Feeds from National PostAwardsCareers Economy Energy Financial Services FP Comment FP Executive FP Magazine Daily FP Trading Desk FP500 Full Comment Legal Post MBA Mining NP Editors Peter Kuitenbrouwer Posted Driving Posted Homes Posted Sports Reports RRSP Centre RSS Rudyard Griffiths Small Business Steve Murray Succession Planning Tax Centre Technology TFSA Centre The Afterword The Scene Tools of the Trade Toronto Trading Desk Wealthy Boomer All Feeds |
Full Comment - Feed
Find the latest news stories from National Post on the topic Full Comment. |
 Full Comment has moved!
|
 John Ivison: The pressure is on Ignatieff to stop Liberal freefall If Michael Ignatieff was wondering why a new poll has the Liberal Party back in St
|
 Gary Clement on the growing oil-spill estimateScientists have started asserting that the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is larger than BP is reporting. Here is Gary Clement's take:  More of Gary Clement's comics and portraits
|
 National Post editorial board: Jean Charest's hypocritical stance on abortion"Abortion is an inalienable right and the consensus expressed in the National Assembly reflects the consensus on this issue in Quebec society." With those words, Quebec Premier Jean Charest ushered in the unanimous passage of a motion by the Quebec legislature supporting "the right of women to free choice and free and accessible abortion," and calling for the federal government to end its "ambiguity" on the issue. At a time when his poll numbers have slipped precipitously, and his government faces allegations of corruption, the Premier is looking for an issue -- any issue -- with which he can paint himself as the defender of Quebec. Abortion has conveniently landed in his lap, thanks to the controversy over the federal Conservatives' maternal health initiative. But Mr. Charest's cynical grandstanding does a grave disservice to the issue at hand. As columnist Tasha Kheiriddin pointed out in a Tuesday column, abortion is a complex matter, involving the balancing of competing, concurrent rights. In 1990, while a federal cabinet minister, Mr. Charest himself voted in favour of legislation which attempted to do just that -- balance the rights to life and bodily integrity of both a pregnant woman and the fetus she is carrying. For him to declare today that there is no discussion to be had on the issue -- and that the attendant bioethics may be reduced to a bumper-sticker slogan -- is nothing short of a disgrace. Politicians are supposed to lead debate, not quash it. We expect this sort of behaviour from the radical pro-choice activists who staff university student councils, but not from purportedly serious provincial legislators. Mr. Charest is also wrong when he says that the debate is settled in Quebec. In an Angus Reid poll conducted in January, 31% of Quebec respondents thought abortion should remain legal but subject to greater restrictions than currently exist; 17% thought abortion should only be permitted in the case of rape or incest, or to save a woman's life; while 3% thought abortion should be outlawed completely. Mr. Charest's stunt is emblematic of the juvenile sloganeering that substitutes for debate about abortion in this country. Shame on the Premier. And shame on those who voted with him. National Post
|
 Stephen Harper on the road to pop stardom
|
 National Post editorial board: Zero tolerance for violent protestOn Tuesday morning, arsonists set off an explosive device at an Ottawa branch of the Royal Bank, and then posted video footage on the website of the Ottawa Independent Media Center. The video also contains the claim, by way of apparent justification for the crime, that RBC sponsored the 2010 Olympics on "stolen indigenous land"; and warns that the same group will be active at the upcoming G20 summit in Toronto and the G8 summit near Huntsville, Ont., where world leaders will "make decisions that will further their policies of exploitation of people and the environment." Two days later, in Toronto, a left-wing umbrella group called the "Toronto Community Mobilization Network" gave a press conference in which a grab bag of activist constituencies - aboriginal, socialist, disabled, feminist, union, environmentalist, gay, Arab, and illegal aliens - explained why they would be "mobilizing" against the G8/G20. To their credit, their message contained no threat of criminal violence. But a visit to the Network's web site yielded a jarring sight: a logo that showed a destroyed CN Tower being used by a mob as a spear to symbolically destroy the G20.
|
 Don Martin: Can this Liberal leader be saved?
With
the Liberal drain spiral swirling inexorably closer to, if not slurping
below, the 25 per cent threshold which separates governments-in-waiting
from fringe party popularity, the difficult question has to be asked:
Can Iggy be saved?
Liberal party leader Michael Ignatieff hosted many deep thinkers to
devise policy this spring, hired experienced players to run his office
last winter and has consulted on issues with everyone from students to
seniors in every corner of the country.
Nothing gels into upticks in personal or party approval, even with the
federal Conservatives giving him unexpected gifts like a reopened
abortion debate, a fired cabinet minister, questionable lobbying by a
former MP and condemnation of paranoid government secrecy from all
sides.
The latest EKOS poll - and keep in mind this is the same pollster the
Conservatives have falsely accused of being a Liberal stooge - shows
34.4 per cent of decided voters pledge their support to the
Conservatives, 25.1 per cent for the Liberals and 15.3 per cent for the
NDP.
If this poll is a Liberal-friendly finding, the party should start
looking over its shoulder with alarm at closing-in NDP numbers in other
polls to come.
But perhaps the strangest strategy is something Ignatieff's
understandably apprehensive MPs are questioning during their last weeks
in their local ridings before the summer recess begins in mid-June. Why
is their leader wandering their political wastelands?
There was a saying in Ralph Klein's Alberta that vote-seeking politicians should hunt where the ducks are.
Ignatieff is either a rank amateur hunter or one with terribly bad aim
because he's looking for support in all the wrong places.
Far from shoring up his existing stable of shaky metropolitan seats,
the man has boldly gone to regions and wooed demographics where Liberal
electoral hope floats only in his vivid imagination.
A leader whose only firm position seemed to be his urge to become Prime
Minister responded to criticism of having a void for policy with a dump
of interesting ideas.
So did he make promises to keep his fracturing base intact? Nope.
Ignatieff strayed as far as possible from the party's traditional
support in the MTV - Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver - triangle by
appealing to rural Canada.
A national food strategy to help the family farm is commendable and his
rural health care initiative welcome, but roaming Saskatchewan to
insist the province has been ignored by Conservatives with a hammerlock
on all but one seat is not a productive use of the leader's time.
Then there was his two-day tour this week of Alberta. This is the most
lopsided anti-Liberal place in the country, with EKOS finding 57 per
cent approval for the Conservatives verses 17 per cent for the
Liberals, a second place finish surpassed by the combined voter support
for the NDP and Greens.
Jean Chretien knew how to handle southern Alberta when he was prime
minister. When I was covering his 2000 campaign, we flew directly over
Calgary and I asked a senior aide if the tour was planning any Cowtown
touchdowns. "What do you see out the window?," he asked me
rhetorically. "There's not a winnable seat for us within 300 kilometres
of this spot. Why would we bother?"
It's hard to argue that strategy. Yet Igantieff waded into Calgary this
week for a private chat with African community leaders and emerged to
vow he would never campaign against the oilsands, which is a big
so-what? to Calgarians and not exactly a vote-getter in Quebec.
Then he appeared to support continuing blocking the Auditor
General from probing MP expenses. "There is accountability that is in
itself a waste of public money. Do you understand what I am saying?,"
he lectured reporters. Um, no. Does that mean the Auditor General would
be wasting money verifying MP expenses? Almost every voter in every
province would disagree.
It would be folly to write off the Liberals in what could still be a year-long wait for the next election.
The Liberal brand has historic staying power and Ignatieff can, when he
steps out of talking-down professor mode, be charmingly charismatic. He
has some solid ideas. He has experienced people behind him. He has a
deep bench of talented MPs.
Michael Ignatieff has everything but public support. So he should start hunting for ducks instead of chasing dreams.
National Postdmartin@canwest.com
|
 Today's ridiculously lame excuses for MPs to avoid an audit
|
 Anti-G20 activists want your help in spreading the hate
|
|
|
 Remember, Britain made fun of the Vancouver Olympics
|
 Tasha Kheiriddin: Regis and Kelly meet the taxpayers of Green Gables
I must confess I don't watch morning television. Mornings are spent either working, chasing my toddler around the house, or a crazy combination of both. But even if I had the time, the appeal of watching lifestyle shows like Live! With Regis and Kelly escapes me. It doesn't escape their more than 3 million viewers, however, who devotedly tune in every day. And it apparently it is very much on the radar of the government of Prince Edward Island, which is shelling out $800,000 in public money to bring the grinning co-hosts live to the land of Anne of Green Gables.
That's right: American cheese meets PEI potatoes, courtesy of the taxpayers' bread. Perhaps this will be featured in the cooking segment of the show? Or maybe this entire exercise is designed to rebut the "hell hole" comments of a certain disgraced blonde ex-cabinet minister? After all, the comely Ms. Ripa is not likely to fling any footwear or curse at PEI airport staff. For the show's total fee of $1 million, (the other $200,000 is being paid for by the federal government, in case you wondered), she'll no doubt be spouting all sorts of compliments about island food and hospitality. You can get a taste of them here.
Now there is absolutely nothing wrong with a television show taking itself on the road, or private sponsors (like the tourist venues who are seeking publicity) paying to bring it on location, but this isn't a justifiable use of public funds. We're talking about a provincial government that is running an $84.2 million deficit in 2009-2010, and projecting future annual deficits of $54 million, $35 million, and $30 million until fiscal 2012-13. This, for a province of 141,000 people, who incidentally are scheduled to get $330 million in equalization this year, or $2,340 per person, the highest per capita payout in the country.
So it's not just PEI paying to bring in Regis and Kelly, it's all of us. Vacation promoters will crow about the boost it will bring to island tourism, and point to the experience of Niagara Falls, which hosted the show several years ago. However, read this article carefully, and you will note that the "boost" there didn't last past a couple of years, and doesn't seem to be attributed solely to the Regis and Kelly show. Apparently another PEI attempt at boosting tourism a couple of years ago, involving Alanis Morrisette, flopped to the tune of $500,000, according to this article.
When will politicians stop the economic development corporate welfare train? Apparently never, as long as they can find ingenious ways of spending other people's money. So be sure to tune in to the PEI infomercial when it airs July 12-15. After all, it's brought to you by... you.National Post
|
 Chris Selley's Full Pundit: Charge of the so-con brigade
What leadership doesn't look likeLike a dried up leaf in an autumn breeze, Michael Ignatieff
arrives at a new policy position.
We don't know if we're pleased to see Mr. Ignatieff bending
on allowing the Auditor-General access to MP expenses, or just saddened to see
a smart guy take another predictably cynical stance, then cynically abandon it
when the polls told him there might be something to gain from adopting a
principled stance, which it's unfortunately impossible to take after you've
adopted the cynical one in the first place. In any event, today's demands for
MPs to open up their books come from Greg Weston in
the Sun Media papers, Barbara Yaffe in
the Vancouver Sun, and the Sun's, Montreal Gazette's and (on page A1 no less) National
Post's editorialists. The Post has a good amount of fun with the latest hilariously
half-assed justification for secrecy from Liberal MP Paul Szabo, who's paying
out like a loose slot machine these days. And both the Post and the Sun invite individual MPs to explain themselves and/or commit to publishing
their expenses.
The Globe
and Mail's Margaret Wente argues
that Canada's legal vacuum on abortion is in fact a good thing, because in the
absence of a law, practical, medical and ethical factors have combined to
implement precisely the sort of restrictions on abortion -- chiefly term
limits -- that many Canadians say they want anyway. Which is a very strong
argument, and a principle we could get behind in many other areas of society ...
if they were on offer, which of course they aren't. This is not a country
that's in the habit of letting people, professionals and markets sort things
out; just the opposite. The legal vacuum on abortion is an incredibly
un-Canadian solution brought about by (very Canadian) political cowardice, and
as such we can't get behind it at all.
That said, Wente's right about another thing: Abortion
rights in Canada simply aren't under significant threat from anything except
perhaps -- though we suspect not -- the legal enshrinement of
obstacles to abortion, such as term limits, that already exist in practice here
and in law in dozens of perfectly enlightened Western nations. Everybody,
please, calm down.
And now, a
fun observation from Norman Spector
on his Globe blog: "I read that Premier Jean Charest has told The
Globe and Mail that 'abortion is an
inalienable right.' That would be the same Jean Charest ... who as an MP voted in
favour of the Mulroney government's abortion law that would have restricted
this supposedly inalienable right."
In the Post, Gerry
Nicholls argues
Marci McDonald has done Stephen Harper a huge favour with her new book, The
Armageddon Factor, which portrays the Prime
Minister as deeply sympathetic to the concerns of social conservatives and the
religious right. He's very much not, in Nicholls' view. But it'll sure help him
if social conservatives and the religious right believe he is!
All signs suggest the government is in for "a very bad week
when the House of Commons reconvenes on Tuesday," the Post's Don Martin reports:
Alberta and Quebec are going to be furious at the feds' push for a national
securities regulator, and "digital entertainment consumers" are going to be
furious at a new, go-tough approach on piracy (which we're sure will be really
easy to enforce).
And the Globe's
editorialists note
that it takes some serious cojones on the part of Public Safety Minister Vic
Toews to refuse to divulge the potential costs of the, ahem, Truth in
Sentencing Act.
Provincial affairsThe Gazette's Don
Macpherson notes
the quick descent of the Bastarache Inquiry -- called by Mr. Charest into
allegations of judgeship-related influence peddling -- into its own
controversies, with the commissioner apparently speaking out of turn and the
chief lawyer resigning over (perfectly legal) donations he'd made to the
Liberals. More fundamentally, as Macpherson puts it, this is "not the inquiry
that most people want" -- that being into the whole shady construction
business as a whole.
In a very interesting piece in the Globe, William Johnson repudiates
the myth that the first Quebec referendum -- 30 years ago today --
was explicitly about sovereignty (as opposed to negotiating for sovereignty) and that it established either the
divisibility of Canada or a 50%-plus-one threshold for dividing it.
Sun Media's Lorrie Goldstein explains
why there's absolutely no way any future government -- Liberal or
Progressive Conservative -- is going to rescind the harmonized sales tax in
Ontario. And the Vancouver Sun's Vaughn Palmer explains
why, thanks to some Byzantine petition and recall procedures of the British
Columbia Legislature that are frankly way over our heads, that province's HST
fight isn't necessarily over.
National Postcselley@nationalpost.com
|
 Adrian MacNair: People drive their cars because it's better than transit
|
 Kelly McParland: Mississauga defers putting a muzzle on Carolyn ParrishCarolyn Parrish served as a Liberal MP for 13 years. She held, according to her biography, "many positions of responsibility." But the enduring image of her -- the one thing everyone remembers -- is that she stomped on a George Bush doll on TV, announced "I have absolutely no loyalty to this team," and got kicked out of caucus as a result. Since departing federal politics she's been in Mississauga, where she sits on the local council and spends her time trying to undermine Mayor Hazel McCallion, the 89-year-old local legend who has been running the Toronto suburb with notable success for 31 years. Parrish has never been a subtle person, and her campaign against McCallion has been about as delicate as a hand grenade. She backed a $2.5 million judicial inquiry into a real estate deal involving the mayor's son, which would benefit her own ambitions if it managed to drop a little mud at the mayor's door. She fired off a memo attacking McCallion as "ungrateful, ungracious and downright rude" for failing to show adequate appreciation for some infrastructure funding sent Mississauga's way. (Yes, Carolyn Parrish calling someone else 'ungracious.' Pit bulls would guffaw.) She accused council of spending "like drunken sailors" under McCallion's tenure. Leaving a Mississauga restaurant last year, she spotted a poster advertising a rally in support of McCallion, tore it from the wall, ripped it to pieces and stomped on it, reprising her famous George Bush act. The strategy, like the tactics, isn't complicated: Get as much attention as possible. Municipal elections don't draw enormous crowds of voters. A candidate with high name-recognition usually has an advantage over unknowns. Parrish evidently hopes that when McCallion eventually retires (she says she has no plans for that and intends to seek re-election later this year), people will forget how she got to be well known and put a mark beside her name. Parrish's campaign of bluster has reached such a point that Mississauga council is considering a measure that might put a crimp in her efforts. Tired of the back-biting, councillors were to vote yesterday on a code of conduct that urges fellow members to act with "decorum" and use "respectful language and behaviour in relation to all of those in attendance." In the end the vote was deferred because, according to Councillor Katie Mahoney, "We're 12 entirely different people with 12 entirely different ways of representing their community." In other words, if Parrish wants to represent her community by regularly making a spectacle of herself, it's her decision. Too bad -- Mississauga had a chance to do something intelligent. Instead they'll get more Carolyn Parrish. National Post
|
 Tom Gross: Noam Chomsky banned = big news. Elton John banned = who cares?
|
 Gordon Brown is a bad boy and doesn't play well with others
|
 The case for a higher GST A GST hike isn't needed to balance the books, but would be a good way to reduce other, more damaging taxes
By Niels Veldhuis and Charles Lammam
W
hen Ed Clark, TD Bank CEO, recently said that nearly all members of
the Canadian Council of Chief Executives (a group composed of 150 of
Canada's top CEOs) want the federal government to hike the GST to
combat the deficit, he earned a quick rebuke from the Conservatives,
who rejected his suggestion and referred to him in an email as the
millionaire economic Czar to the Liberals. This in turn provoked
responses from Liberal heavyweights including both Michael Ignatieff
and former PM Jean Chretien. But while Mr. Clark's call for a GST
hike to balance the budget shows a surprising lack of understanding
about the source of the federal deficit, the idea should not be
dismissed out of hand. For the next several years
Canada will be hamstrung by deficits that will hinder any improvement
in Canada's competitiveness, especially on the tax front. However,
increasing the GST would create the revenue needed to reduce other,
more damaging taxes (i.e. those on income and capital gains) that would
dramatically improve Canada's competitiveness. Before we get into
all that, let's clear up any confusion regarding the source of the
federal deficit. Primarily as a result of the economic downturn,
federal revenues are expected to decrease by $16.5 billion this year
(2009/10). Next year however, revenues are expected to rebound and then
continue to grow at a rather robust average rate of 6.4% until 2014/15.
While it's clear that the economic recession is having a negative
impact on federal revenues, the impact is expected to be very
short-lived. Government spending is another story altogether. In
2009/10, federal spending increased by $33.7-billion, primarily as a
result of the federal government's "temporary" stimulus plan. As the
federal government's own projections show, the ramp-up in spending will
be anything but temporary. Rather than decreasing in 2011/12 as the
stimulus plan comes to an end, spending actually remains constant. More
shocking however, is that from 2011/12 to 2014/15, spending increases
at an average rate of 2.9%. There is simply nothing temporary about the
current stimulus spending.The federal government's unwillingness to
reduce what they originally labelled as "temporary" spending is the
reason we can expect federal deficits amounting to $109 billion over
the next five years (2010/11-2014/15). So, Mr. Clark, the federal government has a spending, not a revenue problem.As
we've argued previously on these pages, the federal government could
realistically balance the budget by 2011/12 with modest spending cuts.
And doing so would not require any tax increases for Canadians.That
said, it will take at least two years to balance the federal budget and
several more before the government has enough fiscal room to
significantly reduce taxes that improve Canada's ability to attract
investment and create jobs. Herein lies the rationale for increasing the GST. Increasing
this consumption tax will provide the revenue to reduce other more
damaging taxes. While all taxes are economically damaging, economic
research is clear that consumption taxes like the GST are among the
least damaging. The key to improving Canada's competitiveness is either
to reduce damaging types of taxes or to change the tax mix to rely less
on damaging taxes. Of particular concern in Canada are our high
marginal personal income tax rates on middle and upper income Canadians
that apply at relatively low levels of income. For instance, Canada
maintains among the highest marginal personal income tax rates on
middle and upper income earners among the G7 countries. Income taxes
have proven to be much more economically damaging than the GST because
they act as a penalty on productive activities such as work effort,
savings, investment, risk-taking and entrepreneurship.Interestingly,
the destructive impact of Canada's graduated personal income tax rates
has been identified by consecutive federal governments, both Liberal
and Conservative. In 2005, then-prime minister Paul Martin's economic
plan, A Plan for Growth and Prosperity, stated, "Lower personal taxes
would also provide greater rewards and incentives for middle- and
high-income Canadians to work, save and invest." In fact, current
Liberal finance critic John McCallum mused about increasing the GST
back to 7% to pay for income tax cuts back in 2007.Prime Minister
Stephen Harper's economic plan, Advantage Canada, also stresses that,
"Canada's tax burden on highly skilled workers is too high relative to
other countries ... Canada needs lower personal income tax rates to
encourage more Canadians to realize their full potential." By
increasing the GST from 5% to 7%, the federal government would have
approximately $12-billion in revenue to reduce income taxes. With that
$12 billion, the federal government could eliminate the two top
personal income tax rates (26% and 29%) and increase the threshold of
the 22% income tax rate to $45,000 from $41,472. In addition, the
government could completely eliminate the capital gains tax (and make
good on one of its original election promises). While Mr. Clark's
talk of increasing the GST is definitely the wrong way to balance the
books, it would provide a great opportunity replace more harmful
income-based taxes with consumption taxes and improve Canada's long
term competitiveness.
Financial Post
Niels Veldhuis and Charles Lammam are economists with the Fraser Institute.
Tomorrow: Counterpoint.
Visit the FP Comment blog | Subscribe to feed
|
 The Chopping Block: End corporate subsidies, save billions Cuts can range from labour-sponsored venture funds to the Atlantic Opportunities Agency
By Terence Corcoran
I
s there any economic activity in Canada that doesn't get a handout
from government? Doesn't seem like it. No project is too big or too
small that it cannot be rolled onto the backs of taxpayers. Loblaw, for
example, announced recently that Ottawa would help bail the food giant
out of a Toronto superstore miscalculation. In a 2004 bidding war
against Home Depot and Wal-Mart, Loblaw took control of Maple Leaf
Gardens, the former home of Toronto's NHL franchise. Turning the hockey
palace into a food store proved to be uneconomic, so the company hooked
up with nearby Ryerson University to land a $10-million federal subsidy.On
a still smaller scale, the Diamond Bourse of Canada recently opened in
Toronto as a market for trading some of the $2.8-billion in diamonds
produced in Canada. To help it open, the bourse received a $140,000
government grant. Not a large subsidy, but good evidence that Canadian business has yet to come across an objectionable government handout. There
are hundreds of corporate welfare items in Ottawa, too many to list or
even count. Programs are buried within programs, with grants and loans
vying with tax credits and direct subsidies to relieve Canada's
capitalists of risk and transfer it over to taxpayers. Many of
these could be cut without the least disturbance to Canada's economic
performance. More likely, Canadians would benefit if the distortions
caused by these tax and spending programs were removed from the market.The
Chopping Block, in its quest to trim $20-billion from federal spending
by 2013 and eliminate the federal spending deficit, will identify other
prime cuts in the corporate welfare portfolio over the next few days,
but let's carve off a $1-billion or more worth of annual spending and
tax expenditures just to get the hang of it.On The
Chopping Block:Labour-Sponsored Venture Capital Corporations
($120-million), flow through shares ($100-million), Canadian Film or
Video Production Tax Credit ($200-million), the Film and Video
Production Services Tax Credit ($100), the Atlantic Investment Tax
Credit ($250-million), the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency
($350-million), the Western Economic Diversification (250-million).Cumulative Budget saving to 2013-14: Approximately $6-billion; in 2013-14 fiscal year: $1.35-billion.This
is, admittedly, a hodge-podge of tax credits and actual cash-dispensing
operations, but they're all part of the federal government's vast array
of political handouts that take money from once set of taxpayers and
give it to others. The last two items (the Atlantic and
Western development agencies), are straight money-out-the-door schemes
that give MPs and cabinet ministers a reason to visit ridings and
deliver cheques while posing for local media photo opportunities.
Another such agency, the Southern Ontario Development Agency, was
recommended for The Chopping Block earlier in our series. Sometimes
described as regional development vehicles, they have also long been
recognized among economists as sources of economic distortion and
dependency. There is no end to the demand for subsidy, and no
end to the rationale for more from Canada's regional development
specialists. The Atlantic agency, for example, is very effective in
simultaneously claiming great achievement while warning that
"significant challenges remain." In any economy, no matter how
successful, there will always be significant challenges. Subsidies do
not fix challenges, they entrench them at taxpayer expense.The
Labour Sponsored Venture Capital Corp. funds receive investment money
from Canadians who receive a tax credit from Ottawa. Numerous studies
have shown the LSVCC create problems in the venture capital industry
and for investors. As the C.D. Howe noted in its shadow budget plan
last week, the fact that these LSVCC's "would likely not survive in the
absence of the tax credits is evidence that these resources are likely
not routed to their best uses."The same could be said for just
about everything government does to stimulate and artificially shape
the economy. The federal flow-through share program, which benefits
resource companies, is vigorously defended by industry. As are the
various government incentives to "cultural" industries, especially the
film and video makers who are notoriously aggressive in defending their
vital contribution to Canadian culture. Such tax credits may make film
makers richer by $350-million a year, but how much greater is their
value to Canada than the work of, say, newspaper columnists.One
big cultural item is the $1-billion annual CBC subsidy, a popular
target among The Chopping Block's contributors. To get at least some
of that off Ottawa's annual spending, Andrew Coyne has recommended
collecting $500-million or half the subsidy directly from television
viewers. A good idea in some ways, but essentially a tax increase on TV
viewers. Increasing taxes to cut the CBC portion of the deficit would
not be a first choice. There are plenty of other options around.Tomorrow:
One of the biggest tax expenditure categories in Ottawa's repertoire,
and one most vigorously defended by business, is the Scientific
Research and Experimental Development Investment Tax Credit. The
department of finance estimated its total value in 2009 at
$3.3-billion. What can The Chopping Block do?The Chopping Block
series on how Ottawa can cut spending to eliminate the deficit will
appear periodically in coming weeks. With reader help, we will hunt
down and propose elimination of at least $20-billion in existing
structural spending by 2014. Send your suggestions to
fpletters@nationalpost.com. Make sure to put The Chopping Block in the
subject box. Anonymity assured if requested.
For more from this author, visit the FP Comment blog | Subscribe to feed
|
 Gary Clement on the Pope and airport body scannersOn Sunday the Pope said that full body scanners in airports strip people of "human dignity." Gary Clement's take:
|
 Matt Gurney: I'm skipping the space dustOne of the greatest challenges of being a parent is figuring out what and how to teach your child about religion. In a week-long series of commentary articles, National Post contributors assess how today's moms and dads are faring with educating their little ones about faith. Today Matt Gurney explains why he's going with God when his children ask about death.When first told of this upcoming series, my initial reaction was to pass. I didn't have the slightest idea how to approach such a weighty, important topic. The closest I've come to raising a child is having a pet dog. But later I began to consider that while I may not have any experience raising children myself, I do have one frame of reference that can be useful, and it's one we all share. I was a child once, and can still recall some of my earliest musings about the Big Questions. Born to non-religious but nominally Christian parents, I was baptized as an infant and received very mild, simple explanations for the universe's great mysteries. Where did all this come from? God made it. Who is God? God is a very powerful, very good being. He's always nice, always kind and very smart. Who made God? God was always there. Perhaps I simply lacked intellectual vigour when I was three years old, but those answers sufficed for me and I didn't feel any urge to pursue them further. I was too busy being a kid. I imagine that there are millions of Canadians out there with a similar story. Had my parents chosen to answer my questions by avoiding any mention of God, I don't know if it would have mattered. To a three-year-old child, there isn't necessarily a lot of difference between the Earth existing because God willed it or because space dust spent billions of years accumulating into ever-greater clumps. The Big Bang, solar fusion and the gradual evolution of life, a process that somehow brought us from amoebas to short-track speed skating, is so abstract and complex that you might as well just go with God. Only those determined to raise their child in an overtly atheist environment need put in the extra effort. Yet many seem willing to do so. Statistics show the number of Canadians declaring themselves to be atheist or claiming no religious affiliation is climbing steadily, disproportionately so amongst those of child-bearing years (perhaps as many as 30% of that group). Based on these numbers, it stands to reason that more and more parents will choose to go the space dust route and leave God out of it altogether. That can work for many of the Big Questions. But sooner or later, a child has to confront the bleak truth of mortality. For me, this happened when my grandparents' dog died before my third birthday. I was told that the dog had gone to heaven but still loved me. While sad, what I recall most was my conviction that heaven was not some metaphysical realm of peace and eternal reward, but a fairly unremarkable brick-and-glass office building where all the dogs and people that died went... and stayed. Beyond grasping that heaven was not a place I could visit, or that the dog couldn't leave for the afternoon, it didn't occur to me that going to heaven was in any appreciable way different from when daddy went to work or when mommy went to the store. That probably made it easier; death seemed part of an already established, familiar routine. I cannot begin to imagine how you can explain to a child that someone they loved reached the end of their biological life and no longer exists in any form beyond compost. I sincerely hope that when I have children, I'll be able to postpone such conversations as long as possible and that my kids will lead lives blessedly ignorant of how fragile life can be. But for a parent, explaining where the Earth came from is probably a lot simpler than telling a child why a pet, a grandparent or even a parent or sibling isn't there and never will be again. My kids won't be raised in a deeply religious home and will be free to search for their own answers, receiving only what help they ask for along the way. But should my luck run out and tragedy strike my loved ones, I can already say that I'll skip the space dust. I'm going with God. National Postmgurney@nationalpost.com
|
 Rob Nicholson: An important step toward a safer CanadaCanadians lose faith in the criminal justice system when they feel that the punishment does not fit the crime. They have told us they want criminals -- particularly violent offenders or those involved in gangs and organized crime -- to serve a sentence that is proportionate to the severity of their crimes. I am pleased to write that we have met those expectations in the Truth in Sentencing Act, which came into force Monday, Feb. 22. This piece of legislation strictly limits the amount of credit granted for time served in custody prior to sentencing, thereby ensuring offenders will serve sentences that are more appropriate. In the past, courts often applied a credit of two-to-one for time served in pre-trial custody when sentencing criminals. In some circumstances, certain offenders even received three-for-one credit. This awarding of extra credit lead not only to the perception that sentences were too lenient -- it also lead to the reality that, all too often, criminals were being released back on our streets far too soon. Like the majority of Canadians, our government believed that this situation was unacceptable. So, we acted on it. The Truth in Sentencing Act provides Canadian courts with guidance for the practice of granting "credit for time served." It now limits the amount of credit that criminals receive for their time in pre-sentencing custody to a one-to-one ratio, except in exceptional circumstances. Despite the widespread support from law enforcement, provincial and territorial attorneys general and the Canadian public, this important piece of legislation faced significant hurdles on its way through the minority Parliament. Notwithstanding the unanimous support from all parties in the House of Commons, unelected, unaccountable Liberal Senators took steps to gut the legislation, legitimizing the current practice of awarding double credit for time served. But thanks to the hard work of Conservative Senators and Members of Parliament, provincial attorneys general, especially those from Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, police and victims associations and the overwhelming support of Canadians, this Act has now seen the light of day. The Truth in Sentencing Act is a major step forward in restoring Canadians' confidence that justice is being served, and we won't stop there. As we move forward, our government will continue to listen to Canadians and work with our partners to improve the administration of justice, advance our crime agenda and make our streets and communities safer. National Post The Hon. Rob Nicholson is the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada.
|
 Charles Krauthammer: The U.S. ungovernable? NonsenseIn the latter days of the Carter presidency, it became fashionable to say that the office had become unmanageable and was too big for one man. Some suggested a single, six-year presidential term. The White House counsel suggested abolishing the separation of powers and going to a more system of unitary executive control. America had become ungovernable. Then came Ronald Reagan, and all that chatter disappeared. The tyranny of entitlements? Reagan collaborated with Tip O'Neill, the legendary Democratic House speaker, to establish the Alan Greenspan commission that kept Social Security solvent for a quarter-century. A corrupted system of taxation? Reagan worked with liberal Democrat Bill Bradley to craft a legislative miracle: tax reform that eliminated dozens of loopholes and slashed rates across the board -- and fuelled two decades of economic growth. Later, a highly skilled Democratic president, Bill Clinton, successfully tackled another "intractable" problem: the culture of inter-generational dependency. He collaborated with Newt Gingrich to produce the single most successful social reform of our time, the abolition of welfare as an entitlement. It turned out that the country's problems weren't problems of structure but of leadership. Reagan and Clinton had it. Carter didn't. Under a president with extensive executive experience and an ideological compass in tune with the public, the country was indeed governable. It's 2010 and the first-year agenda of a popular young President has gone down in flames. Barack Obama's two signature initiatives -- cap-and-trade and health-care reform -- lie in ruins. Desperate to explain away this scandalous state of affairs, liberal apologists haul out the old reliable from the Carter years: "America the Ungovernable." So declared Newsweek. "Is America Ungovernable?" coyly asked The New Republic. Guess the answer. The rage at the machine has produced the usual litany of systemic explanations. Special interests are too powerful. The Senate filibuster stymies social progress. A burdensome constitutional order prevents innovation. If only we could be more like China, pines Tom Friedman, waxing poetic about the efficiency of the Chinese authoritarian model, while America flails about under its "two parties ...with their duel-to-the-death paralysis." The better thinkers have developed a sudden disdain for our inherently incremental constitutional system. Yet, what's new about any of these structural impediments? Special interests blocking policy changes? They have been around since the beginning of the republic -- and since the beginning of the republic, strong presidents have rallied the citizenry and overcome them. And then there's the filibuster, the newest liberal b
|
 There is a controversy here at Rights & Democracy -- an organization created by Parliament to encourage and support human rights and the promotion of democratic institutions and practices around the world -- but what about? Endless articles and interviews have stated that the subject of debate is the Middle East or the government's right-wing agenda. This claim is based on appointments to the board of directors, the granting of Rights & Democracy funds to NGOs in the Middle East with a history of one-sided criticism of Israel, and their subsequent repudiation by the board. In fact the real story here is a board doing its duty. We on the board found the problems; we did not create them. The current "crisis" has been produced by a staff misled by its leadership and prone to periodic eruptions. The board is acting to preserve the organization in the face of a torrent of abuse from those who do not know, or simply do not care about, the realities. First some facts, which seem to have eluded critics of the Rights & Democracy board. Every Canadian member of the board was appointed by the current government, including those who are vociferously supporting the late former president, R
|
 Marni Soupcoff: With faith comes fire A growing child goes through clothes faster than Paris Hilton. That's why parents of a growing child usually have a donation-bag of used clothes hanging around in their trunk at all times, and I am no exception. I'm always on the lookout for a drop-box where I can unload my son's latest cast-offs and preferably benefit a good cause. Anything reasonably charity-related will do.
Or it used it to. Lately, I've started taking the extra few minutes of planning and driving it takes to head specifically for the Salvation Army thrift shop located not far from my home. Considering that I am religious in my laziness and incorrigible in my agnosticism, this is a big deal. In the past I often ended up at the Goodwill thrift shop, which is about a block or two closer to me and qualifies in my books as a good enough cause. But the disincentives started to accumulate.
The Goodwill shop has no 24 hour drop slot, so when it's closed, donations pile up outside in disorderly lumps. These lumps attract homeless people -- and others looking for a better deal than even the Goodwill store can offer -- which means that after hours, there are usually several shadowy characters lurking in the drop-off area. Before you accuse me of being biased against the homeless (or the thrifty), I call these folks "shadowy" because that is literally how they appear. The outside of the store is poorly lit. Combine that with the graffiti on the shutters and the place ends up giving off a ghetto-hell vibe that makes it positively uninviting.
On the other hand, the Salvation Army thrift shop, which is just a minute away on the same street, is neat and brightly lit after hours. There's no graffiti, but there is a 24-hour drop slot, which probably explains the absence of junky piles and uninvited junk sifters eyeing you suspiciously.
Well, it's true that these circumstances alone were enough to put me off Goodwill and onto the Salvation army. (One feels vulnerable alone at night with only an overstuffed bag of Superman pyjamas and puny socks for protection.) But there's more to this story. I also started to think that the differences between the stores are no coincidence. They are a reflection of the way the two organizations approach their charitable work: The people at Goodwill are doing their job. The people at the Salvation Army are on a mission. Literally.
The Salvation Army is what political types like to call a "faith-based organization." Normal people would call it a Christian Church. Its explicit mission statement is to "share the love of Jesus Christ, meet human needs and be a transforming influence in the communities of our world." Members are motivated not by a pay cheque or a public service requirement or even a vague sense of helping out, but by a passionate belief that they are doing God's bidding by empowering the poor.
It's no wonder, then, that they're more likely to do the little things that make a big difference. Removing graffiti as soon as it appears. Making sure the drop-off area is clean and well-lit.
This kind of pride in detail is self-perpetuating and infectious. Graffiti artists are less likely to target a place that looks well cared for and bright (which keeps it looking that way). People are less likely to chuck their donations on the sidewalk if the sidewalk is clear of debris and there's an easy alternative available (which keeps the sidewalks clear to begin with).
Whether the Salvation Army is, in all cases, a more effective organization than Goodwill, I am no position to say. What seems obvious, though, is that with a few exceptions, religious charities will always have a decidedly more dedicated and driven workforce simply by virtue of who they are, and that's a recipe for success.
And yet, too often, attempts to exploit this natural advantage to help even more people are met with knee-jerk resistance. In Winnipeg, a non-profit group called Youth for Christ is investing $11-million to build a downtown complex for troubled youth that would be open to all, and the city is kicking in $2.6-million and a land grab to help.
The response?
Complaints. A university of Winnipeg professor named Jim Silver, whose research is urban and inner-city studies, whined that "city council [is] supporting these outsiders who are coming in and think God will solve everything. It's awful. This isn't the right way to meet the needs of kids in the inner city. This is a colonial attitude."
Spare us the drama. Youth For Christ stands a good chance of keeping a large number of kids off the streets and out of juvenile detention. What's the worst that could happen? Some of these kids become religious and go on to effectively help others? God forbid.
National Postmsoupcoff@nationalpost.com
|
 George F. Will: Blinded by scienceScience, many scientists say, has been restored to her rightful throne because progressives have regained power. Progressives, say progressives, emulate the cool detachment of scientific discourse. So hear now the calm, collected voice of a scientist lavishly honored by progressives, Rajendra Pachauri. He is chairman of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which shared the 2007 version of the increasingly weird Nobel Peace Prize. Denouncing persons skeptical about the shrill certitudes of those who say global warming poses an imminent threat to the planet, he says: "They are the same people who deny the link between smoking and cancer. They are people who say that asbestos is as good as talcum powder -- and I hope they put it on their faces every day." Do not judge him as harshly as he speaks of others. Nothing prepared him for the unnerving horror of encountering disagreement. Global warming alarmists, long cosseted by echoing media, manifest an interesting incongruity -- hysteria and name calling accompanying serene assertions about the "settled science" of climate change. Were it settled, we would be spared the hyperbole that amounts to Ring Lardner's "Shut up, he explained." The global warming industry, like Alexander in the famous children's story, is having a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad day. Actually, a bad three months, which began Nov. 19 with the publication of emails indicating attempts by scientists to massage data and suppress dissent in order to strengthen "evidence" of global warming. But there already supposedly was a broad, deep and unassailable consensus. Strange. Next came the failure of The World's Last -- We Really, Really Mean It -- Chance, aka the Copenhagen climate change summit. It was a nullity, and since then things have been getting worse for those trying to stampede the world into a spasm of prophylactic statism. In 2007, before the economic downturn began enforcing seriousness and discouraging grandstanding, seven Western U.S. states (and four Canadian provinces) decided to fix the planet on their own. California's Arnold Schwarzenegger intoned, "We cannot wait for the United States government to get its act together on the environment." The 11 jurisdictions formed what is now called the Western Climate Initiative to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, starting in 2012. Or not. Arizona's Gov. Jan Brewer recently suspended her state's participation in what has not yet begun, and some Utah legislators are reportedly considering a similar action. She worries, sensibly, that it would impose costs on businesses and consumers. She also ordered reconsideration of Arizona's strict vehicle emission rules, modelled on incorrigible California's, lest they raise the cost of new cars. Last week, BP America, ConocoPhillips and Caterpillar, three early members of the 31-member U.S. Climate Action Partnership, said: Oh, never mind. They withdrew from USCAP. It is a coalition of corporations and global warming alarm groups that was formed in 2007 when carbon rationing legislation seemed inevitable and collaboration with the rationers seemed prudent. A spokesman for Conoco said: "We need to spend time addressing the issues that impact our shareholders and consumers." What a concept. Global warming skeptics, too, have erred. They have said there has been no statistically significant warming for 10 years. Phil Jones, former director of Britain's Climatic Research Unit, source of the leaked documents, admits it has been 15 years. Small wonder that support for radical remedial action, sacrificing wealth and freedom to combat warming, is melting faster than the Himalayan glaciers that an IPCC report asserted, without serious scientific support, could disappear by 2035. Jones also says that if during what is called the Medieval Warm Period (circa 800-1300) global temperatures may have been warmer than today's, that would change the debate. Indeed it would. It would complicate the task of indicting contemporary civilization for today's supposedly unprecedented temperatures. Last week, Todd Stern, America's Special Envoy for Climate Change -- yes, there is one; and people wonder where to begin cutting government -- warned that those interested in "undermining action on climate change" will seize on "whatever tidbit they can find." Tidbits like specious science, and the absence of warming? It is tempting to say, only half in jest, that Stern's portfolio violates the First Amendment, which forbids government from undertaking the establishment of religion. A religion is what the faith in catastrophic man-made global warming has become. It is now a tissue of assertions impervious to evidence, assertions which everything, including a historic blizzard, supposedly confirms and nothing, not even the absence of warming, can falsify. Washington Post Writers Group
|
