When the former Soviet Union collapsed, and Russia began making moves to becoming a free-market economy, much of the world let out a sigh of relief. Alas, as the current situation in Georgia illustrates, history did not end with the fall of the Berlin Wall.
As I have been following the news reports on the crisis, one question creeped into my mind – do you play Chess or Poker?
I have attempted to teach my 7 year-old the rudiments of both games. I play both, and not very well, I might add. On occasion, he has beaten me, which really comes as no surprise.
My reason for doing this is not to turn him into Garry Kasparov, or supplement our family income with some online gambling winnings. These games, I contend, teach lessons that extend beyond the play itself. Both are admittedly games of skill and strategy, where the victor is often the one who can outsmart and outmanoever their opponent.
In Chess, players match each other, move for move, until one finds a weakness to exploit, and eventually ‘checkmate’ is declared. In Poker, however, the deal of the cards determines your strategy, as well as the undisclosed deal of your opponents. Unlike chess, the weakness is found not in the position of pieces on a board, but in the look of confidence, or lack thereof, in your opponents eyes.
So what does this have to do with the ongoing crisis in Georgia? Plenty, I would argue.
The Russians are, admittedly, the best chess players in the world. The game is widely popularized there, and most of its world champions from that country. On the other hand, Americans have done similarly with poker. You are as likely to find a group of Americans playing a game of poker as you will a group of Muscovites playing chess in a park. Poker sites inundate the Internet, while poker tournaments are now covered on US television as sport.
If you really take the time to look deeply into international relations, you can see that Russians play geopolitics like a game of Chess, and Americans approach it like a high stakes game of Texas Hold ‘Em. Their current, respective actions in Georgia seem to bear this out.
Russia, sensing a weakness in the opponent’s strategy, moved a pawn into a neighbouring square – in the guise of ‘peacekeepers’. The calculation, of course, is that with pieces tied up on the squares near Afghanistan and Iraq, their opponent cannot move a piece to block, lest they leave their King exposed.
Today, George Bush has announced that he was directing US forces to provide a ‘vigorous and sustained humanitarian effort’ to Georgia – one that involved air and naval forces. This is the equivalent of moving a stack of $100 chips into the centre of the table and declaring “I’ll see your ‘peacekeepers,’ and I’ll raise ya some ‘relief workers’…”
Each side is now playing a game according to rules that suit their demeanour and sensibilities. They are, in effect, playing to both their strengths, and the other's weaknesses.
This means that the future of Georgia, and possibly the broader international community, will hinge on whether the US is better at poker than the Russians are at chess.
Maybe we'd all be better off betting on the ponies...
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
A simple question...
Yesterday, the strangely named Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, took a drubbing. Although they somewhat recovered, they still appear anemic.
Freddie Mac, for example, at one point was trading at US$4.90 - a drop of over two dollars from the previous close.
President Bush categorically stated that neither firm would be nationalized, and that they would remain shareholder companies.
Okay, that's fine, but if a stock is considered risky, and it's decline in a 3 hour period is equal to half it's trading price, how likely is it that it could get beaten down to zero?
More importantly, when the value of debt on the books of these two companies exceeds the entire combined GDP's of Canada, Britain, and Australia, and if their shares are zero, AND the US Government has no intention of taking them over, what happens next?
Sh*t, I'm tempted to waste $100 on Freddie and Fannie stock just to avoid the answer...
Freddie Mac, for example, at one point was trading at US$4.90 - a drop of over two dollars from the previous close.
President Bush categorically stated that neither firm would be nationalized, and that they would remain shareholder companies.
Okay, that's fine, but if a stock is considered risky, and it's decline in a 3 hour period is equal to half it's trading price, how likely is it that it could get beaten down to zero?
More importantly, when the value of debt on the books of these two companies exceeds the entire combined GDP's of Canada, Britain, and Australia, and if their shares are zero, AND the US Government has no intention of taking them over, what happens next?
Sh*t, I'm tempted to waste $100 on Freddie and Fannie stock just to avoid the answer...
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
A Rural Requiem
The rural way of life has always been defined as one of struggle and of sacrifice. Often lacking in the trappings of a cosmopolitan existence, and being at the mercy of the capricious nature of the elements, rural folk have assumed a requisite level of adversity in their quest for survival.
Through it all, through equal measures of ingenuity and industry, successive generations were able to meet, and exceed, the challenges often fatal to their forebearers.
As they became more prosperous, and their survival less tenuous, they could devote more of their energies and intellect to collective pursuits – the building of communities and societies. Indeed, the birth of the United States - and modern concepts of liberty and democracy - owes a great debt to ‘gentlemen farmers’ such as Washington and Jefferson who saw no inconsistency between toil in the fields, and grounding in the liberal arts – Greek, Latin, and Philosophy. Even the very nature of the Common Law that regulates our lives, in the creation of the Magna Charta and the principles of habeas corpus, emanated from the power struggles between the Crown and those who owned the land.
It was at this time when the urban age saw its genesis. The great metropolises of our day were the modest civic outposts of the previous era, just as vulnerable to the vagaries of nature and fate – perhaps more so.
All that urban society needed for its very survival lay beyond its grasp – food to nourish, raw materials to fashion into the products of a new age, and the money to construct the roads, public utilities and other assets that form the very sinew and muscle of the city state.
Rural society produced the food that fed the body, mined and harvested the raw resources that fed the factories, and, being the majority, produced the capital, taxation, and political leadership that fed the civic soul.
It was an equitable exchange, for, in return, rural people were able to obtain the modern implements of the new industrial age to improve their harvests, the education to improve their prospects, and the expanded markets to improve their condition of life.
Therein formed an unwritten social compact – strong cities benefitted the countryside, and that prosperous rural communities were vital to the sustenance of a growing urban populace.
Even in the first half of the twentieth century, when political and economic power shifted to the cities, the compact was honoured and preserved. Many urbanites were either from rural communities, or were the sons and daughters of rural folk. It was through them that the legacy of rural life was kept alive – through stories passed down, or the frequent pilgrimages to visit rural cousins who elected to stay.
These stories and shared experiences of a rural heritage were treasured, for these people did not necessarily forsake their rural homes out of spite or disdain, but in the quest of opportunity and more lucrative prospects.
In the past generation or so, however, something has changed. As time moved on, so, too have the urbanites whose connection to the land and rural life was strongest. Each new successive generation has moved one step further from the land that sustained their ancestors and their communities.
For them, rural Canada is but a part of history, a backdrop to past recollections. If it has any modern relevance, it is only as the scenic interlude that divides cities – gaps of wilderness that separate the outposts of what they deem as ‘civilization.’
It has been an enduring fact of this human condition that hostility and prejudice are borne of ignorance – of peoples and their condition. When indulged, it transforms into an ungrounded anger, leading to an indifference that denigrates and dehumanizes.
The first casualty has been the compact between urban and rural peoples. The partnership that built and sustained one of the world’s truly great nations has been neglected by most, and repudiated by some. The idea that strengthening one another was an achievable end, and a worthy goal, has been replaced by the notion of a ‘zero-sum game’, whereby the project of creating an ‘urban renaissance’ is wholly incompatible with strong, vibrant, and sustainable rural communities. Cooperation and mutual respect have been supplanted by policies that, while never articulating the words, have taken a stance for rural communities to ‘conform or die.’
One should only look to authorities who impose harsh rules on small communities and their economic progress in order to ameliorate conditions caused by neighbouring metropolises who have failed in their ability to regulate their own growth and sprawl in a responsible manner.
More incidious has been what this attitude has metastasized into. It has evolved into an arrogance that places a moral superiority of urban ‘modernism’ over a rural culture perceived as backward and degenerate.
To vocally defend the old compact, and assert one’s inalienable rights and interests as rural citizens is to be mocked and ridiculed as a ‘hick’ or a ‘redneck.’ These tactics are purposeful in the sense that the debate shifts away from the legitimate grievances of the rural people, and rests on whether those people possess the mental acuity to understand either the world, or their true welfare. Without having a single grievance answered, the rural citizen must defend either their intellectual capacities, or the charge that they are not simply embracing the dying relics of a bygone era.
They also belie an attitude that is anathema to the rural ethos. ‘Redneck’ is used as a slur, and yet it pertains to the reddened neck of farm workers, and other labourers, whose skinned was tanned as they performed their toil. While a badge of hard, honest work is held as a badge of ridicule, those who work in towers moving papers, money, and other contracts from one place to another are hailed as modern heroes of industry. While the common man and woman do their duty in anonimity, we celebrate the exploits of those who sing, but cannot write the song, those who pretend to be someone else based on the stories of wordsmiths, and those who receive fame for no other reason that they are willing to be the court jester for the masses.
The distances of time and priorities of thought permeate mass culture, economics, and every human pursuit, and make us alien to one another.
Today, the policies of government and industry that so affect rural life – agriculture, and natural resources – are devised by men and women who, in theory, may never have set foot in a rural community, much less lived there. Their ideas are approved for adoption by politicians who, for the most part, may not have a single rural citizen as a constituent. Many times, these policies are presented by a Minister of Agriculture whose riding lacks farms, or a Minister of Natural Resources whose very own home community possesses none of the attributes that fall within their remit.
The final stroke of indignation, however, rests within the attitudes of those who come to rural communities in the name of openness and fraternity, while seeking to alter and reconstitute the very nature of those towns, villages, and burghs. Rather than educating themselves about the enduring truths and legacies of these special places, they see something that is in need of fixing, or correcting to a standard they have imported from the city – that of an urban community with fewer people.
Like the zealous missionaries of centuries past, who destroyed local customs and wisdom in order to ‘save the heathens,’ many urbanites come to urban communities and, with equal passion, use the power of government and other modes of influence brokering much as Jesuit priests used the Cross and the Holy Book.
In the name of the environment, the economy, and of cultural standards that are continually revised and refined, rural people are told that they are somehow deficient of standards and a morality that befits today’s world. The economic and cultural practices of generations are an abomination to modernity and civilized comportment.
The neglect of rural issues, the breaking of the compact, the indignity that comes from the debasing of one’s intellect, culture, and traditions – all of these have contributed to a quiet discontent that has become less quiet of late.
We are the people of the countryside. We mine and drill for the materials that feed your factories. We grow the food that nourishes your bodies. From rough wilderness, we laid the foundations for your governments, your laws, and your towers of glass and steel.
If you choose to come here to lecture us on the preservation our natural heritage, it is simply because you have squandered your own. While our communities are as old as yours, we may yet still breathe the fresh air, and drink the fresh water from where we live. We are not a land of brownfields, polluted streams, and chemical poisons. Save your own soul before you attempt to save ours.
If you come to correct perceived defects in our philosophy of life, it is because you are woefully ill-informed of its merits and its purpose. If you bemoan what rural communities receive by their own right, it is because you are ignorant of a past where you were dependent and vulnerable upon us, a present where waste and malappropriation exist in your own home, and a future where ‘civilization’ can give you everything but the very thing you need to live.
The trust that assured our mutual survival has been broken. Our compact has been betrayed. Sadly, while your progress has imbued you with a sense of invincibility and inevitability, deep in your heart, you must confess that we are an inseparable part of your past, and without us, there will be no future.
The time has come for us to reconcile our relationship, to come to terms with what divides us, and not simply to assimilate us into a mere image of oneself. It is time to place a true and equitable value to what has, and continues to be contributed. It is time to end the intolerance and indifference in the plight of the countryside, and her people.
The failure to meet this challenge – to assure a place for rural people, their communities, and their way of life in the context of a broader society, and under terms that are respectful and tolerant of our uniqueness – will mark no less than the eventual decline of all we have assumed for our future, its hope, promise and prosperity.
Through it all, through equal measures of ingenuity and industry, successive generations were able to meet, and exceed, the challenges often fatal to their forebearers.
As they became more prosperous, and their survival less tenuous, they could devote more of their energies and intellect to collective pursuits – the building of communities and societies. Indeed, the birth of the United States - and modern concepts of liberty and democracy - owes a great debt to ‘gentlemen farmers’ such as Washington and Jefferson who saw no inconsistency between toil in the fields, and grounding in the liberal arts – Greek, Latin, and Philosophy. Even the very nature of the Common Law that regulates our lives, in the creation of the Magna Charta and the principles of habeas corpus, emanated from the power struggles between the Crown and those who owned the land.
It was at this time when the urban age saw its genesis. The great metropolises of our day were the modest civic outposts of the previous era, just as vulnerable to the vagaries of nature and fate – perhaps more so.
All that urban society needed for its very survival lay beyond its grasp – food to nourish, raw materials to fashion into the products of a new age, and the money to construct the roads, public utilities and other assets that form the very sinew and muscle of the city state.
Rural society produced the food that fed the body, mined and harvested the raw resources that fed the factories, and, being the majority, produced the capital, taxation, and political leadership that fed the civic soul.
It was an equitable exchange, for, in return, rural people were able to obtain the modern implements of the new industrial age to improve their harvests, the education to improve their prospects, and the expanded markets to improve their condition of life.
Therein formed an unwritten social compact – strong cities benefitted the countryside, and that prosperous rural communities were vital to the sustenance of a growing urban populace.
Even in the first half of the twentieth century, when political and economic power shifted to the cities, the compact was honoured and preserved. Many urbanites were either from rural communities, or were the sons and daughters of rural folk. It was through them that the legacy of rural life was kept alive – through stories passed down, or the frequent pilgrimages to visit rural cousins who elected to stay.
These stories and shared experiences of a rural heritage were treasured, for these people did not necessarily forsake their rural homes out of spite or disdain, but in the quest of opportunity and more lucrative prospects.
In the past generation or so, however, something has changed. As time moved on, so, too have the urbanites whose connection to the land and rural life was strongest. Each new successive generation has moved one step further from the land that sustained their ancestors and their communities.
For them, rural Canada is but a part of history, a backdrop to past recollections. If it has any modern relevance, it is only as the scenic interlude that divides cities – gaps of wilderness that separate the outposts of what they deem as ‘civilization.’
It has been an enduring fact of this human condition that hostility and prejudice are borne of ignorance – of peoples and their condition. When indulged, it transforms into an ungrounded anger, leading to an indifference that denigrates and dehumanizes.
The first casualty has been the compact between urban and rural peoples. The partnership that built and sustained one of the world’s truly great nations has been neglected by most, and repudiated by some. The idea that strengthening one another was an achievable end, and a worthy goal, has been replaced by the notion of a ‘zero-sum game’, whereby the project of creating an ‘urban renaissance’ is wholly incompatible with strong, vibrant, and sustainable rural communities. Cooperation and mutual respect have been supplanted by policies that, while never articulating the words, have taken a stance for rural communities to ‘conform or die.’
One should only look to authorities who impose harsh rules on small communities and their economic progress in order to ameliorate conditions caused by neighbouring metropolises who have failed in their ability to regulate their own growth and sprawl in a responsible manner.
More incidious has been what this attitude has metastasized into. It has evolved into an arrogance that places a moral superiority of urban ‘modernism’ over a rural culture perceived as backward and degenerate.
To vocally defend the old compact, and assert one’s inalienable rights and interests as rural citizens is to be mocked and ridiculed as a ‘hick’ or a ‘redneck.’ These tactics are purposeful in the sense that the debate shifts away from the legitimate grievances of the rural people, and rests on whether those people possess the mental acuity to understand either the world, or their true welfare. Without having a single grievance answered, the rural citizen must defend either their intellectual capacities, or the charge that they are not simply embracing the dying relics of a bygone era.
They also belie an attitude that is anathema to the rural ethos. ‘Redneck’ is used as a slur, and yet it pertains to the reddened neck of farm workers, and other labourers, whose skinned was tanned as they performed their toil. While a badge of hard, honest work is held as a badge of ridicule, those who work in towers moving papers, money, and other contracts from one place to another are hailed as modern heroes of industry. While the common man and woman do their duty in anonimity, we celebrate the exploits of those who sing, but cannot write the song, those who pretend to be someone else based on the stories of wordsmiths, and those who receive fame for no other reason that they are willing to be the court jester for the masses.
The distances of time and priorities of thought permeate mass culture, economics, and every human pursuit, and make us alien to one another.
Today, the policies of government and industry that so affect rural life – agriculture, and natural resources – are devised by men and women who, in theory, may never have set foot in a rural community, much less lived there. Their ideas are approved for adoption by politicians who, for the most part, may not have a single rural citizen as a constituent. Many times, these policies are presented by a Minister of Agriculture whose riding lacks farms, or a Minister of Natural Resources whose very own home community possesses none of the attributes that fall within their remit.
The final stroke of indignation, however, rests within the attitudes of those who come to rural communities in the name of openness and fraternity, while seeking to alter and reconstitute the very nature of those towns, villages, and burghs. Rather than educating themselves about the enduring truths and legacies of these special places, they see something that is in need of fixing, or correcting to a standard they have imported from the city – that of an urban community with fewer people.
Like the zealous missionaries of centuries past, who destroyed local customs and wisdom in order to ‘save the heathens,’ many urbanites come to urban communities and, with equal passion, use the power of government and other modes of influence brokering much as Jesuit priests used the Cross and the Holy Book.
In the name of the environment, the economy, and of cultural standards that are continually revised and refined, rural people are told that they are somehow deficient of standards and a morality that befits today’s world. The economic and cultural practices of generations are an abomination to modernity and civilized comportment.
The neglect of rural issues, the breaking of the compact, the indignity that comes from the debasing of one’s intellect, culture, and traditions – all of these have contributed to a quiet discontent that has become less quiet of late.
We are the people of the countryside. We mine and drill for the materials that feed your factories. We grow the food that nourishes your bodies. From rough wilderness, we laid the foundations for your governments, your laws, and your towers of glass and steel.
If you choose to come here to lecture us on the preservation our natural heritage, it is simply because you have squandered your own. While our communities are as old as yours, we may yet still breathe the fresh air, and drink the fresh water from where we live. We are not a land of brownfields, polluted streams, and chemical poisons. Save your own soul before you attempt to save ours.
If you come to correct perceived defects in our philosophy of life, it is because you are woefully ill-informed of its merits and its purpose. If you bemoan what rural communities receive by their own right, it is because you are ignorant of a past where you were dependent and vulnerable upon us, a present where waste and malappropriation exist in your own home, and a future where ‘civilization’ can give you everything but the very thing you need to live.
The trust that assured our mutual survival has been broken. Our compact has been betrayed. Sadly, while your progress has imbued you with a sense of invincibility and inevitability, deep in your heart, you must confess that we are an inseparable part of your past, and without us, there will be no future.
The time has come for us to reconcile our relationship, to come to terms with what divides us, and not simply to assimilate us into a mere image of oneself. It is time to place a true and equitable value to what has, and continues to be contributed. It is time to end the intolerance and indifference in the plight of the countryside, and her people.
The failure to meet this challenge – to assure a place for rural people, their communities, and their way of life in the context of a broader society, and under terms that are respectful and tolerant of our uniqueness – will mark no less than the eventual decline of all we have assumed for our future, its hope, promise and prosperity.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Thoughts on the "Green Shift"
So, Stephane Dion has released what he hopes will be, to borrow a computing term, the 'killer app' that delivers the Liberals back to power in Ottawa.
There are, of course, three approaches I could take:
1. To say "Hey, way to go with the copyright infringement!";
2. Say "What global warming? It's all sunspots, or farting cows"; or,
3. Argue some major concerns about the plan
Since there is a tendency to dumb down rhetoric as it is, I really think I should attempt to follow #3 as closely as my pea-sized brain allows.
The main thrust of the plan seems to be to tax people for the production of CO2, and then offset the tax with cuts to income tax. Sounds reasonable. You punish bad behaviour (pollution) and reward good behaviour (hard work) with one stroke of the pen. Heck, on that level, there's something attractive about it to an old Tory soul like me.
Unfortunately, as Newton discovered in Physics, in politics and economics, every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
The questions are these - Who pollutes? Who pays? What are the unintended consequences? Last, but certainly not least, will it make a difference?
First, who pollutes? Well, cities do. They have all of the factories, manufacturing plants, and over 80 percent of Canada's population. Sure, we rural people 'pollute' as we grow the food that other eat, but according to author Jared Diamond in his book "Collapse", the typical US farmer grows enough to feed 125 people (I am sure the Canadian number is similar). If people are going to divide the 'carbon footprint' of a charter flight that takes rich boomers to deep glaze their torsos in the Dominican Republic among the passengers, I am sure that we can divvy up the carbon that the 'dirty' farmer produces among all those who fill their faces without ever having to drive a tractor or pull a weed.
Unfortunately, while the urban dweller can hop on a bus or subway, the farmer cannot. While the urban dweller's employer - depending on the industry - may have the option of reducing their use of fossil fuel, the farmer does not (although if sweat and tears had some octane content, those who feed us would have enough fuel to be self-sufficient).
So, while the 80 percent of Canadians who live in the world of concrete and glass could do a little 'substitution strategy' to reduce their carbon tax hit, those who live in the rural areas, where incomes are generally lower, and where transportation costs are higher, will not be so lucky.
As with anything in economics, higher production costs will get passed on, and even the burghers of Toronto will end up paying more for their burgers. With oil at nearly $140, they are already.
But I'll get my income tax cut, and that will make up for it, you will say. Well, according to the Liberal "Green Shift" site, my rural family will save about $130 a month in income tax, and a comparable urban family would get about $110 per month extra.
Okay, so the good folks that ragged out Harper about the Child Care Benefit, saying "$100 a month won't cover the cost of a sitter or daycare" now argue that $10 more than that will cover higher fuel prices for your car, higher prices for everything that has to be shipped by a truck, or grown in a field, as well as the very stuff that warms your house prevents you and your family from suffering hypothermia during those wonderful Canadian winters of ours.
Of course, that's if you even file income tax, otherwise you are doubly screwed.
Well, at least we'll get our CO2 emissions under control...But wait, according to the experts, the impact will be negligible...If we fully implemented Kyoto, we would only delay, and not stop, the trend, and it would only be a 5 year stall.
The Green Shift is really nothing more than bad economics and bad policy wrapped up in good intentions, making it all the more worse as it assumes a "holier-than-thou" mantle.
Want an alternative? Well, Statistics Canada says that 55 percent of commuters in Toronto drive to work. Well, how about you leave the Land Rover in the driveway and ride the Red Rocket / GO Train / TTC bus to work every day, and quit expecting others to pick up the tab for your environmentally unsustainable lifestyle. Expand that to every Canadian city with a population over 200,000 and a good public transit infrastructure, and see how quickly the CO2 drops.
That is the only shift that we need. Anything else is a shaft.
There are, of course, three approaches I could take:
1. To say "Hey, way to go with the copyright infringement!";
2. Say "What global warming? It's all sunspots, or farting cows"; or,
3. Argue some major concerns about the plan
Since there is a tendency to dumb down rhetoric as it is, I really think I should attempt to follow #3 as closely as my pea-sized brain allows.
The main thrust of the plan seems to be to tax people for the production of CO2, and then offset the tax with cuts to income tax. Sounds reasonable. You punish bad behaviour (pollution) and reward good behaviour (hard work) with one stroke of the pen. Heck, on that level, there's something attractive about it to an old Tory soul like me.
Unfortunately, as Newton discovered in Physics, in politics and economics, every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
The questions are these - Who pollutes? Who pays? What are the unintended consequences? Last, but certainly not least, will it make a difference?
First, who pollutes? Well, cities do. They have all of the factories, manufacturing plants, and over 80 percent of Canada's population. Sure, we rural people 'pollute' as we grow the food that other eat, but according to author Jared Diamond in his book "Collapse", the typical US farmer grows enough to feed 125 people (I am sure the Canadian number is similar). If people are going to divide the 'carbon footprint' of a charter flight that takes rich boomers to deep glaze their torsos in the Dominican Republic among the passengers, I am sure that we can divvy up the carbon that the 'dirty' farmer produces among all those who fill their faces without ever having to drive a tractor or pull a weed.
Unfortunately, while the urban dweller can hop on a bus or subway, the farmer cannot. While the urban dweller's employer - depending on the industry - may have the option of reducing their use of fossil fuel, the farmer does not (although if sweat and tears had some octane content, those who feed us would have enough fuel to be self-sufficient).
So, while the 80 percent of Canadians who live in the world of concrete and glass could do a little 'substitution strategy' to reduce their carbon tax hit, those who live in the rural areas, where incomes are generally lower, and where transportation costs are higher, will not be so lucky.
As with anything in economics, higher production costs will get passed on, and even the burghers of Toronto will end up paying more for their burgers. With oil at nearly $140, they are already.
But I'll get my income tax cut, and that will make up for it, you will say. Well, according to the Liberal "Green Shift" site, my rural family will save about $130 a month in income tax, and a comparable urban family would get about $110 per month extra.
Okay, so the good folks that ragged out Harper about the Child Care Benefit, saying "$100 a month won't cover the cost of a sitter or daycare" now argue that $10 more than that will cover higher fuel prices for your car, higher prices for everything that has to be shipped by a truck, or grown in a field, as well as the very stuff that warms your house prevents you and your family from suffering hypothermia during those wonderful Canadian winters of ours.
Of course, that's if you even file income tax, otherwise you are doubly screwed.
Well, at least we'll get our CO2 emissions under control...But wait, according to the experts, the impact will be negligible...If we fully implemented Kyoto, we would only delay, and not stop, the trend, and it would only be a 5 year stall.
The Green Shift is really nothing more than bad economics and bad policy wrapped up in good intentions, making it all the more worse as it assumes a "holier-than-thou" mantle.
Want an alternative? Well, Statistics Canada says that 55 percent of commuters in Toronto drive to work. Well, how about you leave the Land Rover in the driveway and ride the Red Rocket / GO Train / TTC bus to work every day, and quit expecting others to pick up the tab for your environmentally unsustainable lifestyle. Expand that to every Canadian city with a population over 200,000 and a good public transit infrastructure, and see how quickly the CO2 drops.
That is the only shift that we need. Anything else is a shaft.
Friday, June 6, 2008
Will someone please deal with that psycho despot Mugabe?
Despite the ‘red meat’ in my comments, I am not a man who readily believes that violence is an answer to anything. This may be due, in part, to years of Sunday School (often taught by my own mother), but it also lends to a degree of pragmatism. Just as Newton’s Third Law of Physics dictates “an equal and opposing reaction” in nature, acts of violence usually result in retaliation.
The tit-for-tat that began in Sarajevo in 1914, egged on by the labyrinth of alliances, produced the ‘War to end all wars.’ The overly punative terms against Germany relating to that conflict sowed the seeds for the next one.
These caveats aside, and bearing in mind the full import of my view, I will say it nonetheless. Somebody should help the opposition in Zimbabwe arm to the teeth and deal with Robert Mugabe’s genocidal regime once and for all.
People are dying of starvation because they do not possess the whellbarrows of worthless currency needed to buy a loaf of bread, where price inflation is running in excess of 200,000 percent. Once the breadbasket of sub-Saharan Africa, exporting food to the world, it now depends upon the charity of the international community.
Anyone who dares speak out against the regime risks torture or death, the methods of which are often reported in gruesome detail. We know that journalists, both Zimbabwean and foreign, risk much in bring details to light. This week, we hear that the US Ambassador, James McKee, along with American and British diplomats, were detained and risked summary execution.
Add to all of this the mass exodus of refugees across the Limpopo River into South Africa, which has caused such a societal strain on that country, that once now sees television footage of gunfights on the streets of Johannesburg reminicent of an old re-run of “Gunsmoke.”
Still more disturbing was the attempt of a Chinese ship attempting to offload weapons for the Zimbabwean regime. The insult to injury, however, are the reports that Chinese soldiers are in that country right now, and are participating in the repression.
And so, I say again, as the regime will not recognize a legitimately transparent democratic process, and because it has engaged in activities worthy of Nazi Germany, and because this behaviour has created a destabilizing influence beyond its borders, and since the Chinese have picked a side, can someone please give massive amounts of firepower and military training to any group of people willing to take back their country from Bob the lunatic?
Overthrowing the regime gives Zimbabweans an opportunity to take back their land and destiny. And as an aside, if Beijing wishes to be taken seriously as a reponsible power on the world stage, they may want to study the lessons learned by the Americans in Vietnam, and the Soviets in Afghanistan - that backstopping immoral regimes will give you no dividend but one of grief.
The tit-for-tat that began in Sarajevo in 1914, egged on by the labyrinth of alliances, produced the ‘War to end all wars.’ The overly punative terms against Germany relating to that conflict sowed the seeds for the next one.
These caveats aside, and bearing in mind the full import of my view, I will say it nonetheless. Somebody should help the opposition in Zimbabwe arm to the teeth and deal with Robert Mugabe’s genocidal regime once and for all.
People are dying of starvation because they do not possess the whellbarrows of worthless currency needed to buy a loaf of bread, where price inflation is running in excess of 200,000 percent. Once the breadbasket of sub-Saharan Africa, exporting food to the world, it now depends upon the charity of the international community.
Anyone who dares speak out against the regime risks torture or death, the methods of which are often reported in gruesome detail. We know that journalists, both Zimbabwean and foreign, risk much in bring details to light. This week, we hear that the US Ambassador, James McKee, along with American and British diplomats, were detained and risked summary execution.
Add to all of this the mass exodus of refugees across the Limpopo River into South Africa, which has caused such a societal strain on that country, that once now sees television footage of gunfights on the streets of Johannesburg reminicent of an old re-run of “Gunsmoke.”
Still more disturbing was the attempt of a Chinese ship attempting to offload weapons for the Zimbabwean regime. The insult to injury, however, are the reports that Chinese soldiers are in that country right now, and are participating in the repression.
And so, I say again, as the regime will not recognize a legitimately transparent democratic process, and because it has engaged in activities worthy of Nazi Germany, and because this behaviour has created a destabilizing influence beyond its borders, and since the Chinese have picked a side, can someone please give massive amounts of firepower and military training to any group of people willing to take back their country from Bob the lunatic?
Overthrowing the regime gives Zimbabweans an opportunity to take back their land and destiny. And as an aside, if Beijing wishes to be taken seriously as a reponsible power on the world stage, they may want to study the lessons learned by the Americans in Vietnam, and the Soviets in Afghanistan - that backstopping immoral regimes will give you no dividend but one of grief.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
You learn something new every day...
According to the BBC website, a privately run aid effort to victims of Cyclone Nargis was shut down by Myanmar/Burma's ruling military junta.
The effort was organized by a person billed as "Burma's most famous comedian", who was subsequently detained.
While I am sure that Burma HAS comedians, how does one become the MOST FAMOUS one? Do they have their own version of Vegas, or the Catskills, or do they have a version of "Last Comic Standing" on Burmese TV?
The only member of my extended family to have ever set foot in that country was my wife's grandfather, as a member of the British Army. Unfortunately, most of his time was spent as a guest in a Japanese POW Camp.
Not too many sh*ts and giggles there...
The effort was organized by a person billed as "Burma's most famous comedian", who was subsequently detained.
While I am sure that Burma HAS comedians, how does one become the MOST FAMOUS one? Do they have their own version of Vegas, or the Catskills, or do they have a version of "Last Comic Standing" on Burmese TV?
The only member of my extended family to have ever set foot in that country was my wife's grandfather, as a member of the British Army. Unfortunately, most of his time was spent as a guest in a Japanese POW Camp.
Not too many sh*ts and giggles there...
Monday, May 26, 2008
Economics 101 from the peanut gallery
We surely live in interesting times, especially when it comes to money. Right now, central bankers, politicians, and business folk alike are nervously awaiting the final shake-out of a situation that began with the sub-prime loan crisis. The banks have been duly rolling out their bad loan information, declaring the requisite write-downs, and causing the vox populi to be turned up to a fever pitch on the anger-meter.
Not to sound blasé, but what’s done is done. As far as the bad debts are concerned, one can’t put the genie back in the toothpaste tube, or squeeze the toothpaste back into the genie lamp.
I have been trying to get my pea-sized brain around all the comings and goings on the economic front, attempting to extract some version of the truth that will keep me from being plunged into a catatonic state. As best as I can decipher, here it is:
Banks lost a crap load of money on bad loans, and will continue to do so, because people’s houses – their biggest asset – are now worth 25 cents on the dollar less than what they paid, and when they try to refinance, the banks will not be generous enough with either the amount, the interest rate, or the other terms;
Oil, food, and metals are high because the US dollar dropped in value, and to get the same ‘value’ you have to jack up the prices. Think about it – you sell crap in US dollars, but the US dollar is worth ten percent less. That means you take ten percent less, right? Wrong, you charge more because 2 billion people in China and India want to trade their bicycles and three-wheeled scooters in for cars, and are prepared to pay what the Yanks won’t;
When the dollar drops, so does the value of stocks bought and sold in US dollars. You might decide, hey, it’s bargain time, but if people are losing their houses, and have to pay double at the pumps, how well are those companies going to do? So, you buy gold, silver, copper, and oil futures, maybe also a bit of wheat and corn for good measure.
As for those who think a recession is not in the cards, think about this:
Every time the price of oil spikes high, we end up in a recession;
Every time the stock market tanks, we end up in a recession;
If ten percent of homeowners are getting relocated to shopping carts, and the rest owe more than their house is worth, nobody’s buying stuff, which means nobody’s selling stuff, which, again, means recession.
What makes this one strange is that in the past, a recession would force prices down due to the drop in demand. Those who still have money begin to cabbage up the old stock, and we gradually get going again – just like pulling over for a pee break. Now, the old stock never gets old – it gets cabbaged up outside the country, and voila, prices don’t come down. It’s called stagflation, and it’s the reason why, despite all of the predictions, Japan did not buy up every corporation on Earth, like every tacky movie and TV show in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s predicted.
The only thing I can think is that we do not fully understand globalization. Controlling money supply, inflation, and all that is based on individual governments being able to control all the variables. Between emerging economic powers and huge hedge funds, policies that worked every other time are as effective as the little Dutch boy sticking his finger in the dyke (or Wile E. Coyote holding the umbrella in order to stop the anvil heading for his head).
Welcome to the future, folks, whatever it ends up as.
Not to sound blasé, but what’s done is done. As far as the bad debts are concerned, one can’t put the genie back in the toothpaste tube, or squeeze the toothpaste back into the genie lamp.
I have been trying to get my pea-sized brain around all the comings and goings on the economic front, attempting to extract some version of the truth that will keep me from being plunged into a catatonic state. As best as I can decipher, here it is:
Banks lost a crap load of money on bad loans, and will continue to do so, because people’s houses – their biggest asset – are now worth 25 cents on the dollar less than what they paid, and when they try to refinance, the banks will not be generous enough with either the amount, the interest rate, or the other terms;
Oil, food, and metals are high because the US dollar dropped in value, and to get the same ‘value’ you have to jack up the prices. Think about it – you sell crap in US dollars, but the US dollar is worth ten percent less. That means you take ten percent less, right? Wrong, you charge more because 2 billion people in China and India want to trade their bicycles and three-wheeled scooters in for cars, and are prepared to pay what the Yanks won’t;
When the dollar drops, so does the value of stocks bought and sold in US dollars. You might decide, hey, it’s bargain time, but if people are losing their houses, and have to pay double at the pumps, how well are those companies going to do? So, you buy gold, silver, copper, and oil futures, maybe also a bit of wheat and corn for good measure.
As for those who think a recession is not in the cards, think about this:
Every time the price of oil spikes high, we end up in a recession;
Every time the stock market tanks, we end up in a recession;
If ten percent of homeowners are getting relocated to shopping carts, and the rest owe more than their house is worth, nobody’s buying stuff, which means nobody’s selling stuff, which, again, means recession.
What makes this one strange is that in the past, a recession would force prices down due to the drop in demand. Those who still have money begin to cabbage up the old stock, and we gradually get going again – just like pulling over for a pee break. Now, the old stock never gets old – it gets cabbaged up outside the country, and voila, prices don’t come down. It’s called stagflation, and it’s the reason why, despite all of the predictions, Japan did not buy up every corporation on Earth, like every tacky movie and TV show in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s predicted.
The only thing I can think is that we do not fully understand globalization. Controlling money supply, inflation, and all that is based on individual governments being able to control all the variables. Between emerging economic powers and huge hedge funds, policies that worked every other time are as effective as the little Dutch boy sticking his finger in the dyke (or Wile E. Coyote holding the umbrella in order to stop the anvil heading for his head).
Welcome to the future, folks, whatever it ends up as.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
No Carbon Tax is better than a bad Carbon tax
Before I begin, I have to confess the major reason why I identify with being a conservative. Most armchair pundits who react to people like us with incredulity and contempt charge that we are obstructionist by nature. Conservatives, they believe, harken back to a golden age before this and that, and in true Luddite fashion, try to stand in the way of progress. The more shrill amongst them accuse our ilk of hating everyone and everything that does not conform to our narrow view of the world.
They win debates by trying to cast the ground rules in their favour – in particular, how questions are framed. They attempt to cast questions in a similar style to the old example of “Do you still beat your wife?” Answer either yes, no or even maybe, and you are an inhuman beast. Worse still, if you reject the question, you are cast as someone who has something to hide.
Obviously, letting your opponents define who you are will not give you a flattering, or accurate portrait, so I must explain why I choose to adhere to such a maligned label.
I am a conservative not because I oppose interventions in the economy, or society. I am a conservative because I oppose interventions in the economy, or society that are ill devised, incompetently implemented, and completely unnecessary. I especially dislike them when they will clearly do the opposite of what they were designed to do. All conservative, despite their individual biases and interpretations, will agree on one thing – doing nothing is better than doing the wrong thing.
Tell that to Stephane Dion, the erstwhile Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition in Ottawa. Monsieur Dion wants a carbon tax on gasoline, which, in his view, will help the environment. Dion’s tax, however, if it ever saw the light of day, would not only fail in its objective, it will do irreparable harm to those who really are not part of the problem.
I live in a rural farming area in eastern Ontario. We, in essence, grow the food that all Canadians consume – and when I say ‘all’ Canadians, I am including those 83 percent who live in urban areas. These are the people who will be the first hit by such a scheme – the proverbial canaries in the coal mine. The Liberal carbon tax will mean higher costs for fuel for farm equipment, for fertilizers, and for transporting produce. Moreover, for those farmers who need to supplement their farm income with a job in a nearby city, it means higher commuting costs.
If such a tax does not push many farmers and rural residents to the financial breaking point, it will guarantee higher prices at the checkout counter on your next grocery run.
Sadly enough, it will not make a lick of difference in our carbon output, or greenhouse gas production, and the clue is located in the number I cited two paragraphs ago.
Urban dwellers make up over 80 percent of the population, and a higher percentage of earned wages and consumer spending. And while math was never my strong suit, that would mean that over 80 percent of the problem lies there.
Some defensive sorts will point out the environmental impact of agriculture, but as that food is being consumed by more than just the farmer and his immediate household, that is a spurious argument. If the pollution of a jet airliner should be divided by the number of its passengers, why not divide the farmer’s amount by the number of people who eat his produce?
But, back to the carbon tax. How many people in large cities, with municipal subways, buses, and other forms of mass transit, still insist on driving the Ford Explorer or Yukon Denali down the expressways?
We should ask the question of what should be more repugnant to those who value green – either in the form of the environment or in hard earned taxpayers’ dollars. Are we offended by government supports paid by all (including urban citizens) to support farmers who feed everyone (including city dwellers), and can only continue to do so by taking good care of the surrounding land and soil – their capital asset. Or should we be offended by those who, given the choice of taking relatively inexpensive and readily available transportation subsidized by all (including rural taxpayers) would rather burn expensive fuel, emit carbon dioxide and other noxious gases for the sake of status and convenience.
Recently, someone remarked to me that Earth Day was the time when people from the land of steel and concrete traveled past chemical factories and toxic brownlands to come out to a land of trees, pure water, and clean air to lecture the locals about environmental stewardship.
Clearly, if this is Mr. Dion’s policy, he will be doing the same, by punishing the converted and allowing the real culprits a free ride.
This conservative believes that no carbon tax is better than a bad one.
They win debates by trying to cast the ground rules in their favour – in particular, how questions are framed. They attempt to cast questions in a similar style to the old example of “Do you still beat your wife?” Answer either yes, no or even maybe, and you are an inhuman beast. Worse still, if you reject the question, you are cast as someone who has something to hide.
Obviously, letting your opponents define who you are will not give you a flattering, or accurate portrait, so I must explain why I choose to adhere to such a maligned label.
I am a conservative not because I oppose interventions in the economy, or society. I am a conservative because I oppose interventions in the economy, or society that are ill devised, incompetently implemented, and completely unnecessary. I especially dislike them when they will clearly do the opposite of what they were designed to do. All conservative, despite their individual biases and interpretations, will agree on one thing – doing nothing is better than doing the wrong thing.
Tell that to Stephane Dion, the erstwhile Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition in Ottawa. Monsieur Dion wants a carbon tax on gasoline, which, in his view, will help the environment. Dion’s tax, however, if it ever saw the light of day, would not only fail in its objective, it will do irreparable harm to those who really are not part of the problem.
I live in a rural farming area in eastern Ontario. We, in essence, grow the food that all Canadians consume – and when I say ‘all’ Canadians, I am including those 83 percent who live in urban areas. These are the people who will be the first hit by such a scheme – the proverbial canaries in the coal mine. The Liberal carbon tax will mean higher costs for fuel for farm equipment, for fertilizers, and for transporting produce. Moreover, for those farmers who need to supplement their farm income with a job in a nearby city, it means higher commuting costs.
If such a tax does not push many farmers and rural residents to the financial breaking point, it will guarantee higher prices at the checkout counter on your next grocery run.
Sadly enough, it will not make a lick of difference in our carbon output, or greenhouse gas production, and the clue is located in the number I cited two paragraphs ago.
Urban dwellers make up over 80 percent of the population, and a higher percentage of earned wages and consumer spending. And while math was never my strong suit, that would mean that over 80 percent of the problem lies there.
Some defensive sorts will point out the environmental impact of agriculture, but as that food is being consumed by more than just the farmer and his immediate household, that is a spurious argument. If the pollution of a jet airliner should be divided by the number of its passengers, why not divide the farmer’s amount by the number of people who eat his produce?
But, back to the carbon tax. How many people in large cities, with municipal subways, buses, and other forms of mass transit, still insist on driving the Ford Explorer or Yukon Denali down the expressways?
We should ask the question of what should be more repugnant to those who value green – either in the form of the environment or in hard earned taxpayers’ dollars. Are we offended by government supports paid by all (including urban citizens) to support farmers who feed everyone (including city dwellers), and can only continue to do so by taking good care of the surrounding land and soil – their capital asset. Or should we be offended by those who, given the choice of taking relatively inexpensive and readily available transportation subsidized by all (including rural taxpayers) would rather burn expensive fuel, emit carbon dioxide and other noxious gases for the sake of status and convenience.
Recently, someone remarked to me that Earth Day was the time when people from the land of steel and concrete traveled past chemical factories and toxic brownlands to come out to a land of trees, pure water, and clean air to lecture the locals about environmental stewardship.
Clearly, if this is Mr. Dion’s policy, he will be doing the same, by punishing the converted and allowing the real culprits a free ride.
This conservative believes that no carbon tax is better than a bad one.
Friday, May 16, 2008
Thoughts on Victoria Day
This weekend, thousands of Canadians will be kicking back for the unofficial start to the summer – the Victoria Day weekend. Usually, though, the manner in which we celebrate a monarch who gave name to an era of modern history consists of cleaning out garages, opening up cottages, painting, primping, gardening, and shoveling doggie-doo, but je digress…
It’s only natural, though. It is the first time since the fall that many of us have had three days to string together to get any outdoor work done. I do feel bad, however, that the significance of the day gets lost.
Normally, I would not be so maudlin about it, except that part of the long weekend will be spent putting the finishing touches on a speech I am giving to a Canada-Commonwealth Trade Forum in Edmonton on the 29th of this month. Although my serious writing focuses on the idea of a Commonwealth free trade agreement, I am taking a more pragmatic approach by speaking on A “Commonwealth Trade Strategy for Canada.”
The Commonwealth, aside from being the successor to the old British Empire, is a voluntary association of approximately 53 nations. Between us, we have one-third of the world’s population, forty percent of the membership of the World Trade Organization, and almost one-quarter of global trade.
There are over 83 organizations within the Commonwealth family, whose activities range from education, to healthcare, to sport, to development. One such group – the Royal Commonwealth Society of Canada – will be my hosts at the event.
Rather than shamelessly promote my book, or the event, I just want to encourage you to go to the Commonwealth Secretariat’s website and see how much they do. I also want you to bear in mind that Canada is the second-largest contributor to its budget, and yet what they give amounts to five cents a year per Canadian.
In a world where globalization has so many panicked about our economic future, it seems odd that for our best insurance policy, we wouldn’t pay more than a nickel a year. Heck, the Timbit that got that woman temporarily sacked from Tim Horton’s cost 16 cents.
Priorities, people, priorities…
It’s only natural, though. It is the first time since the fall that many of us have had three days to string together to get any outdoor work done. I do feel bad, however, that the significance of the day gets lost.
Normally, I would not be so maudlin about it, except that part of the long weekend will be spent putting the finishing touches on a speech I am giving to a Canada-Commonwealth Trade Forum in Edmonton on the 29th of this month. Although my serious writing focuses on the idea of a Commonwealth free trade agreement, I am taking a more pragmatic approach by speaking on A “Commonwealth Trade Strategy for Canada.”
The Commonwealth, aside from being the successor to the old British Empire, is a voluntary association of approximately 53 nations. Between us, we have one-third of the world’s population, forty percent of the membership of the World Trade Organization, and almost one-quarter of global trade.
There are over 83 organizations within the Commonwealth family, whose activities range from education, to healthcare, to sport, to development. One such group – the Royal Commonwealth Society of Canada – will be my hosts at the event.
Rather than shamelessly promote my book, or the event, I just want to encourage you to go to the Commonwealth Secretariat’s website and see how much they do. I also want you to bear in mind that Canada is the second-largest contributor to its budget, and yet what they give amounts to five cents a year per Canadian.
In a world where globalization has so many panicked about our economic future, it seems odd that for our best insurance policy, we wouldn’t pay more than a nickel a year. Heck, the Timbit that got that woman temporarily sacked from Tim Horton’s cost 16 cents.
Priorities, people, priorities…
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Thoughts on the Global Credit Crisis
Recently, I put on my DVD of Monty Python and the Holy Grail. This was primarily at the urging of my son who likes (in no particular order) the wacky opening credits, the monks whacking themselves in the forehead with the boards, and the extra features that include the “Knights of the Round Table” scene performed entirely in Lego.
I thought about the scene in the movie where King Arthur does battle with the Black Knight. In succession, he cuts off an arm, then the other, then a leg, and then the other…You get it. Remarkably enough, each time the Black Knight loses a limb, he continues to goad the King for more battle. “It’s only a scratch,” he proclaims. In the end, the King walks away, with the Black Knight, only left with his head and torso intact, yelling “I’ll bite ya!”
Before you get the idea that I don’t have a point, here goes. I see the equivalent of the Black Knight every time I visit a financial website, or tune into CNBC, BNN (in Canada), or any other financial news network.
The pattern is the same. Some ‘expert’ proclaims that the worst is over with the credit crisis, and that the banks are on a solid footing, then, within a couple of days, some large institution declares a multi-billion dollar writedown. A while back, I had made a friendly bet with someone that within three days of the next “the coast is clear” declaration, somebody would declare a loss. I was wrong. It took four days for the BBC to report that UBS left a steaming pile of bad debt on the front step of investors, and that the bank’s boss, Marcel Ospel, was taking a long vacation. Ospel, of course, had said back in the early part of this year that nothing was wrong. That Black Knight didn’t lose a limb, just his job, but the severance package, I’m certain, would have aided in the healing process.
The other clarion call of the Black Knights is that there is no recession. Okay, the price of food and gas in virtually every jurisdiction on earth has doubled in the past 18 months, house prices in Europe and the US have dropped by about a quarter, foreclosures and repossessions are reaching levels unseen since the dirty ‘30’s, over 70 hedge funds have been rolled up in this time, and banks are holding back credit…but, hey, there’s not going to be a recession.
Look, I studied some economics in university, but I am not an economist. All I know is that if you sustain repeated blows to the head, at some point, you will lose consciousness. If the US and other economies continue to get the crap kicked out of them, at some point, something’s gotta give.
It’s great to be optimistic. Unfortunately, optimism can get detached from reality. Heck, they remind me of ‘Comical Ali’, that guy who did Saddam Hussein’s press conferences, declaring in sight of dropping bombs and advancing US forces that they had the ‘Great Satan’ on the run.
Hey, I’m not a hard man to please. All I need are two things to believe the worst is over. First, I want to go six weeks without some bank announcing a writedown of bad debt. Then I want the LIBOR (London Interbank…never mind, it’s the interest rate that banks charge each other) be roughly the same as the prime rate, and not double it. And that’s another thing…get to know LIBOR. Right now, the amount you pay for a mortgage is closer to LIBOR than prime. Prime is around 3%, LIBOR is closer to 6%, and your mortgage is around 5.75%...See?
I’m not asking for the moon. Just give me these two things and I’ll stop thinking you’re talking points were not scripted by a troupe of British comedians…
I thought about the scene in the movie where King Arthur does battle with the Black Knight. In succession, he cuts off an arm, then the other, then a leg, and then the other…You get it. Remarkably enough, each time the Black Knight loses a limb, he continues to goad the King for more battle. “It’s only a scratch,” he proclaims. In the end, the King walks away, with the Black Knight, only left with his head and torso intact, yelling “I’ll bite ya!”
Before you get the idea that I don’t have a point, here goes. I see the equivalent of the Black Knight every time I visit a financial website, or tune into CNBC, BNN (in Canada), or any other financial news network.
The pattern is the same. Some ‘expert’ proclaims that the worst is over with the credit crisis, and that the banks are on a solid footing, then, within a couple of days, some large institution declares a multi-billion dollar writedown. A while back, I had made a friendly bet with someone that within three days of the next “the coast is clear” declaration, somebody would declare a loss. I was wrong. It took four days for the BBC to report that UBS left a steaming pile of bad debt on the front step of investors, and that the bank’s boss, Marcel Ospel, was taking a long vacation. Ospel, of course, had said back in the early part of this year that nothing was wrong. That Black Knight didn’t lose a limb, just his job, but the severance package, I’m certain, would have aided in the healing process.
The other clarion call of the Black Knights is that there is no recession. Okay, the price of food and gas in virtually every jurisdiction on earth has doubled in the past 18 months, house prices in Europe and the US have dropped by about a quarter, foreclosures and repossessions are reaching levels unseen since the dirty ‘30’s, over 70 hedge funds have been rolled up in this time, and banks are holding back credit…but, hey, there’s not going to be a recession.
Look, I studied some economics in university, but I am not an economist. All I know is that if you sustain repeated blows to the head, at some point, you will lose consciousness. If the US and other economies continue to get the crap kicked out of them, at some point, something’s gotta give.
It’s great to be optimistic. Unfortunately, optimism can get detached from reality. Heck, they remind me of ‘Comical Ali’, that guy who did Saddam Hussein’s press conferences, declaring in sight of dropping bombs and advancing US forces that they had the ‘Great Satan’ on the run.
Hey, I’m not a hard man to please. All I need are two things to believe the worst is over. First, I want to go six weeks without some bank announcing a writedown of bad debt. Then I want the LIBOR (London Interbank…never mind, it’s the interest rate that banks charge each other) be roughly the same as the prime rate, and not double it. And that’s another thing…get to know LIBOR. Right now, the amount you pay for a mortgage is closer to LIBOR than prime. Prime is around 3%, LIBOR is closer to 6%, and your mortgage is around 5.75%...See?
I’m not asking for the moon. Just give me these two things and I’ll stop thinking you’re talking points were not scripted by a troupe of British comedians…
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
A (Re-) Inaugural Rant
It has been a while since I last wrote in this blog, which just goes to show you that for a diarist, persistence trumps prose. That, of course, is an unfortunate truth of today’s world – the world where quantity overwhelms quality.
Maybe it is a function of a mass consumer society where we feel the need to buy in bulk and ‘super size’ everything. That, of course, lays the blame on capitalism, instead of the stupidity and avarice of individuals, where it really belongs.
I remember my own situation on 9/11. When the news of the first plane crashing came through, there was the obvious background chatter and armchair theorizing. A former co-worker declared that it was the beginning of the biblical ‘end of days’, while I thought it might have been some wonky pilot error, similar to what happened over 50 years ago when that US bomber flew into the Empire State Building. Once the second plane hit, I knew I had to revisit my view, but this person carried on with theirs, and still does, for all I know. The fact that this person made liberal use of contempt and arrogance in their dealings with co-workers (including yours truly) made it all the more laughable. Oh, well, they are probably displaying the same winning personality in their new locale.
My point is that many people shovel pseudo-intellectual garbage into them like Augustus Gloop binging at the Wonka factory, and don’t seem to mind the brain rot that comes from a steady intake of high-carb conspiracy theories.
Right now, there is a lot of talk of a severe economic downturn, with people clearly exorcised about their future. Hey, so am I. Unfortunately, there will be a number of people who will read whatever motivations or biases they hold into the unfolding situation, than give a self-satisfied “aha!” Mind you, if some entertainment program or website should throw up the latest exploits of Paris, Britney, or Brangelina, a good number of sheeple should be thrown off track.
Look, I don’t see some hellfire and brimstone end time emergency replete with Hollywood special effects. I do, however, see smug people doing stupid things – obvious things.
Before I go any further, I should offer my own qualifier, and state that I am just as prone to bouts of stupidity as the next person. We all are. But like the alcoholic who has to take things ‘one day at a time,’ we can choose to remain intellectually sober, or fall of the wagon (or turnip truck), and celebrate idiocy. I struggle with my own stupid tendencies every day (and it can be a struggle, believe me…). The point is that some of us actually struggle, rather than immerse ourselves in stupidity.
If I have any wish for the world, it would be to pick up a frigging book once in a while – and not a romance novel, or skin magazine. If you Google a topic, don’t pick the first link, but look for one from a place that gives fancy degrees, or from someone who earned said pieces of paper written in Latin. And remember – the definition of a smart person is someone who realizes just how little of the world he or she actually understands.
So, before the spectre of sub-prime mortgages, food riots, gas prices, and erectile dysfunction cause you to flee to the hinterland and start living ‘la vida post-apocalypto’, relax, brew a pot of tea, sit down in a comfy chair, and read something without pictures or comedic punchlines.
It’s a little like a bran muffin. Might not taste so good, but it’ll leave you clean and regular.
Maybe it is a function of a mass consumer society where we feel the need to buy in bulk and ‘super size’ everything. That, of course, lays the blame on capitalism, instead of the stupidity and avarice of individuals, where it really belongs.
I remember my own situation on 9/11. When the news of the first plane crashing came through, there was the obvious background chatter and armchair theorizing. A former co-worker declared that it was the beginning of the biblical ‘end of days’, while I thought it might have been some wonky pilot error, similar to what happened over 50 years ago when that US bomber flew into the Empire State Building. Once the second plane hit, I knew I had to revisit my view, but this person carried on with theirs, and still does, for all I know. The fact that this person made liberal use of contempt and arrogance in their dealings with co-workers (including yours truly) made it all the more laughable. Oh, well, they are probably displaying the same winning personality in their new locale.
My point is that many people shovel pseudo-intellectual garbage into them like Augustus Gloop binging at the Wonka factory, and don’t seem to mind the brain rot that comes from a steady intake of high-carb conspiracy theories.
Right now, there is a lot of talk of a severe economic downturn, with people clearly exorcised about their future. Hey, so am I. Unfortunately, there will be a number of people who will read whatever motivations or biases they hold into the unfolding situation, than give a self-satisfied “aha!” Mind you, if some entertainment program or website should throw up the latest exploits of Paris, Britney, or Brangelina, a good number of sheeple should be thrown off track.
Look, I don’t see some hellfire and brimstone end time emergency replete with Hollywood special effects. I do, however, see smug people doing stupid things – obvious things.
Before I go any further, I should offer my own qualifier, and state that I am just as prone to bouts of stupidity as the next person. We all are. But like the alcoholic who has to take things ‘one day at a time,’ we can choose to remain intellectually sober, or fall of the wagon (or turnip truck), and celebrate idiocy. I struggle with my own stupid tendencies every day (and it can be a struggle, believe me…). The point is that some of us actually struggle, rather than immerse ourselves in stupidity.
If I have any wish for the world, it would be to pick up a frigging book once in a while – and not a romance novel, or skin magazine. If you Google a topic, don’t pick the first link, but look for one from a place that gives fancy degrees, or from someone who earned said pieces of paper written in Latin. And remember – the definition of a smart person is someone who realizes just how little of the world he or she actually understands.
So, before the spectre of sub-prime mortgages, food riots, gas prices, and erectile dysfunction cause you to flee to the hinterland and start living ‘la vida post-apocalypto’, relax, brew a pot of tea, sit down in a comfy chair, and read something without pictures or comedic punchlines.
It’s a little like a bran muffin. Might not taste so good, but it’ll leave you clean and regular.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
You win some...
A week ago, Randy Hillier was nominated as the Ontario PC Candidate in my riding. Alas, this meant that I was not.
Needless to say, a party is bigger than any one individual, and I wish Randy well in October.
For those of you who were not present at the Perth, Ontario Arena on May 5th, here was my speech to the crowd:
"Ladies and gentlemen, Progressive Conservatives all:
I would like to begin by adding my own welcome to you here today. The first step in any change comes when people are ready to stand up for their beliefs, and make their voices heard. You have already done that by your presence here today.
Nomination speeches are as difficult to write as they are to give. In the space of a few scant minutes, you are required to say who you are, what you’ve done, and what you intend to do in the future. It is impossible to do justice to all that, so I won’t even try.
Like Mr. Brennan, I have worked alongside an MPP, and have first-hand knowledge of how Queen’s Park operates. In the time I worked for Harry Danford, who represented Hastings-Peterborough from 1995 to 1999, we worked on the Harris government’s Right to Farm Legislation, and Mr. Danford’s own bill recognizing United Empire Loyalist Day in Ontario. I am as proud of those accomplishments as Jay is of his work with Norm Sterling.
Like Mr. Hillier, I have been passionate about what I believe in, and have spoken far and wide in its defence. Seven years ago, I mounted a successful campaign in the Kingston Whig-Standard that stopped a move that would have deprived a local man of the right to use his own land to earn a living.
Our backgrounds are a matter of public record, and you have had time to know more about us than you might have wanted otherwise.I want to talk about the choice you have today, and why it matters.
The idea came from a conversation I had with someone here. When talking about this process, they had called it a ‘leadership race’, not a nomination. They also talked about electing a ‘leader’, not a candidate.
Some of you might think their comments to be confused – but I don’t. This meeting is about leadership. It is about electing someone who will lead our campaign in this riding – someone who will show leadership in the community for years to come. But it is also about the leadership you must show in the choice of candidate you make.
What does leadership mean? Do we know it when we see it?
Leadership exists in that rare connection between heart and head, where ideas are nurtured, and the will to see them through is sustained.
Leadership is about realizing that we are free to create our future, and possessing a vision of what that future can be.Leaders are prepared to stand up and offer that vision, while followers content themselves with playing it safe – in going along to get along.
Leaders do not content themselves with simply following the well worn path. Leaders do not accept that we cannot aspire to something better for ourselves, our families, and our communities.
Leadership is not about individuals, either. It is not about self-promotion or seeking of status – that is nothing more than selfish vanity. Leadership is about service to others, and not to oneself. It is about service to an idea, not to one’s ambition. It can only be measured by its raising of the common good, and not of one person’s ego.
Its legacy can be found in the improved lives and broadened opportunities of many, not in the raising of prideful monuments to the few.
Fellow Progressive Conservatives, I am here because there is a need to show leadership both here and in Queen’s Park. I am on this stage because I sincerely believe that I can provide it.
The challenges we face here, and across rural Ontario, are significant. I am under no illusions. I also believe that people are not well served when their choice is between not rocking the boat, and rocking it so violently it capsizes and sinks to the bottom.
To be part of rural Ontario is to be part of a minority – in Queen’s Park, among the public service, and in the general population. When you are in the minority, you are challenged to be more eloquent, more determined, more focused.
To sit as a rural MPP is to work with individuals who know nothing of your community, your history, your way of life, and who hold more votes – and more power – than those who understand your concerns.
You must deal with people who are prepared to spend five dollars on a cup of coffee to ensure a living wage for coffee growers on another continent, but are unwilling to recognize the financial hardship of the dairy farmer only an hour down the 401.
You can, as many have in the past, choose to go with the flow – never question, never criticize, but simply follow a well worn path until your time in the public spotlight is over. Your legacy, however, will be one of missed opportunities, and a future less promising and less secure than when you first took office.
You can also choose the path of confrontation. You can decide to fight without focus, to demand without a plan, to be aggressive without allies.
This path, too, has been tried, with many who have found themselves marginalized in the corridors of power, untrustworthy of influence and responsibility, only to languish embittered on the backbenches.
And through the combination of personal obstinance and pridefulness when it meets an equally stubborn reaction to frequent attacks, the people of a community are left with no champion, and no hope for an end to the long darkness in rural Ontario.
The reason I am in this race is because I believe in this party and this community, and I believe that our interests are worthy enough that they need to be explained and defended among those who have no knowledge or appreciation of who we are and what we represent.
Somewhere between these extremes there should be a place where people resolve to put their interests before themselves.
This may mean finding friends and allies who will help us in our challenge to sustain our farms, our schools, our hospitals and clinics, and our local governments. Sometimes, when friends and allies are few, it may mean raising one’s voice, not in hostility, but in a dogged determination.
Reasonable people can agree to disagree, and work toward compromise, but compromise should never include the future of our communities and a way of life. Knowing when to walk away from the table is as important as the negotiation itself.
On my website, in my campaign materials, and in conversations with many of you, I have made suggestions on how we can make a difference – in education, in crop insurance, in healthcare, municipal infrastructure, the local economy, and the environment.
How can we demonstrate to the people of this riding that we are fit to lead if we will not even talk about policy – the very ideas by which parties rise and fall?
My stance on issues is not a secret. I support reforms to crop insurance, and support the supply management system farmers depend upon. I want to see Highways #38 and #41 returned to provincial responsibility, as well as a plan to extend the 4-laning of #7 to Perth. I want to ensure legal protections for landowners. I want to see a commitment to our local economy, including a strategy to keeping the Hershey plant in Smiths Falls open – either by that company or by another operator. I want an investment in rural schools, including high-speed internet, so our kids have a chance to compete with those in downtown Toronto. I want a commitment to supporting more family medical practices in rural areas, offering free tuition to medical students willing to commit to a community, and by speeding up the accreditation of foreign-trained doctors to practice medicine in Ontario.
Again, when I speak of leadership, I speak of the ingrained knowledge and maturity that makes one able to navigate unchartered waters with a deft hand at the tiller. That is the leadership that a candidate must possess.
There is, however, another kind of leadership – just as important to our shared future. That is the leadership that each and every one of you must to exercise here today. You have come here either in support of one person, or as people who proudly support this party.
Regardless of what brought you here, you are here now. You have a vote, and in the privacy of a secret ballot, you will choose a candidate – potentially our next MPP.
Whatever you may have thought of your responsibility going into this meeting, I respectfully submit to you what it really is.
Your responsibility is to vote for the future of this riding and its people. Just as an MPP votes on behalf of their constituents, you are voting on behalf of not just yourself, but on behalf of every person who calls Lanark-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington home.
Regardless of who you choose, you need not justify that decision to the three people on your ballot. In fact, we are the last people you need justify your decision to.
But you must justify it to your family. You must justify it to the people you meet at church, or in your local grocery store. You must justify it to the people you meet at the gas station or the coffee shop. You must justify it to the people you meet when you attend meetings and fundraisers. You must justify it to your children and grandchildren, full of hope for their future.
Most of all, you must be able to look at yourself in the mirror and justify your decision to the person looking back at you.
In the end, leadership means sacrifice. It means sacrificing petty arguments and consuming anger in order to build a better life, and a stronger community.
This party has always done what is right for Ontario when we have placed our duty above our emotion, when we have aspired to something more. But we can only be as good as the choice you make.
I don’t confess to have all the answers, but I’m not afraid to offer some possibilities, and listen to the ideas of others. And I won’t promise that I will win every battle, but that won’t stop me from fighting them wisely and effectively.
All any of us can do is our best. For the three of us, that ends, for the moment, right now. For all of you, it begins.
Leaders, at their best, are always equal to the challenge they face. For the good of this riding, and of this party, I ask you to rise to the challenge now.
Good luck in your decision."
Needless to say, a party is bigger than any one individual, and I wish Randy well in October.
For those of you who were not present at the Perth, Ontario Arena on May 5th, here was my speech to the crowd:
"Ladies and gentlemen, Progressive Conservatives all:
I would like to begin by adding my own welcome to you here today. The first step in any change comes when people are ready to stand up for their beliefs, and make their voices heard. You have already done that by your presence here today.
Nomination speeches are as difficult to write as they are to give. In the space of a few scant minutes, you are required to say who you are, what you’ve done, and what you intend to do in the future. It is impossible to do justice to all that, so I won’t even try.
Like Mr. Brennan, I have worked alongside an MPP, and have first-hand knowledge of how Queen’s Park operates. In the time I worked for Harry Danford, who represented Hastings-Peterborough from 1995 to 1999, we worked on the Harris government’s Right to Farm Legislation, and Mr. Danford’s own bill recognizing United Empire Loyalist Day in Ontario. I am as proud of those accomplishments as Jay is of his work with Norm Sterling.
Like Mr. Hillier, I have been passionate about what I believe in, and have spoken far and wide in its defence. Seven years ago, I mounted a successful campaign in the Kingston Whig-Standard that stopped a move that would have deprived a local man of the right to use his own land to earn a living.
Our backgrounds are a matter of public record, and you have had time to know more about us than you might have wanted otherwise.I want to talk about the choice you have today, and why it matters.
The idea came from a conversation I had with someone here. When talking about this process, they had called it a ‘leadership race’, not a nomination. They also talked about electing a ‘leader’, not a candidate.
Some of you might think their comments to be confused – but I don’t. This meeting is about leadership. It is about electing someone who will lead our campaign in this riding – someone who will show leadership in the community for years to come. But it is also about the leadership you must show in the choice of candidate you make.
What does leadership mean? Do we know it when we see it?
Leadership exists in that rare connection between heart and head, where ideas are nurtured, and the will to see them through is sustained.
Leadership is about realizing that we are free to create our future, and possessing a vision of what that future can be.Leaders are prepared to stand up and offer that vision, while followers content themselves with playing it safe – in going along to get along.
Leaders do not content themselves with simply following the well worn path. Leaders do not accept that we cannot aspire to something better for ourselves, our families, and our communities.
Leadership is not about individuals, either. It is not about self-promotion or seeking of status – that is nothing more than selfish vanity. Leadership is about service to others, and not to oneself. It is about service to an idea, not to one’s ambition. It can only be measured by its raising of the common good, and not of one person’s ego.
Its legacy can be found in the improved lives and broadened opportunities of many, not in the raising of prideful monuments to the few.
Fellow Progressive Conservatives, I am here because there is a need to show leadership both here and in Queen’s Park. I am on this stage because I sincerely believe that I can provide it.
The challenges we face here, and across rural Ontario, are significant. I am under no illusions. I also believe that people are not well served when their choice is between not rocking the boat, and rocking it so violently it capsizes and sinks to the bottom.
To be part of rural Ontario is to be part of a minority – in Queen’s Park, among the public service, and in the general population. When you are in the minority, you are challenged to be more eloquent, more determined, more focused.
To sit as a rural MPP is to work with individuals who know nothing of your community, your history, your way of life, and who hold more votes – and more power – than those who understand your concerns.
You must deal with people who are prepared to spend five dollars on a cup of coffee to ensure a living wage for coffee growers on another continent, but are unwilling to recognize the financial hardship of the dairy farmer only an hour down the 401.
You can, as many have in the past, choose to go with the flow – never question, never criticize, but simply follow a well worn path until your time in the public spotlight is over. Your legacy, however, will be one of missed opportunities, and a future less promising and less secure than when you first took office.
You can also choose the path of confrontation. You can decide to fight without focus, to demand without a plan, to be aggressive without allies.
This path, too, has been tried, with many who have found themselves marginalized in the corridors of power, untrustworthy of influence and responsibility, only to languish embittered on the backbenches.
And through the combination of personal obstinance and pridefulness when it meets an equally stubborn reaction to frequent attacks, the people of a community are left with no champion, and no hope for an end to the long darkness in rural Ontario.
The reason I am in this race is because I believe in this party and this community, and I believe that our interests are worthy enough that they need to be explained and defended among those who have no knowledge or appreciation of who we are and what we represent.
Somewhere between these extremes there should be a place where people resolve to put their interests before themselves.
This may mean finding friends and allies who will help us in our challenge to sustain our farms, our schools, our hospitals and clinics, and our local governments. Sometimes, when friends and allies are few, it may mean raising one’s voice, not in hostility, but in a dogged determination.
Reasonable people can agree to disagree, and work toward compromise, but compromise should never include the future of our communities and a way of life. Knowing when to walk away from the table is as important as the negotiation itself.
On my website, in my campaign materials, and in conversations with many of you, I have made suggestions on how we can make a difference – in education, in crop insurance, in healthcare, municipal infrastructure, the local economy, and the environment.
How can we demonstrate to the people of this riding that we are fit to lead if we will not even talk about policy – the very ideas by which parties rise and fall?
My stance on issues is not a secret. I support reforms to crop insurance, and support the supply management system farmers depend upon. I want to see Highways #38 and #41 returned to provincial responsibility, as well as a plan to extend the 4-laning of #7 to Perth. I want to ensure legal protections for landowners. I want to see a commitment to our local economy, including a strategy to keeping the Hershey plant in Smiths Falls open – either by that company or by another operator. I want an investment in rural schools, including high-speed internet, so our kids have a chance to compete with those in downtown Toronto. I want a commitment to supporting more family medical practices in rural areas, offering free tuition to medical students willing to commit to a community, and by speeding up the accreditation of foreign-trained doctors to practice medicine in Ontario.
Again, when I speak of leadership, I speak of the ingrained knowledge and maturity that makes one able to navigate unchartered waters with a deft hand at the tiller. That is the leadership that a candidate must possess.
There is, however, another kind of leadership – just as important to our shared future. That is the leadership that each and every one of you must to exercise here today. You have come here either in support of one person, or as people who proudly support this party.
Regardless of what brought you here, you are here now. You have a vote, and in the privacy of a secret ballot, you will choose a candidate – potentially our next MPP.
Whatever you may have thought of your responsibility going into this meeting, I respectfully submit to you what it really is.
Your responsibility is to vote for the future of this riding and its people. Just as an MPP votes on behalf of their constituents, you are voting on behalf of not just yourself, but on behalf of every person who calls Lanark-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington home.
Regardless of who you choose, you need not justify that decision to the three people on your ballot. In fact, we are the last people you need justify your decision to.
But you must justify it to your family. You must justify it to the people you meet at church, or in your local grocery store. You must justify it to the people you meet at the gas station or the coffee shop. You must justify it to the people you meet when you attend meetings and fundraisers. You must justify it to your children and grandchildren, full of hope for their future.
Most of all, you must be able to look at yourself in the mirror and justify your decision to the person looking back at you.
In the end, leadership means sacrifice. It means sacrificing petty arguments and consuming anger in order to build a better life, and a stronger community.
This party has always done what is right for Ontario when we have placed our duty above our emotion, when we have aspired to something more. But we can only be as good as the choice you make.
I don’t confess to have all the answers, but I’m not afraid to offer some possibilities, and listen to the ideas of others. And I won’t promise that I will win every battle, but that won’t stop me from fighting them wisely and effectively.
All any of us can do is our best. For the three of us, that ends, for the moment, right now. For all of you, it begins.
Leaders, at their best, are always equal to the challenge they face. For the good of this riding, and of this party, I ask you to rise to the challenge now.
Good luck in your decision."
Thursday, March 8, 2007
Clean Water, Murky Politics
Unless you are very involved in local or provincial politics, you may have not been aware of the McGuinty government's latest response to the legacy that is Walkerton.
Justice Dennis O'Connor made a number of recommendations on how water should be regulated and protected, and the Ontario government, not wanting to appear as obstructionist, has gone ahead on a number of fronts.
People in Sydenham are well acquainted with the one scheme - a Regulation from the Ministry of the Environment that sought to impose exacting standards on tap water. Unfortunately for them, this could only be accomplished through the construction of a multi-million dollar treatment plant that is costing 270 households roughly $25,000 each to hook into, not to mention $40 a month in perpetuity. Most galling for them was the report of the province a couple of years later recommending that such measures not be imposed on communities of les than 10,000. The fact that the local MPP, Leona Dombrowsky, was the Minister who signed off on the Regulation adds more salt to the wound.
Now, the province has passed Bill 43 - the Clean Water Act, which creates new boards - "drinking water source protection committees" - who will oversee everything from water quality standards to who can access ground water in the first place.
Committees will be required to develop "protection plans" that include: policies intended to end existing threats to drinking water, and to prevent future activities from becoming threats to drinking water; a list of activities that are prohibited in certain locations within the protection area; a list of activities that are not permitted until a risk assessment has been submitted to the permit official, a risk management plan developed, and a permit issued; a list of locations where a person cannot make Planning Act applications, build, or change the use of a building without a permit; and guidelines for the issuance and renewal of permits.
Translation - the province is setting up local committees, neither answerable to Queen's Park or local municipalities, that can decide everything and anything related to ground water.
You get a building permit from your township, pay all of the fees and jump through all of the hoops. You have done everything according to the book. Unfortunately, some "committee" decides that you can't have a permit to drill a well. You want to appeal, of course, but who do you talk to?
The local township is not in charge, the Ministry of the Environment says that they are not in charge because the committee is 'arm's length', and it is not clear who you can talk to.
Even worse, what if the committee decides to go after existing wells? Where you find an existing well, you find an existing home, where people are likely making mortgage and property tax payments on. Can the committee take a perfectly habitable home and declare in uninhabitable, causing families to lose not only their homes, but the single biggest financial asset they possess?
I believe that protection of ground water is important, but so too is protection of property owners' rights, the right of citizens to redress, and the right of local governments to act on behalf of their constituents.
Creating committees not answerable to individuals or governments, who can act without explanation or justification, and can do so without being accountable to the public for their actions might clean the water, but it muddies people's lives and the democratic process.
Justice Dennis O'Connor made a number of recommendations on how water should be regulated and protected, and the Ontario government, not wanting to appear as obstructionist, has gone ahead on a number of fronts.
People in Sydenham are well acquainted with the one scheme - a Regulation from the Ministry of the Environment that sought to impose exacting standards on tap water. Unfortunately for them, this could only be accomplished through the construction of a multi-million dollar treatment plant that is costing 270 households roughly $25,000 each to hook into, not to mention $40 a month in perpetuity. Most galling for them was the report of the province a couple of years later recommending that such measures not be imposed on communities of les than 10,000. The fact that the local MPP, Leona Dombrowsky, was the Minister who signed off on the Regulation adds more salt to the wound.
Now, the province has passed Bill 43 - the Clean Water Act, which creates new boards - "drinking water source protection committees" - who will oversee everything from water quality standards to who can access ground water in the first place.
Committees will be required to develop "protection plans" that include: policies intended to end existing threats to drinking water, and to prevent future activities from becoming threats to drinking water; a list of activities that are prohibited in certain locations within the protection area; a list of activities that are not permitted until a risk assessment has been submitted to the permit official, a risk management plan developed, and a permit issued; a list of locations where a person cannot make Planning Act applications, build, or change the use of a building without a permit; and guidelines for the issuance and renewal of permits.
Translation - the province is setting up local committees, neither answerable to Queen's Park or local municipalities, that can decide everything and anything related to ground water.
You get a building permit from your township, pay all of the fees and jump through all of the hoops. You have done everything according to the book. Unfortunately, some "committee" decides that you can't have a permit to drill a well. You want to appeal, of course, but who do you talk to?
The local township is not in charge, the Ministry of the Environment says that they are not in charge because the committee is 'arm's length', and it is not clear who you can talk to.
Even worse, what if the committee decides to go after existing wells? Where you find an existing well, you find an existing home, where people are likely making mortgage and property tax payments on. Can the committee take a perfectly habitable home and declare in uninhabitable, causing families to lose not only their homes, but the single biggest financial asset they possess?
I believe that protection of ground water is important, but so too is protection of property owners' rights, the right of citizens to redress, and the right of local governments to act on behalf of their constituents.
Creating committees not answerable to individuals or governments, who can act without explanation or justification, and can do so without being accountable to the public for their actions might clean the water, but it muddies people's lives and the democratic process.
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
More questions than answers
Like most parents with young children, I can be a bit obsessed about their future prospects - especially the quality of education they receive.
My son Ethan's school, St. Patrick's in Harrowsmith, fared decently in the Fraser Institute rankings. Indeed, it was the top ranked rural school - public or separate - in the area covered by the Limestone District and Algonquin and Lakeshore District Boards.
Mind you, there were at least 10-12 elementary schools, mostly Kingston-based, that ranked higher. I took that with a grain of salt. Family income and education levels have an impact, and Kingston is a university and public service town, so incomes and education levels are no doubt higher in the city core.
Then, today, the CD Howe Institute comes up with its own rankings - designed to 'correct' for such issues as family incomes, education, and such.
Clearly, Kingston schools in the less affluent areas moved up in the rankings, and the schools in the wealthy areas held their own.
The good news was that my son's school was the top rural performer once again. The bad news is that it remained roughly int he same position as in the Fraser study.
For the longest time, I have felt that rural schools were getting shortchanged compared to their urban counterparts. The fact that urban schools - rich and poor - can shift so dramatically in the two rankings, while rural schools remain static, does not give me hope of being wrong.
It comes down to separating what is different between urban and rural schools.
We know that teachers' training is standardized in the province, and that the possibility of good and bad teachers runs equally whether it is a rural or urban school, so take that out of the equation.
We also know that the curriculum and the tests are also the same, so remove that as a factor.
We could look at family incomes, and the education level of parents, but the good folks at the CD Howe Institute have removed that difference.
Same teachers, same lesson plans, same standardized tests, and remove the family's economic and education levels as factors - urban schools can move with ease up the rankings while rural schools are glued in place.
The only factor that is not accounted for is how much we spend on rural schools compared to urban ones, or what programs and facilities are available to rural students compared to their city counterparts.
Liberal and conservative think tanks seem to differ on what makes some schools better than others. The only thing they agree on is that rural schools are mired in the middle - and that is cold comfort to any parent in this riding.
My son Ethan's school, St. Patrick's in Harrowsmith, fared decently in the Fraser Institute rankings. Indeed, it was the top ranked rural school - public or separate - in the area covered by the Limestone District and Algonquin and Lakeshore District Boards.
Mind you, there were at least 10-12 elementary schools, mostly Kingston-based, that ranked higher. I took that with a grain of salt. Family income and education levels have an impact, and Kingston is a university and public service town, so incomes and education levels are no doubt higher in the city core.
Then, today, the CD Howe Institute comes up with its own rankings - designed to 'correct' for such issues as family incomes, education, and such.
Clearly, Kingston schools in the less affluent areas moved up in the rankings, and the schools in the wealthy areas held their own.
The good news was that my son's school was the top rural performer once again. The bad news is that it remained roughly int he same position as in the Fraser study.
For the longest time, I have felt that rural schools were getting shortchanged compared to their urban counterparts. The fact that urban schools - rich and poor - can shift so dramatically in the two rankings, while rural schools remain static, does not give me hope of being wrong.
It comes down to separating what is different between urban and rural schools.
We know that teachers' training is standardized in the province, and that the possibility of good and bad teachers runs equally whether it is a rural or urban school, so take that out of the equation.
We also know that the curriculum and the tests are also the same, so remove that as a factor.
We could look at family incomes, and the education level of parents, but the good folks at the CD Howe Institute have removed that difference.
Same teachers, same lesson plans, same standardized tests, and remove the family's economic and education levels as factors - urban schools can move with ease up the rankings while rural schools are glued in place.
The only factor that is not accounted for is how much we spend on rural schools compared to urban ones, or what programs and facilities are available to rural students compared to their city counterparts.
Liberal and conservative think tanks seem to differ on what makes some schools better than others. The only thing they agree on is that rural schools are mired in the middle - and that is cold comfort to any parent in this riding.
Monday, March 5, 2007
Our energy future
On the weekend, I was reading an article in the National Post about a new subdivision in Calgary - one that hopes to be the first truly energy self-sufficient community in Canada. Two developers, in partnership with the federal government, are spearheading this initiative.
The major parts of this scheme call for houses to be R-2000 compliant, and for each garage roof to be covered by an array of solar panels.
Developments in solar panel technology, from the advent of the photovoltaic cell, to new manufacturing methods, are making solar more and more affordable. While the cost of solar electricity generation is still far and above what we pay for traditional sources, the price is about 20 percent of what it was a decade ago. Like computers, advances in technology and mass marketing, are leaving us with systems that are more powerful and less expensive. Probably within the decade we will see solar power systems that no more expensive than mainstream technologies.
This, of course, leads to the question of whether or not Ontario can benefit from all of this?
First, Hydro One and Ontario Power Generation (OPG) have not been able to have generation keep pace with demand for quite some time. Add to this the fact that a significant portion of our supply comes from coal fired plants, which the government wants to shut down due to CO2 emissions.
Secondly, if you read the fine print, you realize that up to 20 percent of the power sent out over the lines is lost in transmission. This could be due to a combination of factors, including an aging power grid, or the effect of sending electricity over long distances.
Third, despite those of us who heat with electric, the peak demand is in the summer, not the winter.
Lastly, building new capacity is expensive, and usually cost overruns are the order of the day. Already the debt servicing charge on your bill can be as high as what you pay for the power you consume.
The province has already allowed for the possibility of individuals and companies to sell surplus solar generated electricity back to the grid at over 40 cents a kilowatt hour (compared to buying it at roughly 6 cents). A good deal...if you can afford it.
To be self sufficient with solar, one would have to spend up to $50,000 for the equipment and installation, making this deal only for the very wealthy.
Here's a plan.
First, have Hydro One offer a credit financing capacity for individuals and businesses to purchase solar power systems, for little or no money down.
Once the system is operational and tied into the grid, Hydro One buys the power at the going rate of 42 cents, and charges you the 5-6 cents as per normal.
The difference between what you sell and what you use would constitute the monthly payment on the system.
Most likely, you would run significant surpluses in the summer, which would pay down the system quicker. In the winter, when generation is lower, you may only generate enough for your own use. This means, however, your Hydro One bill would only relate to paying for your system, and not both the system repayment and your hydro use.
The bigger the solar arrays, the better, which makes this idea perfect for farmers. Barns have enormous roof lines and, by virtue of being near pasture land, have almost no tree cover to block sunlight.
Such a scheme could be tested in partnership with OMAFRA, where participating farms could place systems on barns and outbuildings, and the electricity generation and usage are monitored for one season. Improvements and changes could then be incorporated into a bigger plan.
At first blush, the plan, if workable, accomplishes four things:
1. It reduces or eliminates the electric bill for the participant;
2. It is easier, faster, and cheaper to bring generation capacity on-line than big mega projects, which, in turn, does not add to Hydro One's stranded debt of over $30 billion;
3. It is locally produced, so it reduces the amount of power lost in the grid, and protects areas from brownouts and major disruptions;
4. It is zero emission technology that gives us latitude concerning coal fired plants.
While I am not someone skilled in the science of this technology, we do need to explore options that will meet Ontario's demand for power, and save green - in our environment and in our wallets.
The major parts of this scheme call for houses to be R-2000 compliant, and for each garage roof to be covered by an array of solar panels.
Developments in solar panel technology, from the advent of the photovoltaic cell, to new manufacturing methods, are making solar more and more affordable. While the cost of solar electricity generation is still far and above what we pay for traditional sources, the price is about 20 percent of what it was a decade ago. Like computers, advances in technology and mass marketing, are leaving us with systems that are more powerful and less expensive. Probably within the decade we will see solar power systems that no more expensive than mainstream technologies.
This, of course, leads to the question of whether or not Ontario can benefit from all of this?
First, Hydro One and Ontario Power Generation (OPG) have not been able to have generation keep pace with demand for quite some time. Add to this the fact that a significant portion of our supply comes from coal fired plants, which the government wants to shut down due to CO2 emissions.
Secondly, if you read the fine print, you realize that up to 20 percent of the power sent out over the lines is lost in transmission. This could be due to a combination of factors, including an aging power grid, or the effect of sending electricity over long distances.
Third, despite those of us who heat with electric, the peak demand is in the summer, not the winter.
Lastly, building new capacity is expensive, and usually cost overruns are the order of the day. Already the debt servicing charge on your bill can be as high as what you pay for the power you consume.
The province has already allowed for the possibility of individuals and companies to sell surplus solar generated electricity back to the grid at over 40 cents a kilowatt hour (compared to buying it at roughly 6 cents). A good deal...if you can afford it.
To be self sufficient with solar, one would have to spend up to $50,000 for the equipment and installation, making this deal only for the very wealthy.
Here's a plan.
First, have Hydro One offer a credit financing capacity for individuals and businesses to purchase solar power systems, for little or no money down.
Once the system is operational and tied into the grid, Hydro One buys the power at the going rate of 42 cents, and charges you the 5-6 cents as per normal.
The difference between what you sell and what you use would constitute the monthly payment on the system.
Most likely, you would run significant surpluses in the summer, which would pay down the system quicker. In the winter, when generation is lower, you may only generate enough for your own use. This means, however, your Hydro One bill would only relate to paying for your system, and not both the system repayment and your hydro use.
The bigger the solar arrays, the better, which makes this idea perfect for farmers. Barns have enormous roof lines and, by virtue of being near pasture land, have almost no tree cover to block sunlight.
Such a scheme could be tested in partnership with OMAFRA, where participating farms could place systems on barns and outbuildings, and the electricity generation and usage are monitored for one season. Improvements and changes could then be incorporated into a bigger plan.
At first blush, the plan, if workable, accomplishes four things:
1. It reduces or eliminates the electric bill for the participant;
2. It is easier, faster, and cheaper to bring generation capacity on-line than big mega projects, which, in turn, does not add to Hydro One's stranded debt of over $30 billion;
3. It is locally produced, so it reduces the amount of power lost in the grid, and protects areas from brownouts and major disruptions;
4. It is zero emission technology that gives us latitude concerning coal fired plants.
While I am not someone skilled in the science of this technology, we do need to explore options that will meet Ontario's demand for power, and save green - in our environment and in our wallets.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Hershey's closure announcement
The people of Smiths Falls have had it rough. For a town of less than 10,000 people, the announced closures of the Hershey chocolate plant and the Rideau Regional Centre represent a loss of over 1,000 jobs and an end to operations for the largest and second-largest employers in the community.
We talk about the up front costs - lost wages - but you really have to factor in a great deal more - lost business for suppliers, lost tax revenue for all three levels of government, and the hit on the bottom line for every local business who depends upon these workers as their own clientele.
The work of the local union leadership, Mayor Dennis Staples, MP Scott Reid and MPP Norm Sterling in lobbying Hershey executives to reconsider their position has been a mark of local leadership. Even the efforts of Premier McGuinty should be praised - after all, this is not about Liberal versus PC, but about the economic future of a community.
So what can be done for the people of Smiths Falls?
In terms of the Hershey plant, barring a reconsideration of the company's decision, now may be the time to approach other companies - both Hershey's competitors as well as other food manufacturers - about taking over the facility. Another chocolate manufacturer, such as Cadbury Schweppes or Nestle, or possibly companies such as Unilever Best Foods, might be interested in operating a modern facility, centrally placed in the most populated region of Canada, and with an experienced and educated workforce. Some thought should be given to this, and political leaders of all levels and all stripes should embrace this challenge.
Another answer is much easier for the Ontario government to undertake - indefinitely postpone the closure of the Rideau Regional Centre, and explore options for locating other government operations on the Centre's campus.
In light of Hershey's decision, and pending any resolution to the plant's fate, the decision to close the Rideau Regional Centre is unwise, badly timed, and will only serve to deepen the economic ills of Smiths Falls and her citizens.
We talk about the up front costs - lost wages - but you really have to factor in a great deal more - lost business for suppliers, lost tax revenue for all three levels of government, and the hit on the bottom line for every local business who depends upon these workers as their own clientele.
The work of the local union leadership, Mayor Dennis Staples, MP Scott Reid and MPP Norm Sterling in lobbying Hershey executives to reconsider their position has been a mark of local leadership. Even the efforts of Premier McGuinty should be praised - after all, this is not about Liberal versus PC, but about the economic future of a community.
So what can be done for the people of Smiths Falls?
In terms of the Hershey plant, barring a reconsideration of the company's decision, now may be the time to approach other companies - both Hershey's competitors as well as other food manufacturers - about taking over the facility. Another chocolate manufacturer, such as Cadbury Schweppes or Nestle, or possibly companies such as Unilever Best Foods, might be interested in operating a modern facility, centrally placed in the most populated region of Canada, and with an experienced and educated workforce. Some thought should be given to this, and political leaders of all levels and all stripes should embrace this challenge.
Another answer is much easier for the Ontario government to undertake - indefinitely postpone the closure of the Rideau Regional Centre, and explore options for locating other government operations on the Centre's campus.
In light of Hershey's decision, and pending any resolution to the plant's fate, the decision to close the Rideau Regional Centre is unwise, badly timed, and will only serve to deepen the economic ills of Smiths Falls and her citizens.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
The Campaign Trail
One of the best things about a campaign are the friendships that you form. You are often amazed by how people offer to help you in many ways - hosting get-togethers, manning phone banks, selling memberships, and a whole host of other activities.
It looks as though the push for memberships will last at least 5-6 more weeks, so all this help is greatly appreciated - especially with 4 people in the race.
When I decided to run, I wanted this campaign to be about ideas, not anger, and certainly not the status quo. This blog, I hope, will give a glimpse into some of the ideas and views that will guide me if I am fortunate enough to be our riding's next MPP.
In this day and age of 30 second soundbites and image conscious media, style often overtakes substance. Yet, substance determines whether or not a term in Queen's Park will be a success or a failure.
A nomination and an election become meaningless if they do not lead to a better outcome for a community.
It looks as though the push for memberships will last at least 5-6 more weeks, so all this help is greatly appreciated - especially with 4 people in the race.
When I decided to run, I wanted this campaign to be about ideas, not anger, and certainly not the status quo. This blog, I hope, will give a glimpse into some of the ideas and views that will guide me if I am fortunate enough to be our riding's next MPP.
In this day and age of 30 second soundbites and image conscious media, style often overtakes substance. Yet, substance determines whether or not a term in Queen's Park will be a success or a failure.
A nomination and an election become meaningless if they do not lead to a better outcome for a community.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
A Seniors' Hospital of Eastern Ontario?
In my campaign brochure, I mention my intention to lobby for a network of "Seniors' Hospitals" in the province, similar to those that serve the needs of children - like Ottawa's CHEO, Sick Kids in Toronto, and the Children's Hospital in London.
This might seem to be a rather radical concept, but I do believe the idea deserves some investigation.
First, it is no secret that we have an aging population. In the next two to three decades, almost 23 per cent of Canada's population will be in the seniors' demographic. As an aside, that number was closer to 7 percent three decades ago when we initiated a great number of benefit programs.
It is also known that the majority of use of the healthcare system occurs in the later part of life. Also, the use of emergency services is far more expensive than other types of care.
On a personal note, our son was treated for a congenital heart defect at CHEO, and the quality of care and service was beyond measure. I reason that this was due to the specialization both in terms of the demographic, as well as the types of illnesses commonly treated.
If a mirror network of Seniors' Hospitals were established, they could offer services and care specifically tailored to the needs of older individuals; they could specialize in research and treatment of illnesses more common in seniors - Alzheimers, Parkinson's, arthritis, and osteoporosis, for example; and they could tap into the existing network of community based organizations, and Community Care Access Centres (CCAC's) to offer what is often referred to as a "continuum of care."
In terms of budgeting, such a network would help alleviate the strain on emergency wards and regular hospital services - and at a lower cost - as well as reduce the pressure for long term care beds, which the Ministry of Health seems to be playing catch up on all the time.
Finding a delivery model that reduces costs, but provides a service tailor-made to the needs of our fastest growing age demographic is an idea worth talking about.
This might seem to be a rather radical concept, but I do believe the idea deserves some investigation.
First, it is no secret that we have an aging population. In the next two to three decades, almost 23 per cent of Canada's population will be in the seniors' demographic. As an aside, that number was closer to 7 percent three decades ago when we initiated a great number of benefit programs.
It is also known that the majority of use of the healthcare system occurs in the later part of life. Also, the use of emergency services is far more expensive than other types of care.
On a personal note, our son was treated for a congenital heart defect at CHEO, and the quality of care and service was beyond measure. I reason that this was due to the specialization both in terms of the demographic, as well as the types of illnesses commonly treated.
If a mirror network of Seniors' Hospitals were established, they could offer services and care specifically tailored to the needs of older individuals; they could specialize in research and treatment of illnesses more common in seniors - Alzheimers, Parkinson's, arthritis, and osteoporosis, for example; and they could tap into the existing network of community based organizations, and Community Care Access Centres (CCAC's) to offer what is often referred to as a "continuum of care."
In terms of budgeting, such a network would help alleviate the strain on emergency wards and regular hospital services - and at a lower cost - as well as reduce the pressure for long term care beds, which the Ministry of Health seems to be playing catch up on all the time.
Finding a delivery model that reduces costs, but provides a service tailor-made to the needs of our fastest growing age demographic is an idea worth talking about.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Brent Cameron Announcement Speech - December 2, 2006
Dear friends:
First, I want to begin by welcoming you here today, and thanking you for taking the time to be here. I understand that everyone has busy schedules, and I appreciate your decision to be here.
Rural Ontario is in crisis. That fact should not come as any surprise to any of you here in this room. It is a part of your life, the reality you face every day. Unfortunately, it is not so clear to those in Queen’s Park who set the government agenda – and that includes those from ridings such as ours.
One can somehow understand the lack of awareness of rural issues among politicians representing square blocks of downtown Toronto. What surprises and defies explanation is the lack of awareness demonstrated by the very person who not only represents agricultural and rural issues in the Legislature, but also represents a good proportion of this constituency.
Leona Dombrowsky, despite the lofty rhetoric she used to get elected, has simply not delivered.
This riding, and the communities it represents, needs a strong and effective voice in Queen’s Park. Dombrowsky has had eight years, and two cabinet portfolios, and still has not done the job she promised. Whether she cannot, or she will not, makes little difference at this point. The important point is that allowing Leona another term in office will not change things, only allow them to get steadily worse.
The challenges of life in this part of Ontario cannot be washed over by press releases that talk a lot and say absolutely nothing. Our problems are serious, and the need to address them is real.
In a little less than a year, the people of Ontario will be heading to the polls. If Leona is not prepared to show leadership, then we must elect someone who is.
Today, I formally announce my intention to contest the Progressive Conservative Party nomination in the riding of Lanark-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington, with the hope of representing this party and riding in Queen’s Park and doing a job that has long been neglected to this point.
When someone asks for support in these cases, it is fair to ask why they think they are qualified to to the job, and what they intend to do once they get there. Believe me, in discussing this decision with my family and friends, it was not taken lightly. This is a serious business, and a tough one. Unless you truly believe that you have the ability to make things happen, it is a road you should think twice about travelling.
While I may be the first to declare, I am certain that I will not be the last. It is a testament to this party and its people that some will make the decision to run. This means that you will have a choice to make, and facts to consider.
Some may argue that their understanding of Queen’s Park and how it works gives them the upper hand. Still others will tell you that experience in local government puts them closer to people and their concerns. Yet others might point to a background in business as their strength.
Now, all of them are absolutely correct as far as they go. Each has their strength and talent. But you cannot form a picture wth one piece of a puzzle, and you cannot be an effective candidate unless you possess a broader experience and a broader perspective.
I can tell you that I have been active in Conservative politics for over 26 years. I have served on riding boards, and have worked more election campaigns than I care to remember. I have done everything from door-to-door canvass in minus 30 degree weather to travelling with Prime Ministers and party leaders on national tours.
I am a graduate of Queen’s University, where I received an honours degree in political studies, and St. Lawrence College, where I obtained a Certificate in Municipal Administration.
I have worked in government, as a federal civil servant in Ottawa, and as an assistant to a member of the Ontario Legislature.
I have been a researcher in one of Canada’s leading polling firms, and have studied public policy.
I am a published author, who served on the editorial board of a daily newspaper, and was a regular columnist.
I have been involved in businesses, from a family-owned coffee shop, to participating on the board of directors of a trade promotion venture, the Commonwealth Advantage. It has taken me from boardrooms in downtown Toronto to the halls of Westminster in London.
Among my activities in the community, I served two terms as the Chairperson of Central Frontenac Community Services Corporation, a non-profit organization that provided home help and home maintenance services to seniors and youth.
Most importantly, I am a husband and the father of two, who works and helps raise a family in a community where my roots extend back to the landing of the Loyalists. I grew up on a farm that my family operated for generations, played in fields that my great-grandfather plowed with an ox team. I am proud to make that place a home for my own children.
Like so many other farm families, we struggled to do all we could to keep going – milk the cows before and after working in town, board livestock, sell off hay, raise sheep, rabbits, and nutrea, operate a sand pit in the back corner, but we lost the fight. We sold off our quota and livestock, tore down the barn, and sold off most of the pastureland. All that remains is a woodlot and the memories of a way of life lost.
There are countless others who have not lost yet, but they are holding on just barely. They need more than touching speeches about rural traditions, they need someone to step up and fight for their priorities in the halls of government.
But respect for our rural way of life goes beyond the barn and pasture. It is about a decades long neglect of rural communities and rural families. It is about the challenge of finding a family doctor, or sending your kids to a school that gets less money than one in Toronto, Ottawa, or Kingston. It is about urban policy makers who say they are so concerned about the environment they stop farmers from doing what they have done for decades, and yet conveniently lose that resolve when the GTA needs to find a place to put its trash.
It is about taking one message and making it loud and clear to those who govern Ontario. We need to say in the strongest terms possible that you have a responsibility to govern for all Ontarians, including those of us who have made our choice to stay in rural communities and support a way of life. They have an obligation not to let us become second-class citizens in what should be a first class province.
That is their responsibility, but we have one too.
Respect can only be given where it has been earned. We have already earned it by the quiet and dignified lives we lead, and the contributions we make to Ontario. We earn it by virtue of the taxes we pay, the families and communities we support, and the laws we abide by.
We have earned the right to receive respect, but to get it, we must also demand it.
We demand respect by electing people who will not accept excuses for inaction. We demand respect by refusing to negotiate away the future of our communities. We demand respect by showing bureaucrats and professional political operatives that they do not have a monopoly on the facts, or good ideas. We demand respect when we elect people who do not go along to get along.
In short, we can only demand respect when we send people to Queen’s Park that will be taken seriously. We are judged by the character and the ability of those who we elect as our standard-bearers.
Unfortunately, many an elected member travels to Toronto, excited at the chance to make a difference, only to be surrounded by numbers of bureaucrats and political operatives with countless degrees and diplomas, and years of experience navigating Queen’s Park – all with their own particular views on how things should be done. Whether it is a lack of information, or a lack of confidence, members often go along with the advice they get, never questioning whether it is the right advice, or whether it is good for the people at home.
Being taken seriously means not being afraid to say that the choices on offer are not good enough. Being taken seriously means knowing enough about the workings of government to make suggestions of your own, and to fight to get them through.
But the voters of Lanark-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington can only choose from the candidates that we choose to nominate. A choice between the NDP and the Liberals is a choice between bad ideas and no ideas, so as Conservatives, this election really is ours to lose. But strength in our party and its beliefs must be matched with strength and commitment on the home front.
During this nomination campaign, and forward into the election, I will be travelling throughout this riding, meeting with as many people as possible – to talk about the issues that face this area, to hear some of the ideas and suggestions you have for the future of the community, and to share with you the reasons why I believe that I am the person to carry that agenda forward.
I do not guarantee miracles, nor do I believe that our problems will magically disappear along with the mandate of Leona Dombrowsky or Dalton McGuinty. What I do believe is that they will never disappear so long as these two continue in power, and that any real hope of a change for the better can only come from a change at Queen’s Park.
I am not afraid to work, nor am I afraid to think and challenge the powers that be. Most of all, I am not afraid to say in a clear and strong voice when something runs counter to the hopes and aspirations of this community.
What I ask of this party and this riding is to not be afraid to demand a higher standard, to raise your expectations and fight for your lives as well.
The best candidate in the world is nothing more than a name on a sign without the hard work, support, ideas and energy of others. We are always at our best when we work together. Many of you have joined this effort, and I thank you for that, but we will continue to need the help of many others.
Thank you.
First, I want to begin by welcoming you here today, and thanking you for taking the time to be here. I understand that everyone has busy schedules, and I appreciate your decision to be here.
Rural Ontario is in crisis. That fact should not come as any surprise to any of you here in this room. It is a part of your life, the reality you face every day. Unfortunately, it is not so clear to those in Queen’s Park who set the government agenda – and that includes those from ridings such as ours.
One can somehow understand the lack of awareness of rural issues among politicians representing square blocks of downtown Toronto. What surprises and defies explanation is the lack of awareness demonstrated by the very person who not only represents agricultural and rural issues in the Legislature, but also represents a good proportion of this constituency.
Leona Dombrowsky, despite the lofty rhetoric she used to get elected, has simply not delivered.
This riding, and the communities it represents, needs a strong and effective voice in Queen’s Park. Dombrowsky has had eight years, and two cabinet portfolios, and still has not done the job she promised. Whether she cannot, or she will not, makes little difference at this point. The important point is that allowing Leona another term in office will not change things, only allow them to get steadily worse.
The challenges of life in this part of Ontario cannot be washed over by press releases that talk a lot and say absolutely nothing. Our problems are serious, and the need to address them is real.
In a little less than a year, the people of Ontario will be heading to the polls. If Leona is not prepared to show leadership, then we must elect someone who is.
Today, I formally announce my intention to contest the Progressive Conservative Party nomination in the riding of Lanark-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington, with the hope of representing this party and riding in Queen’s Park and doing a job that has long been neglected to this point.
When someone asks for support in these cases, it is fair to ask why they think they are qualified to to the job, and what they intend to do once they get there. Believe me, in discussing this decision with my family and friends, it was not taken lightly. This is a serious business, and a tough one. Unless you truly believe that you have the ability to make things happen, it is a road you should think twice about travelling.
While I may be the first to declare, I am certain that I will not be the last. It is a testament to this party and its people that some will make the decision to run. This means that you will have a choice to make, and facts to consider.
Some may argue that their understanding of Queen’s Park and how it works gives them the upper hand. Still others will tell you that experience in local government puts them closer to people and their concerns. Yet others might point to a background in business as their strength.
Now, all of them are absolutely correct as far as they go. Each has their strength and talent. But you cannot form a picture wth one piece of a puzzle, and you cannot be an effective candidate unless you possess a broader experience and a broader perspective.
I can tell you that I have been active in Conservative politics for over 26 years. I have served on riding boards, and have worked more election campaigns than I care to remember. I have done everything from door-to-door canvass in minus 30 degree weather to travelling with Prime Ministers and party leaders on national tours.
I am a graduate of Queen’s University, where I received an honours degree in political studies, and St. Lawrence College, where I obtained a Certificate in Municipal Administration.
I have worked in government, as a federal civil servant in Ottawa, and as an assistant to a member of the Ontario Legislature.
I have been a researcher in one of Canada’s leading polling firms, and have studied public policy.
I am a published author, who served on the editorial board of a daily newspaper, and was a regular columnist.
I have been involved in businesses, from a family-owned coffee shop, to participating on the board of directors of a trade promotion venture, the Commonwealth Advantage. It has taken me from boardrooms in downtown Toronto to the halls of Westminster in London.
Among my activities in the community, I served two terms as the Chairperson of Central Frontenac Community Services Corporation, a non-profit organization that provided home help and home maintenance services to seniors and youth.
Most importantly, I am a husband and the father of two, who works and helps raise a family in a community where my roots extend back to the landing of the Loyalists. I grew up on a farm that my family operated for generations, played in fields that my great-grandfather plowed with an ox team. I am proud to make that place a home for my own children.
Like so many other farm families, we struggled to do all we could to keep going – milk the cows before and after working in town, board livestock, sell off hay, raise sheep, rabbits, and nutrea, operate a sand pit in the back corner, but we lost the fight. We sold off our quota and livestock, tore down the barn, and sold off most of the pastureland. All that remains is a woodlot and the memories of a way of life lost.
There are countless others who have not lost yet, but they are holding on just barely. They need more than touching speeches about rural traditions, they need someone to step up and fight for their priorities in the halls of government.
But respect for our rural way of life goes beyond the barn and pasture. It is about a decades long neglect of rural communities and rural families. It is about the challenge of finding a family doctor, or sending your kids to a school that gets less money than one in Toronto, Ottawa, or Kingston. It is about urban policy makers who say they are so concerned about the environment they stop farmers from doing what they have done for decades, and yet conveniently lose that resolve when the GTA needs to find a place to put its trash.
It is about taking one message and making it loud and clear to those who govern Ontario. We need to say in the strongest terms possible that you have a responsibility to govern for all Ontarians, including those of us who have made our choice to stay in rural communities and support a way of life. They have an obligation not to let us become second-class citizens in what should be a first class province.
That is their responsibility, but we have one too.
Respect can only be given where it has been earned. We have already earned it by the quiet and dignified lives we lead, and the contributions we make to Ontario. We earn it by virtue of the taxes we pay, the families and communities we support, and the laws we abide by.
We have earned the right to receive respect, but to get it, we must also demand it.
We demand respect by electing people who will not accept excuses for inaction. We demand respect by refusing to negotiate away the future of our communities. We demand respect by showing bureaucrats and professional political operatives that they do not have a monopoly on the facts, or good ideas. We demand respect when we elect people who do not go along to get along.
In short, we can only demand respect when we send people to Queen’s Park that will be taken seriously. We are judged by the character and the ability of those who we elect as our standard-bearers.
Unfortunately, many an elected member travels to Toronto, excited at the chance to make a difference, only to be surrounded by numbers of bureaucrats and political operatives with countless degrees and diplomas, and years of experience navigating Queen’s Park – all with their own particular views on how things should be done. Whether it is a lack of information, or a lack of confidence, members often go along with the advice they get, never questioning whether it is the right advice, or whether it is good for the people at home.
Being taken seriously means not being afraid to say that the choices on offer are not good enough. Being taken seriously means knowing enough about the workings of government to make suggestions of your own, and to fight to get them through.
But the voters of Lanark-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington can only choose from the candidates that we choose to nominate. A choice between the NDP and the Liberals is a choice between bad ideas and no ideas, so as Conservatives, this election really is ours to lose. But strength in our party and its beliefs must be matched with strength and commitment on the home front.
During this nomination campaign, and forward into the election, I will be travelling throughout this riding, meeting with as many people as possible – to talk about the issues that face this area, to hear some of the ideas and suggestions you have for the future of the community, and to share with you the reasons why I believe that I am the person to carry that agenda forward.
I do not guarantee miracles, nor do I believe that our problems will magically disappear along with the mandate of Leona Dombrowsky or Dalton McGuinty. What I do believe is that they will never disappear so long as these two continue in power, and that any real hope of a change for the better can only come from a change at Queen’s Park.
I am not afraid to work, nor am I afraid to think and challenge the powers that be. Most of all, I am not afraid to say in a clear and strong voice when something runs counter to the hopes and aspirations of this community.
What I ask of this party and this riding is to not be afraid to demand a higher standard, to raise your expectations and fight for your lives as well.
The best candidate in the world is nothing more than a name on a sign without the hard work, support, ideas and energy of others. We are always at our best when we work together. Many of you have joined this effort, and I thank you for that, but we will continue to need the help of many others.
Thank you.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Canaries in the coal mine
It seems that in the eyes of officials in the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, the people of Frontenac and Lennox & Addington Counties live in nothing more than a large petry dish where experiments are conducted at whim.
The MOE began with their panicked attempt to address water quality in the province. Rural villages would be compelled to live under standards so strict, the only answer would be to build a water works. The plug got pulled on that experiment when another branch of the Ontario government concluded that no such system was financially viable unless there were a minimum of 10,000 customers. Unfortunately, this came too late for the approximately 250 households in Sydenham who still have to pay $20,000 apiece for the privilege of being guinea pigs. Let us remember that it was none other than local MPP Leona Dombrowsky, as Environment Minister, who signed the original flawed directive.
Now, with the five year study on the impact of tire incineration at the Lafarge Plant in Bath, it is the turn of people in south Lennox and Addington County to play the part of the proverbial ‘canary in the coal mine’ – literally so, when this operation will be the only one legally sanctioned by the MOE.
Dombrowsky, when quizzed by Bath residents on the approval of the Lafarge project, said that it was the fault of bureaucrats, and that she would fight for an extension beyond January 5th. Unfortunately, Dombrowsky’s clout as Agriculture Minister, a member of the powerful Planning and Priorities Committee of Cabinet, and serving recently as Acting Premier is still not enough to convince a salaried employee of the Province of Ontario to delay this action by a few days.
With the impending closing of the border to Michigan for Toronto’s garbage, and with the rising costs of maintaining and enlarging landfills – both environmental and financial – everyone agrees that alternatives need to be explored. Clearly, incineration is being considered. But all good science is tested in the lab under controlled conditions before it is adopted for widespread use. Even new medicines undergo rigorous study and testing before they are available for prescription. Surely it is not unreasonable to ask that incineration be subjected to the same methods of study before it goes into widespread use in Ontario.
Leona Dombrowsky, by her reaction, appears to be taken off guard by recent events. Yet, the members of Clean Air Bath, local newspapers, and other groups seem to have known about this situation for quite some time. Given that such application processes take years to complete, she may very well have been the Environment Minister when Lafarge first made its submission. Such ignorance is due either to a lack of information or a lack of interest. Regardless, it does little to distinguish her, or her Liberal Party, as the defenders of local interests.
The MOE began with their panicked attempt to address water quality in the province. Rural villages would be compelled to live under standards so strict, the only answer would be to build a water works. The plug got pulled on that experiment when another branch of the Ontario government concluded that no such system was financially viable unless there were a minimum of 10,000 customers. Unfortunately, this came too late for the approximately 250 households in Sydenham who still have to pay $20,000 apiece for the privilege of being guinea pigs. Let us remember that it was none other than local MPP Leona Dombrowsky, as Environment Minister, who signed the original flawed directive.
Now, with the five year study on the impact of tire incineration at the Lafarge Plant in Bath, it is the turn of people in south Lennox and Addington County to play the part of the proverbial ‘canary in the coal mine’ – literally so, when this operation will be the only one legally sanctioned by the MOE.
Dombrowsky, when quizzed by Bath residents on the approval of the Lafarge project, said that it was the fault of bureaucrats, and that she would fight for an extension beyond January 5th. Unfortunately, Dombrowsky’s clout as Agriculture Minister, a member of the powerful Planning and Priorities Committee of Cabinet, and serving recently as Acting Premier is still not enough to convince a salaried employee of the Province of Ontario to delay this action by a few days.
With the impending closing of the border to Michigan for Toronto’s garbage, and with the rising costs of maintaining and enlarging landfills – both environmental and financial – everyone agrees that alternatives need to be explored. Clearly, incineration is being considered. But all good science is tested in the lab under controlled conditions before it is adopted for widespread use. Even new medicines undergo rigorous study and testing before they are available for prescription. Surely it is not unreasonable to ask that incineration be subjected to the same methods of study before it goes into widespread use in Ontario.
Leona Dombrowsky, by her reaction, appears to be taken off guard by recent events. Yet, the members of Clean Air Bath, local newspapers, and other groups seem to have known about this situation for quite some time. Given that such application processes take years to complete, she may very well have been the Environment Minister when Lafarge first made its submission. Such ignorance is due either to a lack of information or a lack of interest. Regardless, it does little to distinguish her, or her Liberal Party, as the defenders of local interests.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
