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)
Showing posts with label public policy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label public policy. Show all posts
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
Friday, February 29, 2008
What I stand for...
I was listening to Great Big Seas's song "When I am King", and I got to thinking. Most of my friends know that I have ambitions to lead this country eventually, however maybe it's time to actually put out what I stand for, and let you know what I would do, to coin the Great Big Sea song, when I am king. Feel free to comment, ask questions, or what have you - I'll be happy to answer because in the end, each and every one of you (to my friends) has a place on my team, and to my unknown readership - I'll be answerable to you, so I need to know what you think. I'll be releasing my ideas over the next couple weeks, so please keep checking back in - I value your input.
It's been my long-standing belief that the taxes that we pay are, essentially, an investment in the country by the people, in trust of the government. In the same way that a mutual funds broker, or an investment company is entrusted the funds of it's investors with the aim of maximising the return on that investment, so too, the federal government has a responsibility to the taxpayers to maximise the return on the "investment" of taxes. This is a primary pillar that will be seen throughout any financial policies that a government under my leadership will put forward.
To begin, I'd like to invest in our post-secondary education system - increasing access to higher education for everyone in the country, and rewarding those who are successful who choose to put the skills learned to good use here. On the flip side, it's a poor investment to simply give a free ride to everyone, regardless of whether they manage to succeed or not. Furthermore, expanding an already onerous beaurocracy to manage this "investment" is expensive, as well as being inefficient. So what's the solution?
I'd like to change the extant student loan system to something that rewards success, and repays those who continue to invest in the country for their efforts. I'd like to do it in a fashion that costs the system - you the taxpayers - as little as possible, and ensures a positive benefit. To do this, I'd like to set in place a plan to essentially pay for the first degree/diploma (up to a 5 year maximum timeframe) of all students who successfully graduate any accredited Canadian college or university. How am I going to do this without expanding the beaurocracy, and without allowing those who are not successful to get a free ride through? I'm going to use the existing government student loan system. The government will issue the students enough money for tuition, books, and residence/rent based on whether the student is going part time or full time, based on the location of the institution, and based whether they will be attending for an 8 month year or a 12 month year. Interest will accrue on the loan as usual. Upon graduation (proven), successful students who find full time employment in Canada will have 20% of their loan forgiven every year for 5 years. This time-elapse process will help to ensure that the student remains in the country, and should help solve some of the brain-drain problem as well. Those who are unsuccessful, or who attain employment outside of the country will be made to repay their student loans in full via the usual means. Additional degrees will not be covered. Students who successfully complete a degree/diploma program over a period of more than 5 years will have forgiven the total debt accrued over the first five years of the degree.
How does this policy benefit the taxpayer? The increase in qualified personnel in the country will increase both recreational (and taxable) spending, as well as bring a net increase over the periods of their working lives to their salary (also taxed). To give you an example from personal experience. The degree that I was working towards when I left school was an Engineering degree. At my tuition rates, over the course of a five year degree, the total cost of my degree would be approximately $65000. To be fair, my time-average salary, over a 40 year career, would be approximately $80000 per year. Over 40 years, on the basis of income tax alone (rate of %35 on $80000, I believe), I would pay $1,120,000 in taxes. Negating sales taxes, that's a tidy profit of $1,055,000. In contrast, as an uneducated (no college, no university, no trade-school) person, I could reasonably hope to make an average of $14/hr over a 40 year career, provided I keep the same job for the entirety). That gives a total taxable income over 40 years (40 hrs/wk, 50 wks/yr) of $1,120,000, which, when taxed at a rate of %17 (which I believe is the taxation rate for that bracket), brings in a rousing $190000. Net profit per person (including the cost of a $65000 engineering degree) - of almost $850,000. That money can be further invested in the country, or can be returned directly to the taxpayers through taxation reductions.
Just something to think about.
It's been my long-standing belief that the taxes that we pay are, essentially, an investment in the country by the people, in trust of the government. In the same way that a mutual funds broker, or an investment company is entrusted the funds of it's investors with the aim of maximising the return on that investment, so too, the federal government has a responsibility to the taxpayers to maximise the return on the "investment" of taxes. This is a primary pillar that will be seen throughout any financial policies that a government under my leadership will put forward.
To begin, I'd like to invest in our post-secondary education system - increasing access to higher education for everyone in the country, and rewarding those who are successful who choose to put the skills learned to good use here. On the flip side, it's a poor investment to simply give a free ride to everyone, regardless of whether they manage to succeed or not. Furthermore, expanding an already onerous beaurocracy to manage this "investment" is expensive, as well as being inefficient. So what's the solution?
I'd like to change the extant student loan system to something that rewards success, and repays those who continue to invest in the country for their efforts. I'd like to do it in a fashion that costs the system - you the taxpayers - as little as possible, and ensures a positive benefit. To do this, I'd like to set in place a plan to essentially pay for the first degree/diploma (up to a 5 year maximum timeframe) of all students who successfully graduate any accredited Canadian college or university. How am I going to do this without expanding the beaurocracy, and without allowing those who are not successful to get a free ride through? I'm going to use the existing government student loan system. The government will issue the students enough money for tuition, books, and residence/rent based on whether the student is going part time or full time, based on the location of the institution, and based whether they will be attending for an 8 month year or a 12 month year. Interest will accrue on the loan as usual. Upon graduation (proven), successful students who find full time employment in Canada will have 20% of their loan forgiven every year for 5 years. This time-elapse process will help to ensure that the student remains in the country, and should help solve some of the brain-drain problem as well. Those who are unsuccessful, or who attain employment outside of the country will be made to repay their student loans in full via the usual means. Additional degrees will not be covered. Students who successfully complete a degree/diploma program over a period of more than 5 years will have forgiven the total debt accrued over the first five years of the degree.
How does this policy benefit the taxpayer? The increase in qualified personnel in the country will increase both recreational (and taxable) spending, as well as bring a net increase over the periods of their working lives to their salary (also taxed). To give you an example from personal experience. The degree that I was working towards when I left school was an Engineering degree. At my tuition rates, over the course of a five year degree, the total cost of my degree would be approximately $65000. To be fair, my time-average salary, over a 40 year career, would be approximately $80000 per year. Over 40 years, on the basis of income tax alone (rate of %35 on $80000, I believe), I would pay $1,120,000 in taxes. Negating sales taxes, that's a tidy profit of $1,055,000. In contrast, as an uneducated (no college, no university, no trade-school) person, I could reasonably hope to make an average of $14/hr over a 40 year career, provided I keep the same job for the entirety). That gives a total taxable income over 40 years (40 hrs/wk, 50 wks/yr) of $1,120,000, which, when taxed at a rate of %17 (which I believe is the taxation rate for that bracket), brings in a rousing $190000. Net profit per person (including the cost of a $65000 engineering degree) - of almost $850,000. That money can be further invested in the country, or can be returned directly to the taxpayers through taxation reductions.
Just something to think about.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
