Final UK election debate

Anyone that wants to watch the debate at 8:30 UK time. You can watch it here.

Stephen Harper, stimulus spending, and political power

A poll reveals that business leaders generally agree with the Fraser Institute that stimulus spending has not helped the economy. The attitude appears to be that the Conservative government acted for political gain rather than what was best for Canada’s economy. I would agree with this conclusion, except to say that the government has not really gained any political advantage out of the stimulus package.

It is widely claimed that Canada would have gone into an election if the Conservatives had not increased spending to the degree that they did. I doubt that this would have happened considering the anger and outrage that was still around from the coalition attempt. Not to mention the chaos within the Liberal Party that had resulted from Michael Ignatieff’s coup. Even if there was an election it seems likely that the Conservatives would have gained.

The other argument was that the government needed the spending to increase their popularity. You notice any large sustained boosts in the polls? The Conservative’s level of support has remained the same as it has been for the past 4 years. Maybe the Conservatives would have gone down a little in the polls but this would have only been in the short term. Ultimately the Canadian people do not support deficit spending.

Really the political excuse for why Mr. Harper directed the government to massively increase spending is a bad one. Consider that the spending has done no good at all. Even the minority of the planned spending that has actually been spent has not significantly contributed to the recovery. At the same time it has done a lot of harm. Canada is going to have trouble paying off this debt and the population is not getting any younger.

So Stephen Harper did something that is bad for Canada for the sake of political gain. He reversed a life time commitment to free markets and opposition to Keynesian economics for the sake of political power. Isn’t this exactly what conservatives have complained about the Liberals for generations; a willingness to bend principle for power? Is this really what the Conservative Party expected of its leadership?

Gordon Brown calls supporter bigoted

This is the most entertaining gaff of the whole campaign:



My favourite part is that the Telegraph is reporting that the woman, a life time supporter of the Labour Party, felt that the conversation went well.

Good thing the Cold War was not decided by a dance off

CBC reporter attacks CTF for owning a car

Chris Rand at the CBC wanted to take a shot at the Canadian Taxpayer Federation. He really did, you can sense a certain desperation to find something to take them to task with. The CTF was submitting a petition calling for an end to pensions for convicted criminals. Mr. Rand did not want to talk about the issue or take a stand on it. He wanted to talk about Derek Feldebrant’s car.

Mr. Feldebrant is the Research Director for the CTF and he owns a 1997 BMW. This car, according to the update in Mr. Rand’s post, was salvaged for $500 and has 250 000 km on it. For Mr Rand this represents “a certain cachet of new wealth and privilege in Canada.”

At first I thought that Mr. Rand should send an apology to Mr. Feldebrant but then I realized that this was the highest compliment. If the best that the opponents of the CTF can do is complain about a 13 year old BMW, doesn’t that say something good about the CTF?

In support of an English Parliament

The constitutional foundation of the United Kingdom changed after Scottish and Welch devolution. For the first time the UK has become a multi-layered state, but with an extremely asymmetrical constitutional order. It is not just that the powers are different between the regional assemblies; the more important issue is that England is the only recognized nation within the UK that does not have its own legislature.

Westminster operates as the federal Parliament of the UK. It handles issues and policies that have been reserved in the Wales and Scotland Acts. At the same time they legislate for England on policy areas that have been devolved. This means that a Scottish MP can vote for legislation that only affects England but English politicians have no power over Scottish policies.

This has given new importance to the ‘West Lothian question’: “For how long will English constituencies and English Honourable members tolerate... Honourable Members from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland exercising an important, and probably often decisive, effect on English politics while they themselves have no say in the same matters in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?”

There have been several attempts to answer this question. The Labour Party supports creating regional assemblies that will have less power than the Scottish Parliament or the Welch Assembly, but still be able to provide regional leadership. This idea was solidly defeated in a referendum, largely because the proposed assemblies were so weak that they did not actually negate the West Lothian problem.

The Conservative Party has proposed that on issues that only affect England only English MPs should be allowed to vote. This seemingly common sense approach has several practical problems. For one thing it raises the question of what would happen if a government relies on Scottish MPs for its majority and the government is defeated on an English vote that is a confidence vote. Also it is not always simple to decide what issues qualify as ‘English’ and which are UK wide. Still, in the short term this may be the most realistic solution.

In the long term the UK would be better served by creating an English Parliament with the same powers as the Scottish Parliament. This is the main proposal of the English Democrat Party. They believe, correctly, that England is not being well served by the current asymmetrical structure. Let Westminster handle national issues and assign English issues to a solely English legislature.

Funny anti-marijuana video from the 70s

I saw this on Secrets of Vancouver:


1970s Anti-Marijuana Commercial
Uploaded by Illuminaught. - See more comedy videos.

Notice that it is encouraging underaged drinking at the end?

South Park can't say Mohamed

When I watched the latest South Park episode I got a good laugh whenever they beeped the name Mohamed. I thought it was a brilliant commentary. Imagine living in a world that the very name of this historically and religiously significant man could not be mentioned. The whole show revolved around how Mohamed had become immune to mockery and even South Park was unable to mock him.

Sadly it wasn’t a joke. Comedy Central not the creators of South Park beeped the name. This has turned comedy into a chilling moment of television. Now we do not have to imagine a world of such censorship, we already live in it. What seemed to me to be absurd is the truth.
Here is what Bill O’Reilly had to say:



I can’t say I blame him for declining to have a satirical attack of Mohamed on his show. But one thing should be made clear, at no point in the South Park episode was Mohamed actually made fun of. Other religious figures were mocked but not Mohamed. Instead they were mocking the fact that you can’t mock him, a joke that was deepened by the network’s censorship.

Greece to be bailed out

Greece has called for the help that the IMF and the Eurozone promised them a month ago. The Greek economy has not been stabilized and now they are going to be bailed out.

I have written before about how this would be a bad idea for the European Union. It is going to create a precedent that will encourage moral hazard. Countries such as Italy and Spain will be less interested in acting responsibly. And countries that have made sacrifices in the effort to restore their finances, such as Ireland, will feel screwed.

Quote of the day

"Many women who do not dress modestly ... lead young men astray, corrupt their chastity and spread adultery in society, which (consequently) increases earthquakes,'' Hojatoleslam Kazem Sedighi said [an Iranian senior cleric].

I'm undecided if I should laugh or cry. I think I will cry because this is a perfect example of why religion should not govern a state.

UK Election Debate 2010 (ii)

Yesterday Britain enjoyed their second Leader’s Debate (or what they have chosen to call Prime Ministerial debate). I must say that I am enjoying these debates much more than the Canadian counterparts. I guess it helps to not have buffoons like Elizabeth May participating.

I previously said that this would be an important debate for Nick Clegg and I think he did well. He was the most dynamic and interesting to watch of the three, and on several occasions he managed to dominate the discussion. He had a great trick of constantly bringing the debate back to the question and interacting with the questioner beyond the first response. This helped him sell the idea that he is part of a ‘new style of politics’ that is more interested in people and not spin.

David Cameron did much better in this debate than he did in the previous debate. He actually did more in this debate to win me over than he has ever managed to do. He spoke to core conservative supporters by talking a lot about how people should take responsibility for themselves and how government rewards the irresponsible. He came off as honest and sincere, though perhaps not as passionate as Mr. Clegg.

Gordon Brown had a horrible debate. His opening statement insisted that the debate wasn’t a game show, which was lame because I doubt anyone watching it was thinking that it was. Also he tried to be witty when he accused Mr. Clegg and Mr. Cameron of ‘quibbling.’ This fell flat because frankly they weren’t quibbling at all. The Telegraph revealed today that this was a prepared line and you can really tell.

Over all I would have to say that after this debate Mr. Clegg is going to continue to be a player in this election. If David Cameron had done worse he might have been on his way to Number 10, but as it is things are still uncertain.

Freedom of religion is redundant

I got a bit of a giggle out of this National Post story’s headline: Cannabis involved in the anointment of Jesus Christ?

The image that pops instantly to mind is of Jesus and his twelve apostles sitting around taking hits from a bong, which isn’t really what the article is about. Instead the article raises an interesting and important issue: what is a religion and what is freedom of religion?
As a brief background:

[Professor Ruck] was testifying at the trial of two members of the Church of the Universe, Peter Styrsky and Shahrooz Kharaghani, who run the G13 Mission branch of the church in the Beaches section of Toronto. They are both charges of street-level marijuana trafficking.

They are asking Ontario Superior Court Justice Thea Herman to dismiss the charges on the grounds that the country’s marijuana laws violate their freedom of religion under the Charter of Rights.

The Church of the Universe believes that the consumption of marijuana will bring an individual closer to God. Professor Ruck was there to testify that this is not unusual in the history of the world.

Personally I’ve never heard of this religion, and frankly I suspect that it does not have a particularly large following. But does that matter? If this is what they believe, then from the perspective of the constitution, why shouldn’t it be protected just as strongly as a Catholic’s belief? If you think that Catholic Priests should not be forced to marry homosexual couples then surely you would agree that someone of another religion should not be forced to give up their sacrament?

I am going to assume that some of you are going to leap to the conclusion that this religion is nothing but a bogus excuse for a couple of pot heads to get high. Maybe it is, and maybe it isn’t, but let us say for the sake of argument that it isn’t. Let’s say that this is truly a deeply held faith of those individuals. What then?

Do you say that it is a cult and not a religion? How are we going to define religion then? Does it take a certain number of people; if so how many? Does it take a certain degree of longevity; if so how long? Or is it that it has to have some political influence; if so do we really want to live in such a society?

The reality is that all this is interesting but irrelevant to how we should be making laws. The freedom of religion is made redundant if the law recognizes individual liberty. Individual liberty covers all religions and all beliefs. If an individual does not want to perform a service that they feel is immoral, such as marrying homosexuals, they should be free to make that decision. If an individual wants to smoke pot to get closer to a higher being then they should be free to do so as well. Hell, they should be free to do so even if they are simply looking for a way to kill a couple of hours.

If we all recognize that an individual is capable of making their own decisions then we do not need freedom of religion, because we already have freedom.

The Minister of Health’s conception of the citizenry

The Minister of Health, Leona Aglukkaq, has declared that the voluntary program for reducing trans fat in Canadian food has failed. Restaurants have not ‘voluntarily’ reduced trans fat in sufficient amounts to satisfy the government. So now the government, having been defied by its subjects, is discussing the possibility of using force to coerce restaurant owners to do as they say.

Of course the mighty and magnanimous state will use the sword only in our protection. The state wishes to save us from the harm that these dastardly business owners are doing to our hearts. How dare they! We the people cry out. How dare they make food that tastes really really good! Punish them, we the masses demand!

No! We did not know. We could not have known that eating at McDonald’s every day would lead to severe health problems. There has never been a well publicized documentary informing us so that we can make responsible choices. It isn’t our fault that we are unhealthy! It is those damn deep frying knaves that are too blame.

Protect us! Oh protect us mighty leviathan. For we the people are ignorant and stupid. Clearly we are incapable of making our own decisions about what we want to put into our bodies.
We are nothing but sheep that must be led and guided by the glorious Sheppard: Leona Aglukkaq Minister of Health.

1000 Posts

This is the 1000th post of Freedom is My Nationality. In 2008 I started this blog with a vision of having three or four fellow bloggers with a similar perspective to help me carry the load. And indeed this site has posted excellent work from people such as William Joseph. Still I am disappointed that I couldn't enthrall my friends to be as passionate about blogging as I have been.

I am not, however, disappointed by the whole experience. I have found it very rewarding, if occasionally frustrating. Since starting this blog my posts have been published at the Western Standard Shotgun Blog, Libertas Post, and the National Post's Full Comment. I feel like I'm gaining an ever increasing audience and contributing in my small way to the great debates taking place in Canada (though I sometimes wonder if I've decreased my employment prospects).

I hope that you've enjoyed my writing and I look forward to publishing 1000 more posts.

(maybe by than I'll learn to get rid of the typos, eh)

Electoral reform and a possible Liberal Democrat government

Philip Johnston of the Telegraph concurs with my assessment that tonight’s leadership debate could make or break British Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg. Mr. Johnston also points out an interesting possibility that I had not considered. Could the electoral system actually help the Liberal Democrats?

For decades the Lib-Dems have complained about the electoral system and have championed reform. This makes sense considering they have been at a constant disadvantage. They have consistently won a smaller proportion of the seats than the popular vote. Making the system more proportional was clearly in their advantage.

But as their support grows this dynamic could change radically. The reason they win so few seats is because they tend to come in second in many electoral districts. If Lib-Dem support gets above 30%, according to Mr. Johnston’s article, they will start winning the seats where they traditionally came in second and possibly win a higher proportion than their popular vote. Furthermore if their popular support gets as high as 40% they can expect to win a majority government.

The question is: after calling the ‘first-past-the-post’ system a travesty for so long, will their rhetoric change once that ‘travesty’ works in their favour?

Politicians are human beings just like anyone else. They respond to incentives. If they can gain power under the current system what would be the incentive to change? How deep goes Mr. Clegg’s desire for a ‘new’ kind of politics?

Gordon Brown should be given first chance to govern in a hung Parliament

As a hung Parliament appears more and more likely in the UK election, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative Party has been a bit shy about saying what sort of deal they will make. The Labour Party has indicated that they are interested in working with the Lib-Dems, but the Lib-Dem leader, Nick Clegg, is not going to reveal his strategy until his hand is dealt. The outcome of the election, popular vote and seat distribution, is still very much up in the air. Really the Conservatives and the Lib-Dems are wise to refuse to speculate.

One issue that I have with Nick Clegg’s current position on a hung Parliament is his assertion that Gordon Brown should not be allowed an opportunity to make a deal before he is removed from office:

Senior civil servants have made it clear that, in the event of a hung parliament, Mr Brown would remain as Prime Minister, even if he did not have the most seats, and would be given time to try to stitch a deal together.

The Lib Dem leader said: “It would be preposterous for Gordon Brown to end up like some squatter in No 10 because of some constitutional nicety.”

It is not just a constitutional nicety. Like most of the British unwritten constitutional rules, there is a sound practical reason for giving the current Prime Minister a chance to govern.
Consider what happened in Belgium in 2007. The various political parties could not bridge regional or ideological differences to create a coalition government. The result was that the Belgium state did not have a government for more than a year. Now this may sound awesome to a libertarian, but really what it meant was that civil servants, not elected politicians, were forced to make the policy decisions that could not be put off.

The UK system has a built in method to avoiding this problem. The fact that Mr. Clegg bashes this method reflexively shows a certain shallowness in his political philosophy. Mr. Clegg is making his name by calling for democratic reform, but reform for reform sake is not a good thing. Any reformer must be prepared to acknowledge and defend what is good about an institution as they struggle to change what is bad.

Maxime Bernier should be returned to cabinet

In an interview with CTV Maxime Bernier makes it clear that is ambition is to become a Minister not a Prime Minister. Personally I think Mr. Bernier would make the greatest Prime Minister since Wilfrid Laurier, but realistically that is a long term goal. In the short term, the government and the people of Canada can be well served by putting this man back into cabinet.
Few Canadian politicians are as thoughtful and passionate about the issues facing Canada today.

Take a look at this video of Mr. Bernier explaining the issues around inflation and the Bank of Canada:



This video was posted back in November but we can already see the sort of market distortions that he was warning about. The media has recently reported that Canadians have too much debt and that it is not sustainable. This is a direct effect of the Bank of Canada lowering interest rates to a point that easy credit is readily available, thus distorting the market.

As far as I know only Maxime Bernier is talking about this fundamental economic issue in Canada. We need people with this sort of vision and foresight to return to cabinet.

Andrew Coynes on the root of government corruption

Lord Acton once wrote that "power tends corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." So is it any surprise that as the state grows corruption grows with it. Andrew Coyne makes a similar point in his column:

But of course the federal government has become a vast spigot of this kind of thing, providing billions of dollars every year in subsidies to businesses, trade associations and other private groups. Just to list the “grants and contributions” over $100,000 takes up more than 280 pages of the Public Accounts of Canada, at around 60 lines a page. With all this money sloshing about, it stands to reason you’d find fraud artists waiting to take their piece, and well-connected friends to help them, just as they did under previous governments. We might as well put up a sign: The Buffet is Open.

As for Guergis, what was most noteworthy about her misbehaviour, until she finally became expendable—coincidentally, the day after Jaffer’s dealings hit the papers—was how little it appeared to discomfit the government. If the Prime Minister did not exactly stand by her, neither was he in any hurry to remove her. And why should he? She was only a cabinet minister, after all, one of 36 in Harper’s entourage. It’s not like she had an important job.

Perhaps the only way to prevent corruption is to cut back on the activities of government.

Ron Paul on the Tea Party Movement

A new dawn for the Liberal Democrats?

Last Thursday the leaders of the three national UK political parties participated in Britain’s first televised debate. It is widely thought that Liberal Democrat leader, Nick Clegg came out on top of that debate. It has changed the dynamics of the election. For the first time it looks like the Lib-Dems are on the rise. In recent polls they are breathing down the neck of the Labour Party. Though no one seems to be talking about a potential Lib-Dem government, the chances of a hung government have increased and the Lib-Dems will likely play a crucial role in the next Parliament.

That is if they can hold on to that support.

There are three more weeks in this election and two more leadership debates. Mr. Clegg is going to have to shine and keep that shine polished. At the moment his support his mostly based on him being perceived as an outsider; he is benefiting from a general discontent with the political leadership. But he has to make sure that the Liberal Democrats appear as a viable choice for government, otherwise all that support will drift back to the Conservatives and the Labour Party.

The make or break moment will be next Thursday’s debate. Expectations will be extremely high for Mr. Clegg, and the David Cameron and Gordon Brown will likely have learned from their mistakes. They will not ignore the Liberal Democrats in their preparations for the debate. Still, if Mr. Clegg can once again make a strong appeal to the voters, this election could surprise us all with a Liberal Democrat victory.

My pick for Governor General

With all this talk about who the next Governor General would be, I thought that I would put forth my own preferred candidate. A name that I will admit is not on most people’s short list, but I am hoping that Prime Minister Harper and the Canadian people will take a strong look at Taffy Apple Pomeroy.

Ms. Pomeroy has several strong qualifications for the position of GG. The most important qualification is that she is extremely photogenic. If you recall this was touted as a great strength of Ms. Jean. I would argue that Ms. Pomeroy has a greater appeal for both men and women in this area. Personally I think that Ms. Pomeroy would look much better in the robes sitting in Parliament than any other GG in our history.

Second of all she has no political affiliations nor does she have any of her own political opinions. This is a real asset for a Governor General. Ms. Pomeroy can honestly say that she does not care who is in political power, and thus she does not hold any hidden biases. This would resolve any worries that the GG is too Liberal or too Conservative.

There is also the symbolism that she would represent. Ms. Pomeroy is a lifelong resident of Hamilton Ontario. She is a full bred Canadian with deep roots in her community. Yet she can still represent the diversity of Canada because of her own mixed ethnic background. As the offspring of a cocker spaniel and poodle, Ms. Pomeroy can embody the Canadian spirit of multiculturalism.

Furthermore as a female, Taffy Pomeroy would represent inclusiveness. Certainly the last two GGs have been female but the last three Prime Ministers have also been male. I believe that appointing Ms. Pomeroy as Governor General would send a strong message that woman belong in government along with men.

Her experience for the job is as useful as the current Governor General’s past experience. She has every bit the same constitutional expertise as the previous two GGs, and she speaks French just as well as she speaks English. She is also as well known as Michaelle Jean was before she became Governor General. In fact I will be so bold as to predict that if Ms. Pomeroy becomes GG she will instantly become the most recognizable public figure in Canada.

In conclusion I would just like to point out that Taffy Pomeroy will bring to the job the credibility and prestige that the position so richly deserves.

UK Election Debate 2010

The Telegraph and the BBC agree that the Liberal-Democrat leader, Nick Clegg, won the debate. Personally I think the moderator was the real star of the show. He did a fantastic job of encouraging interaction and cutting off debate at appropriate moments.

The biggest disappointment of this debate is that David Cameron did not take on Gordon Brown on his absurd assertion that cutting government spending would ‘take out’ money from the economy. This is an economic illiteracy that is inexcusable in a Prime Minister or former Exchequer.

Government primarily gets money from taxation, which does take money out of the economy. Cutting government spending will allow money to be put back into the economy and allocated more efficiently. By not addressing this, Mr. Cameron cedes the argument to Gordon Brown.

Keith Martin and marijuana legalization

Keith Martin, a Liberal MP, has written an op-ed piece supporting the decimalization of small amounts of marijuana:

The lethal gun battles on the streets of Vancouver, the astounding number of murders in Mexico, and the insurgency that continues to grow in Afghanistan (which results in our soldiers being killed) all have one thing in common: the trafficking of illegal drugs.

The U.S.-style war on drugs that is being pursued by Canada’s Conservative government has proven to be an utter failure. It has not reduced crime, harm or even drug use. The only groups benefitting from the status quo are organized crime gangs, insurgent groups, and terrorist organizations. Who pays a heavy price? Society, our soldiers, some of the world’s poorest countries, and the most vulnerable people in our communities.

This is at the same time that Angus-Reid has come out with a poll that shows a majority of Canadians support not the decriminalization but the legalization of marijuana.

This is an interesting poll; it shows that Canadians support some of the harsh punishments of the Conservative crime legislation. This is in spite of the fact that 53% of Canadians support legalization of marijuana.

This apparent contradiction can be solved by looking at some of the other statistics from this poll. Only 36% of Canadians support the government in scrapping the Liberal plan to decriminalize marijuana. Furthermore only 36% of Canadians support eliminating harm reduction sights. This tells you that Canadians want the government to target drug providers not drug users.

Keith Martin is on the same side of Canadians when he writes:

So how do we deal with this? First, our government needs to change its perspective and see substance abuse as a medical problem, not a judicial one. In order to reduce the supply of illegal drugs flowing into our communities and, by extension, the funding of organized criminal groups and insurgents, we must get our own house in order and reduce the demand for these drugs.

Both the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party should take note of this poll. The Liberal Party wants to break back into Western Canada, well 61% of BC and 59% of Alberta support legalization. The Conservative Party wants to strengthen its support in Ontario and Quebec; the support of legalization in Ontario is 57% and in Quebec it is 51%.

Both parties have something to gain in a drug policy that would legalize marijuana and focus on the distributors of other drugs rather than punishing addicts. Keith Martin is principled enough and wise enough to see this opportunity. Let’s hope that other MPs jump on the band wagon.

UK Conservatives and 'People Power'

The British Conservative Party is talking a good talk. They are claiming that the prime difference between the Conservative Party and the Labour Party is that Labour believes in ‘state power’ and the Tories believe in ‘people power.’ As someone who strongly defends the principles of personal responsibility and individual liberty, I like this kind of language. The question is: does the Conservative manifesto live up to the Tory leader David Cameron’s rhetoric?

Recently the Hayekian influenced Institute for Economic Affairs has said that neither the Conservatives nor the Labour Party have promised to do enough. The IEA is calling for a fundamental change in the way public finances operate to deal with the dire condition of the public debt. The Conservatives and Labour Party are debating how much to nibble while large bites are needed to save the public purse.

So what does that have to do with ‘people power’? It raises the question of what we can expect the government to be able to do and what do we need it to do. Mr. Cameron seems to be suggesting that we don’t need the government for much, because it is we the people that can best run our lives. It is we the people that can best direct us towards prosperity. Yet if this is so, why nibble? Why not take a bite?

The Labour Party response is pretty predictable. According to the Telegraph article that was linked above:

Last night Lord Mandelson, who is running Labour’s election campaign, said: “When the Tories say 'we’re all in this together’, what they really mean is 'you’re on your own’.’’

Which really tells you how much the Labour Party trusts people to live their lives without a civil servant telling you what you need to do. Yet are the Conservatives really that much better? Do they really think that we still need this disastrously large government spending?

As Publius at the Western Standard recently said:

The difference between David Cameron's Conservatives, and Gordon Brown's Labour, is the speed at which they would drive Britain off the cliff.

Angus-Reid poll asks wrong questions on seat redistribution

I haven’t had much time to blog the last week, but there was an Angus-Reid poll out recently that I wanted to draw people’s attention towards. This poll supposedly demonstrates that the Canadian public at large are opposed to the government’s plans for evening out the representation in the House of Commons.

To give a brief over view of the proposal: The government wants to change the formula for distributing seats to better represent the population distribution across regions. Atlantic Canada and Quebec are overrepresented and Ontario, British Columbia, and Alberta are underrepresented. The new formula will correct this by increasing the number of seats in each of the underrepresented Provinces. As you may expect this has lead to considerable regional saber rattling.

The poll that was conducted by Angus-Reid showed that 37% of Canadians were supportive and 45% were opposed. It also showed that there were strong regional differences. BC and Ontario had about half in support and Alberta had more than half. The other provinces did not even have 30% in support. From this result you would gather that there was a strong regional bias in people’s opinion of how they should be represented. But if you look at the question you will see that the bias is not in the people but in the question:

As you may know, the federal government has introduced legislation to increase the number of seats in the House of Commons from 308 to 338. Ontario will get 18 new seats, British Columbia would get seven new seats, and Alberta will get five new seats. No other Canadian provinces will get more seats. The new riding boundaries will not be drawn until 2011 and are unlikely to come into force until at least 2012. Overall, do you support or oppose this legislation?

The question assumes that the person being surveyed is aware of the imbalance of representation. If they had presented that imbalance in the question people may have changed their answer. The fact that the three underrepresented provinces were all supportive could be due to a higher awareness of the issue. Furthermore the sentence “No other Canadian provinces will get more seats,” makes it sound as if the three provinces are getting an unfair advantage. That in of itself could raise regional discontent.

The survey’s next question is asking which party Canadians think will benefit from the change. 39% said the Conservatives and another 39% said that they don’t know. For me this is an irrelevant question. Perhaps the Conservative government is doing this partially for political gain, but equal representation in the House of Commons is a principle that should cross all parties.

My strongest objection is with the third and final question: Do you think having more MPs in the House of Commons will be good for Canada or bad for Canada?

This is completely the wrong question. It hardly surprises me that only 17% of Canadians think more politicians is a good thing. It also does not surprise me that 31% think it is bad and 31% think that having more politicians won’t make a difference. This question, however, has very little to do with the actual issues at stake. The issue is equal representation not the need for more MPs. Why did the survey not ask: do you think that each region should be represented according to their population in the House of Commons?

To use these numbers to describe Canadians as opposed to the government’s plan would be absurd. The questions do not truly ask about the plan. Instead the questions are spinning the plan as ‘more politicians’ and ‘unfair to other provinces.’ It seems that the survey was designed not to gather the opinions of the Canadian people but to prove what the people at Angus-Reid wanted to prove.

Thatcher on the income gap

She says it perfectly. Anytime that someone talks about the rich getting richer and the poorer getting poorer, what they really want is for everyone to be a little more equally poor. It is almost a chauvinist reflex; the idea that you can only be better off if other people are not better off as well. The goal should be instead that everyone is unequally rich.

Cider tax to end on June 30th

The punitive tax on Cider that was brought in by the Labour government will end on June 30th. This is thanks to the need to pass legislation before Parliament closes for the election. Both the Conservative Party and the Liberal-Democratic Party pushed for this, and other, compromises.

This great news is a bit tempered by the fact that the Labour Party has pledged to reintroduce this tax if they are re-elected.

It seems that the Labour Party is increasingly becoming the party of taxation.

Tax debate in the UK election

The UK election is only in its second day but already the strategies of the two main political parties have become clear. It Labour Party is running the classic “don’t want to change horses mid-stream” campaign. They claim that they are the party to bring the UK out of recession and the Conservatives are too risky. Meanwhile the Conservatives are pushing an agenda of moderate change; the Conservatives are presenting themselves as a party of hope for the future. Already the Labour Party’s message has become a contentious battle ground that could lose Labour the election.

The most significant issue so far is the tax debate, which may go on to dominate this election. In the last budget before the election was called, the Labour government increased the National Insurance rate. The Conservative Party has called this a “tax on jobs” and vowed to reverse the increase. At the same time the country’s largest employers took the unusual step of backing the Conservative Party position, saying that the Labour Party’s tax increase will indeed kill jobs.
This is a problem for the Labour Party because it weakens their case that they are the party of economic recovery. Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s only defence seems to be that the leaders of industry have somehow been decieved by the Conservative Party, that increasing taxation on a business’s payroll is indeed the best thing for the recovery.

This argument is somehow not very convincing.

Stimulus spending and the intelligence of the Canadian people

In late March there was a rather spiteful back and forth between the free market think tank Fraser Institute and the Conservative government. The Fraser Institute published a study that demonstrated government stimulus has not significantly helped the economic recovery. The government replied in an attempt to discredit the Fraser Institute that left them looking rather silly.

They look even sillier this week as it is revealed that approximately 75% of the stimulus spending has not actually been spent. Even if the concept of ‘stimulus’ was economically solid, it is clear that government action still would have been pointless. Even Keynes would agree that an unspent stimulus does not bring a country out of recession.

You have to give Canadians credit; they realize what is going on. According to a study sponsored by a Toronto advertisement firm, the Canadian people do not blame the government for the recession. At the same time they do not credit the Conservatives with ending the recession. Both conclusions are clearly true, which has delighted my usual cynical attitude towards public opinion. Despite the spin Canadians have spotted the truth.

It is too bad that Stephen Harper didn’t trust Canadian people. He brought in this budget not because he thought it would work, considering his background he had to know it wouldn’t work, but because he thought it was demanded of him by the Canadian people. If Mr. Harper had stuck to his lifelong convictions regarding the role of the government, perhaps he would be on the way to a majority by now.

Who will debate the constitutionality of Obamacare?

The Western Standard is reporting on a rumour in the blogosphere that no one is willing to debate against the constitutionality of President Obama's health care program. Abu Hatem of the Western Standard posted this video of the Cato Institutes's Ilya Shapiro:



My question is, how hard did they really look for someone to debate? Personally if I was going to find someone that would debate against the increase of government I would look into the Cato Institute first.

Milton Friedman on minimum wage

Revisiting the Mixed Member Proportional electoral system

In 2007 Ontario voted to keep the traditional ‘first-past-the post’ electoral system and rejected the Mixed Member Proportional system. At the time I campaigned hard against MMP. I felt that it would lead to small parties controlling the agenda and other unpredictable outcomes. The proponents of MMP held up New Zealand as an example of why I was wrong. And New Zealand is indeed a fair case study for how the system works. New Zealand has similar cultural and institutional roots as Canada (as much as any two countries share such roots). The problem was that the proponents of MMP drew the wrong lesson from New Zealand.

New Zealanders are set to make a verdict on their electoral experiment in a referendum to be held at the same time as the New Zealand election. Those who are interested in electoral reform should keep a close eye on the debate and results that will be coming out of New Zealand. Australian Policy Online provides a taste of how that debate will likely take form:

The new world of politics and equitable representation, however, never quite materialised. In fact, MMP created many perverse incentives and largely unforeseen consequences, such as increasing the power of political parties, the cessation of MPs being legitimised by their local electorate, and a reduction of political accountability for laws passed. The compromises that MMP encourages have led to a more consensual style of government, but it has also contributed to ad hoc lawmaking, an inability of government to take proper charge of a legislative programme, and pork barrel politics and ‘back room deals.’

MMP is a system concerned with process rather than outcomes. Although MMP has brought proportionality to parliamentary representation, it has produced political results that can hardly claim to be representative. This is because minor parties have a greater say in contentious legislation than their vote warrants. MMP was also designed to give women and ethnic groups more representation in Parliament. Maori and women’s representation has somewhat improved under MMP, but there is little or no evidence that it was MMP itself that led to this improvement.

Another case worth studying is how MMP has worked in Scotland, another country with a historic cultural and institutional relationship with Canada. There is little evidence that the same adverse effects have taken place in the Scottish Parliament, at least not to the extent that there should be concern. Scottish politics are dominated by four major political parties: Scottish National Party, Labour Party, Conservative Party, and the Liberal-Democrat Party. There was an upsurge of small parties in earlier elections, but they have all but disappeared in the 2007 election. MMP has even worked to provide representation that otherwise wouldn’t have existed; the Conservative Party would have barely gotten any seats in the traditional Westminster system even though they get more votes than the Liberal-Democrats. The MMP system has allowed the Conservatives to be a real political force in the Scottish Parliament.

So why does it work in Scotland and not in New Zealand? The answer is pretty simple; the Scottish Parliament did not move from ‘first-past-the post,’ it started off with MMP when it was established in 1999. The whole institution of the Scottish Parliament is built with MMP at the core. This meant that the Scots did away with some traditional aspects of a Westminster Parliament, including confidence votes for budgets and a stronger committee system.

The lesson for electoral reformers and democratic reformers in general is that you can’t just change one part of an institution. You have to make the various bits fit together. They fit together well in Scotland but they don’t fit in New Zealand, this is why MMP is dysfunctional in New Zealand. A lot of reform can be advantageous but a little reform can be a disaster.

Video of Guy Earle's lawyer

The Blog of Walker posted a video of Guy Earle's lawyer walking out of the Human Rights Tribunal. So if you're interested check it out:

In support of Representation by Population

The House of Commons in the Parliament of Canada was established on the principle of representation by population. Every citizen of Canada would have equal representation and an equal vote in the election. Right from the beginning this principle was compromised with assurances towards Quebec and a rule that there must never be fewer MPs than Senators representing a province. Still, it is the Rep by Pop principle that guides seat distribution in the House of Commons.

Despite this principle, over time, some provinces have become overrepresented and others have become underrepresented in the House of Commons. My former home riding of Trinity – Spadina had a larger population than the entire province of PEI, which has four MPs. Ontario and certain western provinces have rightly complained that the balance of power in the House of Commons does not represent the balance of population in Canada.

After decades of inaction the federal government is finally doing something about it, or at least they are once again trying to do something about it. The Conservative government is reintroducing their 2007 proposal to change the distribution formula and add more seats to the House of Commons to better reflect population. A consequence of doing this is that provinces that have not increased their population will have a smaller proportion of seats.

You can expect Quebec, or more specifically the BQ, to complain about this. They accuse the government of trying to weaken the voice of Quebec. This seems to be framed as some Lord Durham like plot to assimilate French speakers, which is absurd.

Quebec nationalists are not the only ones complaining. Professor Donald Savoie is warning that Atlantic Canada is also going to lose out. He points out that the Maritimes has been losing representation since the time of Confederation (which makes sense considering that the population compared to the rest of the country has consistently declined). He even goes as far to say that maybe Joseph Howe was right and Confederation was a bad idea (not that Nova Scotia had much of a choice but that’s another story).

He continues by saying that Canada is a federal state and should thus have regional representation. This sort of thing is acceptable, according to Professor Savoie, in unitary states such as France but unacceptable in federal Canada. Actually the reverse is true, regional representation is not as big of a problem exactly because Canada is a federation.

In a unitary state (ie a state with no regional governments) there are still often regional differences. These differences have to be accommodated somehow or else there will be political discord. In the case of the United Kingdom pre-1999, Scottish distinctiveness was accommodated by over representation in the House of Commons. The idea was that if you give Scotland a strong voice they will be able to protect their interests and culture.

After the Scottish Parliament was established in1999, the amount of Scottish MPs was reduced to be more in line with the population distribution in the UK. It was universally acknowledged that with devolved government the need for an overpopulated Scotland no longer existed. Scotland could now carry out its own policies in key areas.

This argument can not only be applied to Canada but it is even more applicable. The amount of autonomy that a Canadian province enjoys is the envy of Scottish nationalists. Canadian provinces don’t need special representation in the House of Commons because they have their own government. They have their own legislatures to create policies that they want. And if there is something happening in the federal government that interferes with Nova Scotia’s interests, they have their very own Premier to take on the Prime Minister.

Would it be in a region’s interests to have more representation in Ottawa? Certainly, but that becomes less vital because we are in a federation, not more vital. It is up to Donald Savoie and the BQ to demonstrate why people East of Ontario need more representation than everyone else. They can’t argue that it is because of distinctiveness because they already have their very own governments to represent that distinctiveness.

Equal representation is an important principle in democracy, and if that principle is going to be compromised than there has to be a good reason. Appealing to the narrow regional interests of a few is not reason good enough.

The damage is done in the Guy Earle case

The real danger of the Human Rights Tribunal can be seen in its full inglorious splendour in the case of the comedian Guy Earle. This week Mr. Earle is being taken to pseudo-court because he insulted a couple of lesbians during a comedy show. I’ve been insulted at a comedy show; I didn’t know you can sue someone for that. But more to the point, you shouldn’t be able to sue someone for that.

This National Post article demonstrates why not:

Local comedians, including some lesbian wisecrackers, are calling the discrimination claim plain silly. They worry their freedoms to poke fun and mock have been put on trial. "It's a bad joke," says Ardell Fitzpatrick, a veteran comedian and lesbian owner of Laff Riot Girls, a Vancouver comedy troupe that describes itself as the city's "number one gay-friendly show."

"It's like I can't make fun of my own race anymore," says Patricia Louis, a First Nations comic who, with Ms. Fitzpatrick, watched this week's hearing. They both left the tribunal shaking their heads.

They should be worried about their freedoms to “poke fun,” or to put it more exactly, they should be worried about their freedom of expression.

The HRT has at best dubious jurisdictional authority over this case. The Supreme Court of BC has ordered them to review their jurisdiction, but they decided to deal with that later. Raising the question, why bother going through a trial if you don’t know if your verdict will have any legal standing?

The answer is that the trial itself is the punishment. It doesn’t really matter if Mr. Earle is fined or not, though I hope he isn’t. He has already had to pay plenty of legal fees and other costs to do with this case. He has already suffered.

Consider the position of a stand up comic who wants to make a lesbian joke. They may think that they could get away with it, but they would be worried that they will have to suffer the same process as Mr. Earle. Perhaps some of them will decide it isn’t worth it and make some other joke. We are now in a situation where comics are censoring themselves because they fear legal action.

Now ask yourself, do you want to live in a society where a comic can’t make a joke?

I sure as hell don’t.

Decriminalize pot in Nova Scotia?

The Supreme Court of Nova Scotia has ordered the government to provide medical marijuana to those that have prescriptions. I’m not sure I like this decision. As Nova Scotia Justice Minister, Ross Laundry, points out, it could mean that the province is stuck providing medication that is not covered by their health care system. It seems that the Nova Scotia Supreme Court is setting policy for the government of Nova Scotia.

But an interesting by product of this decision is that Minister Laundry is opening the door to a debate about decriminalizing marijuana:

Landry, a former RCMP officer, said when he worked as a police officer he found prosecuting such cases time-consuming and believes it’s worth seeing if that process can be improved upon.

"I’m a firm believer (in) ‘You do the crime, you do the time,’ " Landry said. "Do the penalties match what the crime is?

"I’ll look forward to discussion in regards to that matter."

But he wouldn’t commit to having a firm position on decriminalizing the drug.

It seems to me that if he is even opening up the discussion he has some sympathy towards the decriminalization argument. Yet he is unwilling to take the political risk of coming out in support of decriminalizing small usage of marijuana. Still the more that this issue has an opportunity to be debated the greater chance that government can be convinced to stop persecuting pot smokers.

In Canada we have a history of provincial governments leading the way in reform or policy innovation. In areas of health care and democratic reform, the provinces have acted as experiments for the rest of the country. Perhaps if marijuana laws are to be liberalized it is the provinces who once again need to move ahead of the federal government.

Maybe that movement will begin in Nova Scotia.

Morality and environmentalism

The National Post is reporting a study from the University of Toronto that shows that people who purchase ‘green products’ are more likely to behave unethically, even stealing, if given the opportunity:

"While mere exposure can activate concepts related to social responsibility and ethical conduct and induce corresponding behaviours, purchasing green products may produce the counterintuitive effect of licensing asocial and unethical behaviours by establishing moral credentials," the researchers write.

In other words, the moral halo people feel after purchasing green products might lead them to develop a holier-than-thou attitude, whether conscious or not, that could ultimately manifest in immoral acts.

This reminds me of people that exercise but eat junk food. They feel like they are being healthy and are able to eat junk because they worked out for 30 minutes a couple of times a week. They are healthy in one aspect so they are justified being unhealthy in another. Similarly a person that feels like they are taking care of their moral character would be less likely to feel obligated to be moral in other aspects of their lives. This doesn’t seem to be refuted by this study’s opponents:

Green living expert Amy Todisco debates the study's findings, saying they seem like just another attack on environmentalism.

"The same argument could be made about Catholics after they've gone to confession or about missionaries doing good deeds - does that somehow licence them to do less altruistic things after they've done something good?" Ms. Todisco said. "I don't think that makes any sense."

Ms. Todisco is missing the point. People do not do good things for the benefit of others; they do good things, at least in part, to feel good about themselves. A person will then only be as good as they need to be to feel good about them self. The people that bought the green product felt good about themselves so they did not feel a need to be honest and good in other ways.

The problem is with the whole scheme of the environmentalist movement. They have turned ‘being green’ into the ultimate moral act of altruism. I am a good person because I am driving a car that has low emissions. Now that I consider myself a good person I do not need to do other good things, or at least I have to do less good things than I otherwise would have.

I’m not sure how conclusive this study should be considered. But it does merit further research and should not be dismissed as ‘another attack on environmentalism.’ It is more a study of human nature and what motivates individuals. Once we have a better grasp of how self interest works, we can come up with better schemes to protect the environment; we can invent schemes that will work with human nature instead of against it.

The race for Mayor of Calgary

The Calgary Herald reported yesterday on how the race for Mayor of Calgary is shaping up. Two things struck me about this race, based on that article. The first is that it seems that everyone and their cousin are running for Mayor. The second is the candidacy of Alnoor Kassam.

Mr. Kassam seems to be the only candidate who is running from the ‘outsider’ position, and in a crowded field such as this one it is the ‘outsiders’ that can be the game changers. He ran for Mayor in the last election, and got in second, but he used his own money to finance the campaign. This time around he is fundraising and looking to pose as a serious candidate for Mayor. It is early days but Mr. Kassam is exactly the sort of candidate that can help shape a campaign. It should be interesting to keep an eye on how it plays out.

With both Calgary and Toronto up for grabs, it looks like this is going to be an exciting year for municipal politics.