Hidden within the pages of a 136 page budget bill that the Federal Conservatives are looking to pass through parliament are some amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act that will give the Immigration Minister more power to decide who gets to stay. These changes, which have been put forward by the government as an attempt to ease the backlog of prospective immigrants to this country, have drawn concern from opposition MPs.
The brunt of the changes put forward in the proposed legislation will "Give the immigration minister the authority to instruct immigration officers to set limits on what types of immigrants — "by category or otherwise" — can have their applications processed each year," and "Require an otherwise ineligible person who wants to immigrate on humanitarian grounds to already be in Canada for their application to be processed," according to cbcnews.ca.
Under existing legislation, the government must go through the immigration applications in the order they are recieved. While this is a "fair" policy, it neglects the most important question that needs to be asked regarding immigration policy - namely "Why do we bring in immigrants - their benefit, or ours?". The proposed changes would allow the Minister to give preferential treatment to certain "categories" of immigrants at their discretion - namely allowing for qualified/skilled workers to "jump the line" so to speak, and make an expedited trip into the country, where their skills could be put to good use.
Personally, I can see a degree of merit to this argument - the fact is that the government of Canada has as it's primary responsibility to enact policy that is in the best interests of the country - and giving preferential treatment to a skilled workforce that is interested in taking their skills, their training, and their families to Canada would seem to be more in our countries interests.
So aside from giving them a preferential place on the waitlist to get here, how else can we encourage skilled, educated immigrants to make their way to this country? This question calls to mind the story of one young family who came over from west Africa. The father was a doctor, trained at Kenya's national university, and an experienced surgeon. The family now lives somewhere in New Jersey and he is practicing as a lab technician because we wouldn't recognize his credentials as being worth anything. This story isn't uncommon, and it also doesn't make sense. To be fair, we do need to be careful whether or not we recognize someone's credentials - just because they're recognized in one country, doesn't mean that they should be recognized in ours. That being said, we also need to be, I think, a little bit more pragmatic. We make our own med students undergo residency, we make our own engineers go through the EIT program, and we make our tradesmen go through an apprenticeship before we allow them to ply their trade on their own, and perhaps it would be reasonable to have our skilled/trained immigrant workforce undergo a similar system. This would allow them to do what they're trained to do - which would give them far more cause to stay and would also give those skills and that training to our own workforce. Furthermore, it would enable us to ensure that their training is up to standards that are expected here. Overall, this seems like a reasonable solution for the good of our country, and for the good of the skilled and educated people who want to come and help us make it better.
More: Picking winners and losers in the immigration race ([here] New Brunswick)
Liberals urged to fight immigration proposals (Globe and Mail)
Monday, March 24, 2008
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Copy Protection for Canada...
One of my friends sent me an email today with a link to a few articles pertaining to Industry Minister Jim Prentice's new proposed copyright legislation. This legislation, it is feared, will mirror the American's infamous DMCA in how it seeks to address issues such as online file-sharing, circumvention of digital copy-protection, and circumvention devices, amongst others.
I have to admit, as a consumer, and as a Conservative, the implications of such a legislation concern me greatly. First let me state that I believe that it is only fair that the creators of media (movies, music, TV shows, etc) be paid for their work. I'm not even opposed to giving the recording industry their cut - everyone has to make a living. The question remains, however, "at what cost"?
The first and most significant is the question of the right to privacy. Under the protection of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, every person physically in Canada is guaranteed the "right to life, liberty, and security of the person". While I do not have constitutional jurisprudence, I have always firmly believed that the concept of individual privacy to be inherent to individual security of person. In order for legislation against such activities to be enforced, the ability to gather personal information about who uses copyrighted media and how it is used is necessary. Specifically, that information must be gathered before any suspicion of illegal activity even exists. To me, this concern alone is sufficient cause to quash any attempts to copy the DMCA here in Canada.
The other interesting aspect of this issue is that the recording industry (per say) is actually divided on the issue - with many artists firmly OPPOSED to any kind of legislation such as this. The reasons are several - first of all are concerns as to how such a law will affect the relationship between the band and their fans. For an example of one of the more extreme cases, one need only refer to the 2000 lawsuit against Napster launched by Metallica - and the resulting backlash from fans. The other concern is one of publicity. Strange though it may seem, there are some bands that I've never heard of. There are bands that my friends and I combined, have never heard of. There are even - heaven forbid - bands that my friends and I combined have never even met anyone who over the course of their entire lifetimes will have heard of. Some of those bands will most assuredly, be atrocious. Some of those bands will, almost equally assuredly, be fantastic. The plethora of music, readily available for download somewhere online gives those previously mentioned bands (good and bad) a wider audience for their work to be heard. To give you a good case in point, I would likely never have even heard of any of my current three favorite bands without the benefit of being able to download their music - and for the record, I also now own a MINIMUM of 5 of the bands CDs each.
For these reasons, amongst others, I am strongly opposed to copying the American's DMCA in this country, and instead favour a different solution. A Canadian solution - one that actually protects the rights of the residents of our nation. A conservative solution - one that espouses the values of a free and open marketplace, lacking in governmental intervention. So what solution do I believe in? I believe that the indiviidual right to privacy supercides the rights of copyright holders to engage in invasive measures to protect their intellectual property. I believe that the study undertaken by two students of the Department of Management at the University of London that suggest a positive relationship between P2P file sharing and CD purchasing might actually be true. I also believe that internet downloading of media is the future of the industry, and should be encouraged by the industry as well as the artists. Or perhaps the recording industry is concerned about being cut out of the market by the artists, and the fans who support them. I believe that maybe, just maybe, the federal government should sit this one out.
Note: for a copy of the previously mentioned study, click
here
For further reading on the subject, any or all of the following links will suffice
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/01/11/copyright-canada.html
http://www.cbc.ca/arts/music/story/2007/11/19/copyright-law.html
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/2419/125/
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080311-canadian-mp-dont-use-wipo-as-excuse-for-canadian-dmca.html
I have to admit, as a consumer, and as a Conservative, the implications of such a legislation concern me greatly. First let me state that I believe that it is only fair that the creators of media (movies, music, TV shows, etc) be paid for their work. I'm not even opposed to giving the recording industry their cut - everyone has to make a living. The question remains, however, "at what cost"?
The first and most significant is the question of the right to privacy. Under the protection of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, every person physically in Canada is guaranteed the "right to life, liberty, and security of the person". While I do not have constitutional jurisprudence, I have always firmly believed that the concept of individual privacy to be inherent to individual security of person. In order for legislation against such activities to be enforced, the ability to gather personal information about who uses copyrighted media and how it is used is necessary. Specifically, that information must be gathered before any suspicion of illegal activity even exists. To me, this concern alone is sufficient cause to quash any attempts to copy the DMCA here in Canada.
The other interesting aspect of this issue is that the recording industry (per say) is actually divided on the issue - with many artists firmly OPPOSED to any kind of legislation such as this. The reasons are several - first of all are concerns as to how such a law will affect the relationship between the band and their fans. For an example of one of the more extreme cases, one need only refer to the 2000 lawsuit against Napster launched by Metallica - and the resulting backlash from fans. The other concern is one of publicity. Strange though it may seem, there are some bands that I've never heard of. There are bands that my friends and I combined, have never heard of. There are even - heaven forbid - bands that my friends and I combined have never even met anyone who over the course of their entire lifetimes will have heard of. Some of those bands will most assuredly, be atrocious. Some of those bands will, almost equally assuredly, be fantastic. The plethora of music, readily available for download somewhere online gives those previously mentioned bands (good and bad) a wider audience for their work to be heard. To give you a good case in point, I would likely never have even heard of any of my current three favorite bands without the benefit of being able to download their music - and for the record, I also now own a MINIMUM of 5 of the bands CDs each.
For these reasons, amongst others, I am strongly opposed to copying the American's DMCA in this country, and instead favour a different solution. A Canadian solution - one that actually protects the rights of the residents of our nation. A conservative solution - one that espouses the values of a free and open marketplace, lacking in governmental intervention. So what solution do I believe in? I believe that the indiviidual right to privacy supercides the rights of copyright holders to engage in invasive measures to protect their intellectual property. I believe that the study undertaken by two students of the Department of Management at the University of London that suggest a positive relationship between P2P file sharing and CD purchasing might actually be true. I also believe that internet downloading of media is the future of the industry, and should be encouraged by the industry as well as the artists. Or perhaps the recording industry is concerned about being cut out of the market by the artists, and the fans who support them. I believe that maybe, just maybe, the federal government should sit this one out.
Note: for a copy of the previously mentioned study, click
here
For further reading on the subject, any or all of the following links will suffice
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/01/11/copyright-canada.html
http://www.cbc.ca/arts/music/story/2007/11/19/copyright-law.html
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/2419/125/
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080311-canadian-mp-dont-use-wipo-as-excuse-for-canadian-dmca.html
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Gas prices and the environment
For those of you who were wondering, I was doing some brainstorming on the subject and hit "Publish Post" by mistake. Oh well, there goes the element of surprise.
People here and, frankly, everywhere else have been complaining about high gas prices for years. To be honest, it's a valid complaint. More recently, of course, have been the concerns surrounding the so-called "greenhouse gasses", and the various effects of them on the environment. I think that there may be some ideas that would improve both situations simultaneously. Some of these ideas are very short term - essentially "quick-fixes". Some of these ideas may take more time. Either way, I'd welcome any input.
First, let's look at the economics of the subject. Gas prices at the pumps are determined by four factors: the market cost of crude oil; refining costs; taxes; and profit margins for the various people who are involved in getting the oil from the ground, and into your gas tank. Some aspects of this cost can't be directly affected through government action. Some aspects can - namely the taxes, and the market cost. The market costs can be achieved through influencing the supply/demand curve - namely reduce the demand, at the same time as increasing the available supply.
Step one: increase the overall available supply. Canada is in an interesting strategic situation, as having the second largest oil reserves in the world after Saudi Arabia. Unfortunately, the majority of those reserves are in the Alberta oil sands - with a cost of production of up to $40/barrel. In comparison to the production costs of $10/barrel or less in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and other conventional drilling locations, this is pretty high. That said, with the market cost currently sitting around $100/barrel (pre-refining cost), there's enough of a difference to increase production somewhat and maintain a hugely profitable operation. Furthermore, the increased production should lead to an increase in jobs in the market. The other factor in the market cost of oil are political factors - essentially, issues taking place overseas - most notably in Venezuela and the Arabian peninsula - are impacting the cost that we're being charged for that oil. Ramping up production in our own reserves, and simultaneously increasing refining capabilities here would enable us to not be reliant on imported oil - thus making us invulnerable to the political factors that have caused the issues in the oil market, and, long term, would enable us to compete directly with OPEC in that market - and, potentially, profit immensely in so doing.
Step two: reduce domestic oil consumption, which serves the dual purpose of keeping prices lower, and reducing our greenhouse gas emissions which, regardless of your position on global warming specifically, definitely improves the quality of our air. To reduce our total oil consumption, there are two factors to consider: energy production, and transportation. Energy production is a bit of a tricky question - ultimately, the Federal government has limited control over the energy policies of the provinces (constitutionally), so there is no sure policy that can be set. That said, encouraging the provincial governments to (long term) convert their existing coal-and-oil burning electric plants to nuclear and/or hydro-electric (where the capacity exists) could be decidedly helpful. Obviously, this change-over will cost tax dollars, however will also create large numbers of reasonably well-paying jobs - leading to an increase in overall tax revenue both in the form of income taxes, and the sales taxes on the increase in retail spending.
The question of transportation has a few other factors. Ultimately, people need to get from point A to point B, and they generally need to be able to do so with a certain degree of speed and comfort. Generally, people prefer to use cars. Buses are uncomfortable, and trains are generally expensive. It's common knowledge that different cars, different engines, and different grades of gasoline offer different levels of fuel efficiency. Increasing the total fuel efficiency of vehicles, overall, will reduce the total gas consumed, and also reduce the exhaust levels (per litre), thus reducing emissions as well. Furthermore, roughly 1/3 of the cost of gas at the pumps is in the form of taxes. People have always had the option to choose to buy higher grade or lower grade gasoline, and most people use the lower grade because it's cheaper in per litre cost. Perhaps we should change the tax structure on gasoline to give people a reason to buy the higher grade (and therefore more efficient and cleaner burning) gasoline.
Anyhow, those are some ideas I've been thinking about. I honestly don't know if they'll work or not - this specifically isn't one of my areas of specialty. So if anyone has any comments (positive or negative), some ideas on how to make my ideas better, or some ideas of your own that I may not have here, please let me know - I'm always happy to listen.
People here and, frankly, everywhere else have been complaining about high gas prices for years. To be honest, it's a valid complaint. More recently, of course, have been the concerns surrounding the so-called "greenhouse gasses", and the various effects of them on the environment. I think that there may be some ideas that would improve both situations simultaneously. Some of these ideas are very short term - essentially "quick-fixes". Some of these ideas may take more time. Either way, I'd welcome any input.
First, let's look at the economics of the subject. Gas prices at the pumps are determined by four factors: the market cost of crude oil; refining costs; taxes; and profit margins for the various people who are involved in getting the oil from the ground, and into your gas tank. Some aspects of this cost can't be directly affected through government action. Some aspects can - namely the taxes, and the market cost. The market costs can be achieved through influencing the supply/demand curve - namely reduce the demand, at the same time as increasing the available supply.
Step one: increase the overall available supply. Canada is in an interesting strategic situation, as having the second largest oil reserves in the world after Saudi Arabia. Unfortunately, the majority of those reserves are in the Alberta oil sands - with a cost of production of up to $40/barrel. In comparison to the production costs of $10/barrel or less in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and other conventional drilling locations, this is pretty high. That said, with the market cost currently sitting around $100/barrel (pre-refining cost), there's enough of a difference to increase production somewhat and maintain a hugely profitable operation. Furthermore, the increased production should lead to an increase in jobs in the market. The other factor in the market cost of oil are political factors - essentially, issues taking place overseas - most notably in Venezuela and the Arabian peninsula - are impacting the cost that we're being charged for that oil. Ramping up production in our own reserves, and simultaneously increasing refining capabilities here would enable us to not be reliant on imported oil - thus making us invulnerable to the political factors that have caused the issues in the oil market, and, long term, would enable us to compete directly with OPEC in that market - and, potentially, profit immensely in so doing.
Step two: reduce domestic oil consumption, which serves the dual purpose of keeping prices lower, and reducing our greenhouse gas emissions which, regardless of your position on global warming specifically, definitely improves the quality of our air. To reduce our total oil consumption, there are two factors to consider: energy production, and transportation. Energy production is a bit of a tricky question - ultimately, the Federal government has limited control over the energy policies of the provinces (constitutionally), so there is no sure policy that can be set. That said, encouraging the provincial governments to (long term) convert their existing coal-and-oil burning electric plants to nuclear and/or hydro-electric (where the capacity exists) could be decidedly helpful. Obviously, this change-over will cost tax dollars, however will also create large numbers of reasonably well-paying jobs - leading to an increase in overall tax revenue both in the form of income taxes, and the sales taxes on the increase in retail spending.
The question of transportation has a few other factors. Ultimately, people need to get from point A to point B, and they generally need to be able to do so with a certain degree of speed and comfort. Generally, people prefer to use cars. Buses are uncomfortable, and trains are generally expensive. It's common knowledge that different cars, different engines, and different grades of gasoline offer different levels of fuel efficiency. Increasing the total fuel efficiency of vehicles, overall, will reduce the total gas consumed, and also reduce the exhaust levels (per litre), thus reducing emissions as well. Furthermore, roughly 1/3 of the cost of gas at the pumps is in the form of taxes. People have always had the option to choose to buy higher grade or lower grade gasoline, and most people use the lower grade because it's cheaper in per litre cost. Perhaps we should change the tax structure on gasoline to give people a reason to buy the higher grade (and therefore more efficient and cleaner burning) gasoline.
Anyhow, those are some ideas I've been thinking about. I honestly don't know if they'll work or not - this specifically isn't one of my areas of specialty. So if anyone has any comments (positive or negative), some ideas on how to make my ideas better, or some ideas of your own that I may not have here, please let me know - I'm always happy to listen.
Monday, March 3, 2008
A change of plans
So I was going to go into discussing some ideas I have for how to improve the energy situation in this country, but was shown an article in CBC that I have to comment on. I'll post the link at the end of the article for your consumption (or not) at your leisure.
Short version to the long story is that, as a result of comments made in two articles on the Liberal Party of Canada's website concerning the emerging Chuck Cadman scandal, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has filed a libel suit against the Liberal Party and leader Stephane Dion. The comments can essentially be summed up in that Prime Minister Harper knew of and was an accomplice to an attempt to bribe a sitting Member of Parliament. A copy of the notice filed, which contains the comments in specific, can be found here:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/pdf/harper-libelnotice.pdf
Really, this whole suit is based on two different issues. First of all, is whether or not the Conservative party tried to bribe Chuck Cadman with a million dollar life insurance party if he voted against the Liberals in the May 2005 confidence vote. The other question is whether or not Harper knew about the bribe attempt, assuming that it actually happened.
According to Vancouver journalist Tom Zytaruk in his (as yet un-released) book "Like a Rock: The Chuck Cadman Story", Cadman was visited by two Conservative Party representatives shortly before the vote and presented with an offer of a bribe, including the life insurance policy to vote with their party. Harper is quoted as saying that the offer was "only to replace financial considerations he might lose in an election," and adds that the offer was carried out by people "legitimately representing the party". Furthermore, the allegations of the bribe offer are corroborrated by Cadman's wife Dona, and his daughter, Jodi.
Harper has stated that there is "absolutely no truth" to the allegations of bribery, and has also pointed out that Cadman himself said that no offer was made. Furthermore, Dona told press that she didn't belive that Harper knew about the offer, nor did she believe it to be a "party" offer, but rather "the overzealous indiscretion of a couple of individuals."
So let's look at this analytically. First of all, we know that Harper sued the Liberal Party for the comments made on their website for comments that he says are untrue. Conversely, he didn't sue Zytaruk for misquoting him in his book, indicating that we can believe that Harper wasn't misquoted. That being said, we also know Harper's record on talking to the press. It seems unlikely that he would have answered a question in such a way that he would be implicating himself for a federal crime, if he knew that was the question he was being asked. This isn't based on knowing what the question actually WAS, but based on knowledge of Harper's record for talking to the press.
Of further note is the response of Mrs. Cadman to the whole affair - she clearly believes that the bribe was offered, but believes that it was a couple of "overzealous' party operatives - not the work of the Prime Minister or the party.
Of final note is the information given by Mr. Cadman before he died, that no offer was made to influence his vote. The fact is that Mr. Cadman was dying - if the offer was made, then he clearly refused it, showing himself to be a man of integrity. Why then would he lie on national television under the same circumstances? He was a dying man with nothing to gain by lying, and further, an honest man is an honest man. A man honest enough to turn down a million-dollar bribe doesn't seem likely to lie about the offer on national television.
So what really happened? More specifically, to what was Harper referring as an attempt to "replace financial considerations he might lose in an election"? This is a question that I do not know the answer to and will not attempt to predict. That being said, the Prime Minister made a national platform of accountability and integrity. He has a responsibility to the people who elected him to be accountable and to show integrity in this issue and to order an investigation into the allegations. That being said, we the people have a responsibility too - a responsibility to respect the principle that says that a man is innocent until he's proven guilty - lest we inadvertantly bring an innocent man to the political gallows and destroy the career of someone who has, without doubt, done much to benefit this nation.
*note* further information, as well as sources for quotes are as follows, and you can read them at your leisure:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/03/03/harper-libel.html
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/03/03/cadman-statement.html
Short version to the long story is that, as a result of comments made in two articles on the Liberal Party of Canada's website concerning the emerging Chuck Cadman scandal, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has filed a libel suit against the Liberal Party and leader Stephane Dion. The comments can essentially be summed up in that Prime Minister Harper knew of and was an accomplice to an attempt to bribe a sitting Member of Parliament. A copy of the notice filed, which contains the comments in specific, can be found here:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/pdf/harper-libelnotice.pdf
Really, this whole suit is based on two different issues. First of all, is whether or not the Conservative party tried to bribe Chuck Cadman with a million dollar life insurance party if he voted against the Liberals in the May 2005 confidence vote. The other question is whether or not Harper knew about the bribe attempt, assuming that it actually happened.
According to Vancouver journalist Tom Zytaruk in his (as yet un-released) book "Like a Rock: The Chuck Cadman Story", Cadman was visited by two Conservative Party representatives shortly before the vote and presented with an offer of a bribe, including the life insurance policy to vote with their party. Harper is quoted as saying that the offer was "only to replace financial considerations he might lose in an election," and adds that the offer was carried out by people "legitimately representing the party". Furthermore, the allegations of the bribe offer are corroborrated by Cadman's wife Dona, and his daughter, Jodi.
Harper has stated that there is "absolutely no truth" to the allegations of bribery, and has also pointed out that Cadman himself said that no offer was made. Furthermore, Dona told press that she didn't belive that Harper knew about the offer, nor did she believe it to be a "party" offer, but rather "the overzealous indiscretion of a couple of individuals."
So let's look at this analytically. First of all, we know that Harper sued the Liberal Party for the comments made on their website for comments that he says are untrue. Conversely, he didn't sue Zytaruk for misquoting him in his book, indicating that we can believe that Harper wasn't misquoted. That being said, we also know Harper's record on talking to the press. It seems unlikely that he would have answered a question in such a way that he would be implicating himself for a federal crime, if he knew that was the question he was being asked. This isn't based on knowing what the question actually WAS, but based on knowledge of Harper's record for talking to the press.
Of further note is the response of Mrs. Cadman to the whole affair - she clearly believes that the bribe was offered, but believes that it was a couple of "overzealous' party operatives - not the work of the Prime Minister or the party.
Of final note is the information given by Mr. Cadman before he died, that no offer was made to influence his vote. The fact is that Mr. Cadman was dying - if the offer was made, then he clearly refused it, showing himself to be a man of integrity. Why then would he lie on national television under the same circumstances? He was a dying man with nothing to gain by lying, and further, an honest man is an honest man. A man honest enough to turn down a million-dollar bribe doesn't seem likely to lie about the offer on national television.
So what really happened? More specifically, to what was Harper referring as an attempt to "replace financial considerations he might lose in an election"? This is a question that I do not know the answer to and will not attempt to predict. That being said, the Prime Minister made a national platform of accountability and integrity. He has a responsibility to the people who elected him to be accountable and to show integrity in this issue and to order an investigation into the allegations. That being said, we the people have a responsibility too - a responsibility to respect the principle that says that a man is innocent until he's proven guilty - lest we inadvertantly bring an innocent man to the political gallows and destroy the career of someone who has, without doubt, done much to benefit this nation.
*note* further information, as well as sources for quotes are as follows, and you can read them at your leisure:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/03/03/harper-libel.html
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/03/03/cadman-statement.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
