bigoted ethnic essentialism and Kenney seems hell bent on allowing more guest works than Germany did in the 1960s and 1970s.
Indeed, whereas the typical guest worker was once an American transferred to a branch office in Canada, the fastest growing category of guest worker is now the unskilled type with poor language skills. Under the Conservatives, Canada has allowed in some two hundred thousand plus unskilled workers a year. In other words, the average Canadian tax payer now pays through the noise to have cheap labour sent in from other countries for the sole purpose of cutting his wages. Forget Conservative talk about such provincial programs bringing in much needed skilled workers, this was the kind of positions Alberta was hoping to fill through its guest worker programs this past summer: Front desk clerk, short order cook, baker, maid, assembly line worker, server, buser, bellhop, valet, and cafeteria worker, laundry attendant, pet groomer, general labourer, and hair dresser. All that is required of such would be immigrants is that they score 4 or 24 on the language assessment. In other words, they can be functionally illiterate and still get it in.
Pace Mark Steyn, Integrating immigrants is really quite simple. If you bring in young well educated immigrants that are fluent in English, they will integrate. It will not matter a lick what their background, religion or skin colour is. On the other hand, if you bring in non English speaking uneducated immigrants to clean toilets and serve donuts at Tim Hortons, you have recipe for what happened in Europe, viz, poor race relations, xenophobia and illegal immigration. It is really that clear cut and Kenney should know this. Every expert on immigration does.
It takes a great deal of chutzpah to Kenney to talk about wanting to avoid “the kind of ethnic enclaves or parallel communities that exist in some European countries” and then go about encouraging the very thing that led to the creation of these communities in Europe, viz., importing gobs of unskilled guest labour who are socially, economically and legally marginalized.
In addition to letting in more skilled immigrants and less of everyone else, Canada needs to refine what it means to be skilled applicant.
The point system is a mess. It is weighted, accidentally I am sure, in such a way as to favour older applicants over younger ones. A premium is placed on experience, being married is advantageous and age is not penalized much at all. For example, a 49 year old is given the same number of points for age as a 21 year old! Not only is all this is completely at odds with the stated aim of using immigration to mediate some of the stresses of having a low birth rate, a shrinking supply of labour and a graying population, the very kind of skilled worker most likely to fail, viz., older workers is the one most likely to qualify.
Indeed, while everyone agrees that Canada needs to be a better job of recognizing foreign credentials and that most experts say Canada should start giving immigrants points for getting their credentials recognzied ahead of time like Australia does, what has gotten less attention is just how hard it is establish oneself in a particular field without any contacts in that field and work contacts are what many new immigrants lack. As various studies have shown, for immigrants outside of the Western world, work experience counts for virtually nothing as at all. For this reason alone, Canada needs to redo its point system such that it looks to attract younger skilled workers who are not at such a disadvantage contact wise as their peers.
Above all else though Canada need put more of an emphasis on language proficiency. After all, although Jason Kenney may let in hundreds of thousands of unskilled guest workers with little or no English, he is right to say that language proficiency is best predictor of economic success.
It should be noted that by language proficiency I mean ones ability to converse in either French or English. Currently, moderate proficiency across the board in both English and French is amounts to the same thing high proficiency in one! This is akin to thinking an average switch hitter is the equal to all star who bats only right handed.
All that being said, in order to get at appreciation for some of the short comings of the current points system consider this. Under the current formula, a single 26 year old who has just completed a PHD in Canada, and who speaks perfect English, but who lacks relevant work experience and is not proficient in French would likely not qualify. Indeed, assuming no family ties and no relevant work experience, they would score 56 out of 100. In other words, if they were not able to quickly secure a job in one of the relevant fields, they would be heading back to their country of origin in short order. Even, if that same applicant spoke perfect French and English they would still not qualify. They would score 64 out of 100.
By contrast a 49 year old who has never set foot in the country and speaks no French but has a BA, 3 years experience, moderate English skills a spouse with a 1 year diploma, and a cousin in distant Canadian city would score 67! This is absurd.
The problem is this.
In 2005, per capita health care spending was found to be highest at the beginning and at the end of life but, in general, to increase exponentially with age. While 65- to 74-year- olds consumed $6000 per capita, 75- to 84-year-olds consumed $11 000 per capita, and 85-year-olds (and those older) consumed $21 000 per capita, on average. In comparison, per capita health care spending among those age 1 to 65 was approximately $1700.[While 65- to 74-year- olds consumed $6000 per capita, 75- to 84-year-olds consumed $11 000 per capita, and 85-year-olds (and those older) consumed $21 000 per capita, on average. In comparison, per capita health care spending among those age 1 to 65 was approximately $1700.
http://www.bcmj.org/canada-s-coming-age-how-demographic-imperatives-will-force-redesign-acute-care-service-delivery
This problem is not going to go away. Even if today's 60 is tomorrow's 70, we all die and most deaths are preceded by some kind of serious illness. As a critical mass of people reach whatever is the average life expectancy, they will cost the system more -- a lot more.
The notion that this problem can be addressed by encouraging Canadians to have more kids is unrealistic. Currently Canada has the 144 highest fertility rate and our birth rate is 190th in the world. http://www.photius.com/rankings/population/birth_rate_2010_0.html
What goes for Canada goes for the rest of the Western world. There is not one Western nation with a fertility rate above the replacement rate yet alone one with a fertility rate high enough to withstand the aforementioned increase in the number of seniors as percentage of the total population.
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=sp_dyn_tfrt_in&idim=country:CAN&q=fertility+rate+canada
To think that Canada has a chance to nearly double its current fertility rate of 1.6 -- and that is what it would take -- is pie in the sky nonsense. Moreover, far from making things better a massive baby boom would only increase an already mushrooming dependency rate for a good number of years. There is something perverse about wanting Canada to become a country of the very old and very young supported by taxes on a rapidly shrinking working population.
Canada has no option but to continue with a high rate of immigration.
Immigration is allowing us to make some headway. 2001 study found that based on 1996 census if Canada did not allow any immigrants, then the number of seniors as percentage of the population in 2050 would be 29. 8. If on the other hand Canada let in 225,000 annually, then that number would drop to 25.4. Finally, if Canada let in 450,000 annually that number would drop further still to 22.9. http://sociology.uwo.ca/popstudies/dp/dp03-03.pdf
That is the good news. The bad news is that Canada's immigration system badly needs to be reformed and for reform to mean anything Ottawa needs to reestablish that immigration is a federal issue. Indeed, what is the point of reworking the points system, for example, if Gordon Campbell and his ilk are working with big business to set up a rival system in which restaurant hostess is a skilled position?
Family reunification is a great place to start. There is no reason why an immigrant should be able to bring in anyone other than his spouse and dependents. After all, if the main point of a high rate of immigration is to lessen the effects of an aging population, what sense does it make to allow immigrants to sponsor their parents and grandparents?
Family reunification is part of a larger problem, viz., the ratio of skilled principle applicants as percentage of the over number of immigrants to Canada is way too small. Currently less than one in 5 immigrants is a skilled principle applicant. And however much I am loath to admit it, the Mark Steyn's of the world are right about one thing. Allowing someone to immigrant to Canada has a huge potential cost associated with it. This is especially so with regard to any other category of immigrant other the skilled principle applicants. After all, it is only skilled principle applicants that are earning anywhere close to what their Canadian peers are earning and skilled principle applicants are the only category of immigrants that are working in numbers that even approach the Canadian average.
"At 26 weeks after their arrival, 50% of all immigrants aged 25 to 44 were employed. This was 30 percentage points below the employment rate of about 80% among all individuals aged 25 to 44 in the Canadian population. ... At 52 weeks after arrival, the employment rate among prime working-age immigrants was 58%. This narrowed the gap to 23 percentage points. At 104 weeks, or two years after arrival, the employment rate among prime working-age immigrants was 63%, 18 percentage points below the national rate of 81%. ... Immigrants admitted as principal applicants in the skilled worker category had an even better record for employment. At 26 weeks after arrival, the gap in the employment rate between them and the Canadian population was 20 percentage points. By 52 weeks, this had narrowed to 12 points, and by two years, it was down to 8 points."
http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/051013/d051013b.htm
If you tease out the numbers, 55% of non principal skilled applicants in the 25 to 44 age group are working after 2 years! Canada needs to do a better job of ensuring that immigrants are able to succeed and while some bleeding hearts will no doubt claim that a complete turn around is possible, an approach that is far more likely to bare fruit is eliminating or greatly limiting those categories of immigrants that are not likely to succeed economically. To say that Canada needs immigrants is only half right. We need young well educated immigrants who are proficient in English. Indeed, we need a lot more than what we are allowing in now. We do not, however, need their parents and grandparents. We also do not need refugees. Most of all what Canada does not need is cheap unskilled guest workers.
Given Jason Kenney's stated desire to avoid “the kind of ethnic enclaves or parallel communities that exist in some European countries” and Mark Steyn's rantings about second generation Islamic exterminism in Europe you would think that Kenney and Steyn would reel back before the subject of guest workers like vampires before garlic. Instead, Steyn's musings reduce to an infantile and bigoted ethnic essentialism and Kenney seems hell bent on allowing more guest works than Germany did in the 1960s and 1970s.
Indeed, whereas the typical guest worker was once an American transferred to a branch office in Canada, the fastest growing category of guest worker is now the unskilled type with poor language skills. Under the Conservatives, Canada has allowed in some two hundred thousand plus unskilled workers a year. In other words, the average Canadian tax payer now pays through the noise to have cheap labour sent in from other countries for the sole purpose of cutting his wages. Forget Conservative talk about such provincial programs bringing in much needed skilled workers, this was the kind of positions Alberta was hoping to fill through its guest worker programs this past summer: Front desk clerk, short order cook, baker, maid, assembly line worker, server, buser, bellhop, valet, and cafeteria worker, laundry attendant, pet groomer, general labourer, and hair dresser. All that is required of such would be immigrants is that they score 4 or 24 on the language assessment. In other words, they can be functionally illiterate and still get it in.
Pace Mark Steyn, Integrating immigrants is really quite simple. If you bring in young well educated immigrants that are fluent in English, they will integrate. It will not matter a lick what their background, religion or skin colour is. On the other hand, if you bring in non English speaking uneducated immigrants to clean toilets and serve donuts at Tim Hortons, you have recipe for what happened in Europe, viz, poor race relations, xenophobia and illegal immigration. It is really that clear cut and Kenney should know this. Every expert on immigration does.
It takes a great deal of chutzpah to Kenney to talk about wanting to avoid “the kind of ethnic enclaves or parallel communities that exist in some European countries” and then go about encouraging the very thing that led to the creation of these communities in Europe, viz., importing gobs of unskilled guest labour who are socially, economically and legally marginalized.
In addition to letting in more skilled immigrants and less of everyone else, Canada needs to refine what it means to be skilled applicant.
The point system is a mess. It is weighted, accidentally I am sure, in such a way as to favour older applicants over younger ones. A premium is placed on experience, being married is advantageous and age is not penalized much at all. For example, a 49 year old is given the same number of points for age as a 21 year old! Not only is all this is completely at odds with the stated aim of using immigration to mediate some of the stresses of having a low birth rate, a shrinking supply of labour and a graying population, the very kind of skilled worker most likely to fail, viz., older workers is the one most likely to qualify.
Indeed, while everyone agrees that Canada needs to be a better job of recognizing foreign credentials and that most experts say Canada should start giving immigrants points for getting their credentials recognzied ahead of time like Australia does, what has gotten less attention is just how hard it is establish oneself in a particular field without any contacts in that field and work contacts are what many new immigrants lack. As various studies have shown, for immigrants outside of the Western world, work experience counts for virtually nothing as at all. For this reason alone, Canada needs to redo its point system such that it looks to attract younger skilled workers who are not at such a disadvantage contact wise as their peers.
Above all else though Canada need put more of an emphasis on language proficiency. After all, although Jason Kenney may let in hundreds of thousands of unskilled guest workers with little or no English, he is right to say that language proficiency is best predictor of economic success.
It should be noted that by language proficiency I mean ones ability to converse in either French or English. Currently, moderate proficiency across the board in both English and French is amounts to the same thing high proficiency in one! This is akin to thinking an average switch hitter is the equal to all star who bats only right handed.
All that being said, in order to get at appreciation for some of the short comings of the current points system consider this. Under the current formula, a single 26 year old who has just completed a PHD in Canada, and who speaks perfect English, but who lacks relevant work experience and is not proficient in French would likely not qualify. Indeed, assuming no family ties and no relevant work experience, they would score 56 out of 100. In other words, if they were not able to quickly secure a job in one of the relevant fields, they would be heading back to their country of origin in short order. Even, if that same applicant spoke perfect French and English they would still not qualify. They would score 64 out of 100.
By contrast a 49 year old who has never set foot in the country and speaks no French but has a BA, 3 years experience, moderate English skills a spouse with a 1 year diploma, and a cousin in distant Canadian city would score 67! This is absurd.
Friday, April 15, 2011
The Gun Registry: Some Questions and Some Answers
A Conservative poster: "The major question I do have is, if the registry is primarily used to take guns away from people who do not have them, why can't the licensing system be used for these purposes?"Koby: "By having "law-abiding duck hunters and farmers" register their firearms, authorities can ensure that guns, owned by "duck hunters and farmers" who are no longer fit to own a gun, are properly disposed of. A gun license only indicates that person has the right to own a firearm. It does not tell the cops whether someone actually owns a gun or how many guns they might have. Furthermore, as it allows guns to be traced back to their last legal owner, the registry makes illegal sales and straw purchases more difficult and so helps keep "law-abiding duck hunters and farmers" honest. "Studies have shown that in the US, states with both licensing and registration (versus one or the other) had fewer guns diverted from legal to illegal markets."
A Conservative Poster: "So, what you're saying is;
1) The police are incompetent because they won't be able to find guns when they are called to seize them. "
Koby Look the issue is this. The number of legal gun owners in Canada, is huge (1.85 million) and with any large population certain very accurate predictions can be made about their future behavior. One thing we can know for sure is that a small percentage of "law-abiding duck hunters and farmers" will be convicted of a crime sometime in the future and that a small percentage will develop a mental disorder that will render them unsuitable for gun ownership at least for period of time. Now, even though this number is small in percentage terms, in absolute terms the numbers are quite large, in the 10s of thousands. Enter the gun registry. It makes it easier for authorities to seize the guns of people who should no longer have them. Why? Because the onus is on the gun owner in question to produce any registered weapons. If the police do not have proof that someone owns any unrestricted guns, how can they demand that he produce them?"
A Conservative poster: "the registry will never get all the guns in Canada"
Koby: I agree -- especially in light of what have already happened. Two points though. One, the argument I laid out still holds. After all we are talking about guns that have been legally registered. Two, the problem is with guns that were purchased prior to the registry and not with new guns being purchased. So, as time passes the percentage of unregistered guns will decrease.
read the whole exchange here. http://themaplethree.blogspot.com/2011/04/conservative-mp-john-weston-and-gun.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
