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
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.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
End of an era..
The top breaking news story of the day can be only one thing - the official resignation of long-time dictator Fidel Castro from his positions as President of Cuba, and Commander in Chief of that nations armed forces. While this bit of news has been circulating in the rumour mill for quite some time, this time it's actually official, as Castro published his intent openly in Granma, a state-run newspaper. He has publicly named his brother Raul to succeed him. American Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte has said that the trade embargo will not be lifted.
Ultimately, the time has come for Cuba to change. Fidel stood proud over his country for over 50 years, and ruled with an iron fist - standing up to political opposition from the United States, and weathering a crippling trade embargo since the Kennedy administration, and ultimately ruling a nation through the force of his own will and his own fiery rhetoric. It seems funny, in hindsight. I'm not a communist, and hate what Castro stands for, politically, however I also have to admit that I admire the man for his spirit, and for the power of his will. That admiration aside, it's time for a change, but will change come?
The single biggest wildcard in this equation is the person, character, and strength of Raul Castro. This man is, quite frankly, an enigma. The international community does not know him, and yet his power is genuine. The few reports I've read show a man strong in his way, but silent. Not the fiery orator that his brother is, Raul may fall under his brother's shadow, even as his brother retires. On the alternate side is his control over the military, and his problem solving ability. Over the years, it's been Raul who quietly did what needed to be done. Some believe that he will be more pragmatic than his brother on economic reforms, and will bring some much-needed economic changes into the state - including attempts to make friendly with the Americans with the aim of lifting the trade embargo. Others believe that he is more the bloodthirsty revolutionary than his brother - images of his ordering the executions of many of Batista's soldiers during the revolution, and political dissidents thereafter.
So Raul is the wildcard, and he has the choice to make to either set his people free, or keep them repressed. If he frees the people, then he will have broken faith with his brother - or has his brother been breaking faith with him? If he frees the people, Sens. Obama and McCain have both suggested that they would ease the embargo, which would be of huge benefit to Cuba. Alternately, he can maintain the repression that the people have been under since the Batista regime. In doing so, he will validate himself as a revolutionary icon, and prove himself deserving of his brother's confidence. He will, in truth and name, be Fidel's successor. He will also see the American trade embargo continue. I don't envy Raul, but this is the choice he has. Which choice he makes is anyone's guess.
Ultimately, the time has come for Cuba to change. Fidel stood proud over his country for over 50 years, and ruled with an iron fist - standing up to political opposition from the United States, and weathering a crippling trade embargo since the Kennedy administration, and ultimately ruling a nation through the force of his own will and his own fiery rhetoric. It seems funny, in hindsight. I'm not a communist, and hate what Castro stands for, politically, however I also have to admit that I admire the man for his spirit, and for the power of his will. That admiration aside, it's time for a change, but will change come?
The single biggest wildcard in this equation is the person, character, and strength of Raul Castro. This man is, quite frankly, an enigma. The international community does not know him, and yet his power is genuine. The few reports I've read show a man strong in his way, but silent. Not the fiery orator that his brother is, Raul may fall under his brother's shadow, even as his brother retires. On the alternate side is his control over the military, and his problem solving ability. Over the years, it's been Raul who quietly did what needed to be done. Some believe that he will be more pragmatic than his brother on economic reforms, and will bring some much-needed economic changes into the state - including attempts to make friendly with the Americans with the aim of lifting the trade embargo. Others believe that he is more the bloodthirsty revolutionary than his brother - images of his ordering the executions of many of Batista's soldiers during the revolution, and political dissidents thereafter.
So Raul is the wildcard, and he has the choice to make to either set his people free, or keep them repressed. If he frees the people, then he will have broken faith with his brother - or has his brother been breaking faith with him? If he frees the people, Sens. Obama and McCain have both suggested that they would ease the embargo, which would be of huge benefit to Cuba. Alternately, he can maintain the repression that the people have been under since the Batista regime. In doing so, he will validate himself as a revolutionary icon, and prove himself deserving of his brother's confidence. He will, in truth and name, be Fidel's successor. He will also see the American trade embargo continue. I don't envy Raul, but this is the choice he has. Which choice he makes is anyone's guess.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
A continuum.
So after my previous post about the Congressional hearing of Roger Clemens, I have to add a little bit more. One way or the other, one side of the equation is true, and only one side of the equation is true. Either Clemens took performance enhancing drugs, or he did not. Let's look at the testimony one at a time.
Brian McNamee:
As the primary accuser in the Clemens case, McNamee is in an interesting position. He openly admitted to injecting Clemens with performance enhancing drugs - and proceeded to flagrantly lie about some of the circumstances surrounding the whole thing. The only reason that McNamee was believable in his statement that he injected Clemens is the coroborration of Clemens' friends and former teammates Andy Pettite and Chuck Knoblauch. This raises only one question - if McNamee was telling the truth about his role in Clemens' alleged HGH and steroid use, why would lie about the circumstances - particularily in light of the physical evidence surrounding some of the issues (ie: the Canseco barbecue which Clemens definitely did not attend).
Roger Clemens:
The only defendant in this issue is the reputation of former major league pitcher, Roger Clemens. Clemens spent his day in court denying all allegations of the use of performance enhancing drugs, and calling McNamee a liar in everything but name. Truthfully, for one short period, Clemens was believable. McNamee's testimony was highly suspect, his credibility doubly so. With the exception of the one significant problem with his deposition that I mentioned and commented on earlier, Clemens was a believable witness. Except for Andy Pettite and his wifes despective depositions.
Andy Pettite:
Clemens' friend and former teammate gave a deposition in which he stated bluntly that Clemens admitted use of performance enhancing drugs to him. Clemens responded by arguing that Pettite had mis-heard him. Mistakes happen, right? Not according to Mrs. Pettite in this case. In her sworn deposition, she said that Andy had told her of his conversations with Clemens which corroborated McNamee's story. So again, I ask what cause Pettite would have to lie to authorities in order to harm Clemens - his friend? Obviously, there is no reason I can see. More damning still is that when posed the same question by Congress, Clemens had no reason either, saying Pettite must have misheard him, or misunderstood, or misremembered. This defense, sadly, the more it is repeated, the less believable it is, as, given the closeness of the friendship between the two, such a conversation would likely have led to others for clarification, or simply continued discussion? Further causing problems for this defense is the deposition of Mrs. Pettite.
Mrs. Pettite:
Has the regrettable role of playing the hangman for Clemens in this issue. Her deposition is simple - that her husband, Andy, had recounted to her conversations with Clemens in which Andy said Clemens admitted to the use of performance enhancing substances. In backing up her husband's deposition, she does, assuming that she's telling the truth, confirm that Pettite believed Clemens said that he personally was taking performance enhancers. The only reason for Mrs. Pettite to lie in this case would be to back up her husband. To lie in a congressional deposition when a simple "I don't know anything" would have been sufficient is beyond stupid, and so there is no reason to assume that she would have done so.
All that taken into consideration, a small part of me wants to believe that Clemens is clean. That said, however, the responsibility of a realist is to take idealistic ideas like that and destroy them. As such, barring further evidence to call into question the depositions of at least one of Andy and Mrs. Pettite, I have no choice but to believe them - meaning that I cannot believe Clemens, no matter how much I would like to be able to. That said, I truly hope that some such evidence comes to light.
Brian McNamee:
As the primary accuser in the Clemens case, McNamee is in an interesting position. He openly admitted to injecting Clemens with performance enhancing drugs - and proceeded to flagrantly lie about some of the circumstances surrounding the whole thing. The only reason that McNamee was believable in his statement that he injected Clemens is the coroborration of Clemens' friends and former teammates Andy Pettite and Chuck Knoblauch. This raises only one question - if McNamee was telling the truth about his role in Clemens' alleged HGH and steroid use, why would lie about the circumstances - particularily in light of the physical evidence surrounding some of the issues (ie: the Canseco barbecue which Clemens definitely did not attend).
Roger Clemens:
The only defendant in this issue is the reputation of former major league pitcher, Roger Clemens. Clemens spent his day in court denying all allegations of the use of performance enhancing drugs, and calling McNamee a liar in everything but name. Truthfully, for one short period, Clemens was believable. McNamee's testimony was highly suspect, his credibility doubly so. With the exception of the one significant problem with his deposition that I mentioned and commented on earlier, Clemens was a believable witness. Except for Andy Pettite and his wifes despective depositions.
Andy Pettite:
Clemens' friend and former teammate gave a deposition in which he stated bluntly that Clemens admitted use of performance enhancing drugs to him. Clemens responded by arguing that Pettite had mis-heard him. Mistakes happen, right? Not according to Mrs. Pettite in this case. In her sworn deposition, she said that Andy had told her of his conversations with Clemens which corroborated McNamee's story. So again, I ask what cause Pettite would have to lie to authorities in order to harm Clemens - his friend? Obviously, there is no reason I can see. More damning still is that when posed the same question by Congress, Clemens had no reason either, saying Pettite must have misheard him, or misunderstood, or misremembered. This defense, sadly, the more it is repeated, the less believable it is, as, given the closeness of the friendship between the two, such a conversation would likely have led to others for clarification, or simply continued discussion? Further causing problems for this defense is the deposition of Mrs. Pettite.
Mrs. Pettite:
Has the regrettable role of playing the hangman for Clemens in this issue. Her deposition is simple - that her husband, Andy, had recounted to her conversations with Clemens in which Andy said Clemens admitted to the use of performance enhancing substances. In backing up her husband's deposition, she does, assuming that she's telling the truth, confirm that Pettite believed Clemens said that he personally was taking performance enhancers. The only reason for Mrs. Pettite to lie in this case would be to back up her husband. To lie in a congressional deposition when a simple "I don't know anything" would have been sufficient is beyond stupid, and so there is no reason to assume that she would have done so.
All that taken into consideration, a small part of me wants to believe that Clemens is clean. That said, however, the responsibility of a realist is to take idealistic ideas like that and destroy them. As such, barring further evidence to call into question the depositions of at least one of Andy and Mrs. Pettite, I have no choice but to believe them - meaning that I cannot believe Clemens, no matter how much I would like to be able to. That said, I truly hope that some such evidence comes to light.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
