Perhaps. But I can make Excel graphs too. Thusly:
2012-06-25
2012-06-21
The good, the bad, and the indecisive
Cover of The Economist, 17 March 2012:
Cover of The Economist, 9 June 2012:
But just in case we're tempted to believe either one or the other, the 9 June issue also contains a short article on the value of expert advice, or lack thereof. Apparently, the more respected the expert, the less accurate his predictions, and the more certain he is, the less accurate his predictions. And while The Economist is certainly respected, it's obviously not very certain, which is to say, both predictions probably have more or less the same value.
In short, we can venture a guess that things will either get better, get worse, or stay much the same, but we're not putting any confidence in this prediction.
Cover of The Economist, 9 June 2012:
But just in case we're tempted to believe either one or the other, the 9 June issue also contains a short article on the value of expert advice, or lack thereof. Apparently, the more respected the expert, the less accurate his predictions, and the more certain he is, the less accurate his predictions. And while The Economist is certainly respected, it's obviously not very certain, which is to say, both predictions probably have more or less the same value.
In short, we can venture a guess that things will either get better, get worse, or stay much the same, but we're not putting any confidence in this prediction.
Welcome to my palace
I read in The Economist that the living space in Mumbai averages to 48 sq.ft. (4.46 m2) per person. That's like having ten people in my apartment, which is among the smallest in Hay River excluding public housing.
I'm richer than I think.
I'm richer than I think.
2012-06-20
Your argument is invalid
Three months of reading The Economist have clearly gone to my head. Whenever someone is talking, the voice in my head is saying "yeah but you don't even read The Economist so who cares what you think?"
Ha. Like I really needed more reasons to doubt others.
Ha. Like I really needed more reasons to doubt others.
The smart way to hire people
I noticed a job advert in The Economist the last two weeks. Thusly:
Wow. Imagine that: a company that picks applicants by their demonstrated talent. If only the Northwest Territories used such a criterion, rather than skin colour and complete ignorance of one's rights as a worker.
Maybe I should start practicing writing jokes about hedge funds; then someday I'll write for The Economist and all my troubles will be over.
I crack me up.
Vacancy: The Economist is hiring a finance writer to cover hedge funds, private equity and insurance. Experience is less important than the ability to write simply, insightfully and entertainingly. Applicants should send a copy of their cv, along with a 500-word article on this bit of finance, to (email).
Wow. Imagine that: a company that picks applicants by their demonstrated talent. If only the Northwest Territories used such a criterion, rather than skin colour and complete ignorance of one's rights as a worker.
Maybe I should start practicing writing jokes about hedge funds; then someday I'll write for The Economist and all my troubles will be over.
I crack me up.
And here you thought McDonald's was evil
My best friend since Grade 5 shared this on Facebook recently.
Well, I totally disagree. McDonald's does make you fat: pigging out makes you fat. The nearest McDonald's is 484 km from Hay River, and the people here are alarmingly fat. And your correspondent, who eats McDonald's at least once a week when I live near one, has never gained any weight by it. A cheeseburger and small fries doesn't have more calories than my regular dinner, and it's not much more expensive, either. So quit blaming McDonald's.
Anyway, this isn't the blog for my frequent rants on why overeating makes you fat. The point is this:
- Burgernomics to go, Free Exchange, 9 June 2012
That's totally awesome. Now what I'd like to see next is a study of residential rents in Big Macs per month. Also, I'd really like a McDonald's cheeseburger and small fries now. Did I mention the nearest McDonald's is 484 km away? Darn you, Free Exchange! Darn you to heck!
Bad news for your correspondent
Seeing as I have a day job, a dog, and some hobbies (also known as "a life"), it's rather difficult to write political-economic commentary in a timely way. So this isn't exactly "news" right now, but it might yet be new to you. Consider the following:
The CAW economist in question, Jim Stanford, tried to explain to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance that no, employment has not recovered from The Recession. Quoth he:
Of course if you're a worker, you already knew that. When your correspondent was in school for pre-employment carpentry in the fall of 2008, Flint Energy Services (now URS Flint) was hiring apprentice carpenters for its Fort McMurray projects, twenty at a time, no experience necessary. That's exactly why I was taking the course. But by the time I came out of school, The Recession was on, the projects were cancelled, and job postings on Flint's website had gone from 1500 to 50. Nowadays it might have 200 to 300, but it's just not there. And if you life Flint on Facebook, every time they advertise a job fair or urgent need for X or Y skill, former Flint workers start asking when their job will reopen. It's sad.
Stanford estimates the actual unemployment in Canada at 12.1%, including those who fall under the official definition of "unemployed", those who have left the work force, those working part-time for lack of anything else, and those waiting for jobs to start. It doesn't include the under-employed, like your correspondent. An estimate of that number could, I suspect, be obtained from the changes in the shares of skilled areas of employment, such as construction and manufacturing, compared to unskilled areas such as service. That is to say, we skilled workers are getting along by waiting tables and such. Which is better than the dole, but as Free Exchange was saying on May 26, we're not just bored and broke, we're also losing our skills.
One myth that clearly didn't get debunked for Canada NewsWire yet is the idea that the recession is over. "The worst days of the 2008-09 recession", as they call it, are alive and well, notwithstanding The Harper's Government factually inaccurate statements to the contrary. Earlier this year, The Economist had expressed some cautious optimism that the recovery might perhaps be realistically expected for 2013. More recent issues seem to expect rather a more or less catastrophic collapse.
The CBC article suggests much the same. Apparently, Manpower Group Inc. calculated the hiring outlook to be the lowest in two years, that is, since 2010. Fortunately, I was working in my field in 2010 (for a grotesquely dishonest employer, mind you), so at that time I didn't keep track of the job postings, but I certainly didn't see a glut of them when I started looking for a way out.
And not only is the hiring outlook that bad, but construction and manufacturing are even below the average. And whereas Maclean's had recently printed figures showing the services sector on the winning side (US figures, mind you, like that's any use in a Canadian newspaper), Manpower apparently sees it the other way. More's the pity: that means less jobs waiting tables for us construction refugees.
Your correspondent is not amused.
- CAW Economist Debunks "Myth" of Labour Shortage, Says True Unemployment Rate is Over 12 Per cent, CAW, 31 May 2012
- Hiring outlook hits 2-year low, CBC News, 12 June 2012
The CAW economist in question, Jim Stanford, tried to explain to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance that no, employment has not recovered from The Recession. Quoth he:
"The oft-made claim that Canada's labour market has fully recovered from the recession is blatantly and empirically false. In fact, the labour market remains almost as weak as during the worst days of the downturn... Canada continues to experience a condition of severe and chronic underutilization of our labour supply. It is simply not credible to speak of a 'labour shortage' that somehow constrains our economic growth. This feared labour shortage is a myth invoked to justify painful and unnecessary cuts to important social programs... Government policies aimed at compelling labour supply (including proposals to defer Old Age Security, cut Employment Insurance benefits, and dramatically expand the Temporary Foreign Worker program) are motivated not by a labour shortage, but by a desire to suppress wages."
Of course if you're a worker, you already knew that. When your correspondent was in school for pre-employment carpentry in the fall of 2008, Flint Energy Services (now URS Flint) was hiring apprentice carpenters for its Fort McMurray projects, twenty at a time, no experience necessary. That's exactly why I was taking the course. But by the time I came out of school, The Recession was on, the projects were cancelled, and job postings on Flint's website had gone from 1500 to 50. Nowadays it might have 200 to 300, but it's just not there. And if you life Flint on Facebook, every time they advertise a job fair or urgent need for X or Y skill, former Flint workers start asking when their job will reopen. It's sad.
Stanford estimates the actual unemployment in Canada at 12.1%, including those who fall under the official definition of "unemployed", those who have left the work force, those working part-time for lack of anything else, and those waiting for jobs to start. It doesn't include the under-employed, like your correspondent. An estimate of that number could, I suspect, be obtained from the changes in the shares of skilled areas of employment, such as construction and manufacturing, compared to unskilled areas such as service. That is to say, we skilled workers are getting along by waiting tables and such. Which is better than the dole, but as Free Exchange was saying on May 26, we're not just bored and broke, we're also losing our skills.
One myth that clearly didn't get debunked for Canada NewsWire yet is the idea that the recession is over. "The worst days of the 2008-09 recession", as they call it, are alive and well, notwithstanding The Harper's Government factually inaccurate statements to the contrary. Earlier this year, The Economist had expressed some cautious optimism that the recovery might perhaps be realistically expected for 2013. More recent issues seem to expect rather a more or less catastrophic collapse.
The CBC article suggests much the same. Apparently, Manpower Group Inc. calculated the hiring outlook to be the lowest in two years, that is, since 2010. Fortunately, I was working in my field in 2010 (for a grotesquely dishonest employer, mind you), so at that time I didn't keep track of the job postings, but I certainly didn't see a glut of them when I started looking for a way out.
And not only is the hiring outlook that bad, but construction and manufacturing are even below the average. And whereas Maclean's had recently printed figures showing the services sector on the winning side (US figures, mind you, like that's any use in a Canadian newspaper), Manpower apparently sees it the other way. More's the pity: that means less jobs waiting tables for us construction refugees.
Your correspondent is not amused.
2012-06-16
Contre l'interdiction du voile intégral
Je ne suis pas seulement contre l'interdiction du voile intégral, je suis pour son port général. Les femmes, les hommes, tous. Parce que les gens sont laids et moins on en voit, mieux ça vaut. Mais bon, là n'est pas la question. J'avais dit que je ferais un article sur les raisons contre l'interdiction du voile intégral, donc, le voici.
Il y a deux raisons de ne pas interdire le voile : premièrement, ça ne fait de mal à personne, et deuxièmement, les arguments pour l'interdiction sont très mauvais. Donc plutôt que de prouver que ça devrait être permit, ce qui n'est pas nécessaire car on a quand même le droit de s'habiller comme on veut, que je sache, je vais juste montrer pourquoi les arguments des autres sont mauvais. Donc en caractères gras, vous trouverez les arguments pour l'interdiction du voile, et en caractères normaux, ma réponse.
- C'est un geste religieux.
Et alors ? C'est permis, que je sache, les gestes religieux. Les prêtres ont bien le droit de porter la soutane, non ? - La religiosité n'est pas une valeur républicaine.
Peut-être, mais d'abord la question ne touche pas que la France, mais aussi la Belgique, la Suède, le Canada, et d'autres ; deuxièmement, même en France, on n'est pas obligé de se tenir uniquement aux valeurs prescrites par la République ; et troisièmement, en France et dans les autres pays susdits, la liberté et l'égalité sont des valeurs nationales. La liberté de se vêtir comme on veut, et l'application égale de ce droit à tous, incluses. - Le Coran ne prescrit pas le port du voile.
Orwellien, ça. « Tout ce qui n'est pas prescrit par le Coran est interdit » ? Ah bon ? Depuis quand ? Et puis d'ailleurs, la Bible ne prescrit pas Noël, alors commençons donc par nous débarrasser de ça, et après on verra pour le voile. - C'est un geste politique.
Selon un sondage franco-musulman, ça ne l'est pas ; mais même si ça l'était, les gestes politiques sont également permis. Et justement, exprimer des convictions politiques par ses vêtements, c'est très à la mode, puisque ça ne requiert aucun effort. Alors s'il est permis de s'habiller en violet pour soutenir les gays, on voit mal pourquoi il ne serait pas permis de se voiler la face pour... quoi, d'ailleurs ? Personne ne m'a expliqué ce que le voile est censé revendiquer. - C'est une façon d'exprimer haut et fort « je suis un objet sexuel ».
Bon, attribuer ses propres pensées aux autres, ça compte pas, comme argument, mais à supposer que ce soit en effet ce que pensent les femmes voilées, il me semble que ça aussi, c'est permis, et c'est même à la mode, non ? Bon, c'est plus usuel de le faire comme ceci :
Des goûts et des couleurs, hein. D'ailleurs comme réclame sexuelle, le voile est plus crédible que ceci :
Et puis c'est nettement moins con que de s'habiller en déshabillé et de prétendre que ça, par contre, ça n'est pas un signal sexuel. - C'est humiliant.
Voir ci-dessus ce que je viens de dire sur attribuer ses pensées aux autres. Pis voir ci-dessus également la grosse femme en petite tenue. C'est pas humiliant, ça ? Et puis comme les femmes voilées n'essayent pas d'imposer leur choix aux autres, on voit pas en quoi ça te nuit qu'elles soient, selon toi, humiliées. - Les hommes arabes, eux, ne sont pas contraints de se mettre un torchon sur la tête.
Ah non ?
Et bin si, justement. Encore si t'avais dit que les hommes arabes ne sont pas contraints de se voiler la face, t'aurais raison, mais non, l'argument disait exactement ça, « se mettre un torchon sur la tête. » Et une fois de plus, qu'est-ce que ça peut faire ? Les hommes européens ne sont pas contraints de porter des chaussures à talons pour mettre leur cul en valeur, mais ce n'est pas une raison d'interdire les talons. - C'est une coutume wahhabite ou pachtoune.
Et ça, c'est interdit depuis quand ? Tiens, on pourrait également interdire de s'essuyer le cul de la main gauche, parce que c'est une coutume musulmane. Et danser pour attirer un partenaire sexuel, ils font ça en Afrique, donc il faut aussi l'interdire. Porter des bijoux, d'ailleurs, c'est une coutume des peuples primitifs, c'est dégueulasse, faut absolument s'en débarrasser. Nan mais sérieusement, est-ce qu'on pourrait m'expliquer quelles coutumes ethniques sont permises ? Et qui maintient la liste des ethnies aux coutumes prohibées ? C'est important, hein. Parce que tous les hommes sont libres et égaux en droits, mais de toute évidence, certains sont plus égaux que d'autres. - Ce sont les hommes qui y contraignent les femmes.
Bin comme toutes les autres modes, d'ailleurs. Et 95% des femmes voilées en France le sont de leur plein gré, donc apparemment, non. - Si les femmes le portent de leur plein gré, c'est à cause du lavage de cerveau imposé par leurs hommes.
Sympa, ça. Soit elles sont contraintes, soit elles sont trop bêtes pour savoir qu'elles sont contraintes. Heureusement qu'elles t'ont pour les défendre, chevalier courtois !
Enfin que ce soit l'un ou l'autre, ce n'est une fois de plus pas unique à ce style, car il y a beaucoup de femmes qui ne portent pas le voile et sont néanmoins contraintes par leurs partenaires à s'habiller de telle ou telle façon ou à faire telle ou telle chose qui ne leur plaît pas. Alors au lieu d'interdire une des milliers de choses qu'une femme pourrait avoir à faire sous la contrainte, on a fait des lois qui empêchent les uns de contraindre les autres. Il n'est donc pas nécessaire d'avoir une loi spéciale pour protéger les femmes aux cerveaux lavés contre le voile. - Si les femmes voilées ne se voilent pas suffisamment, elles vont se faire battre.
Voir au-dessus. Les femmes battues, il y en a de toutes les couleurs, et s'habiller trop légèrement est une des raisons les plus communes de se faire battre par son partenaire. Voile ou pas voile. D'ailleurs si tu les empêches de se voiler, ça va pas calmer leurs hommes, bien au contraire. Si elles étaient battues avec le voile, elles le seront au moins autant sans le voile. - Oui, mais les femmes voilées, la loi impose qu'on les batte.
Dans certains pays, oui. Les mêmes pays où on ampute les mains des voleurs et on castre les violeurs. Bon, donc la sharia est une loi injuste, discriminatoire et oppressive. Mais comme on ne l'a pas en France, Belgique, Suède ou au Canada, ça n'a aucun rapport. - Les femmes volontairement voilées ne se joignent pas au combat de leurs consœurs contraintes.
Bin non. Et il n'y a rien qui les y oblige. Moi je ne me joins pas au combat des femmes qui veulent allaiter dans les endroits publics, ou des congés de maternité plus longs, ou des quotas pour les postes de direction des entreprises. Je soutiens moralement les femmes saoudites qui revendiquent le droit de conduire, mais vu que je n'y suis pas, je pense qu'elles se moquent assez de mon soutient. On n'est pas tous obligés de se battre pour la même chose. Voir ci-dessus, « liberté ». - Elles nous refusent la connivence d'un sourire.
Ça c'est une idée d'Elisabeth Badinter (voir ci-dessus). Alors je t'explique : quand les femmes se voilent, ça n'a rien à voir avec toi, Elisabeth Badinter. Tiens, c'est probablement ça qui la vexe, d'ailleurs. Il y a des gens qui n'en ont rien à faire de son existence et qui ne se sentent pas tenus de lui sourire ou de lui montrer leur face. Ça ne lui coûte rien, mais ça la fait chier parce que ça ne la reconnait pas comme le centre de l'univers. Enfin si j'ai bien compris, parce que je comprends mal, justement. Moi si je rencontrais Elisabeth Badinter, je ne lui sourirais pas non plus, et j'ai le droit. - Les hommes des femmes voilées peuvent les divorcer.
Tiens, c'est marrant, ceux des femmes déshabillées aussi ! Ouah, nous sommes tellement semblables ! Je me sens si proche de mes sœurs débraillées ! (Ah, tiens, non, c'est moi qui l'ai quitté, mon ex-homme.) Bon bin faut croire que les hommes c'est tous des maudits caves, mais on ne voit pas en quoi supprimer le voile les rendrait plus honnêtes. - Les filles des femmes voilées vont également porter le voile.
Oui. Pas forcément, hein. Y a beaucoup de gosses de femmes indiennes, chinoises ou autres qui ne s'habillent pas du tout comme leurs mères. Mais bon, vu que les mères le font de leur plein gré, ça risque pas de les déranger beaucoup que leurs filles en fassent de même. - Ça trouble l'ordre public.
Ah oui ? Donne-moi un exemple d'une femme en burqa qui a troublé l'ordre public par le seul fait de porter la burqa. T'es même pas cap. Et on voit mal pourquoi se cacher le visage avec un voile serait plus dangereux que se cacher le visage avec... bin, un voile, par exemple. Genre une voilette ou un voile de mariée. Ou une écharpe, on un masque N95. Ou des grosses lunettes de soleil et un foulard. Ou une capuche. Les gens qui troublent l'ordre public trouvent souvent utile de se voiler la face, mais ça n'implique pas l'inverse, que ceux ou celles qui se voilent la face vont ipso facto troubler l'ordre public. - On peut cacher un AK-47 sous une burqa.
Oui, mais rarement entre le nez et le menton. D'ailleurs on pourrait également le cacher sous une gabardine, un muu-muu, un ciré ou une robe de bal. Alors il va falloir imposer le spandex à tout le monde, au cas où. Pis aussi interdire aux gros de sortir de chez eux, parce que les gros ça peut cacher toutes sortes d'explosifs entre les bourrelets.
Bon, on dirait que j'ai fait le tour des arguments anti-voile. Si vous en avez d'autre, envoyez-les moi, ça m'intéresse.
2012-06-15
No, I'm not going to write for you
In this town, we have four periodical publications: News/North which is the English-language territorial weekly newspaper, L'Aquilon is the French-language territorial weekly, The Hub is the local weekly, and Squawk which brands itself as "Hay River's arts and culture magazine" and is printed approximately once a month.
I've written letters and op-eds for both News/North and The Hub. Why? Because the people must be informed, and the newspapers aren't about to do it. And because I've been published repeatedly in both these papers, the other two have asked me repeatedly to write for them, too.
Yeah: no.
Actually, I did write a commentary on the 2011 federal election for L'Aquilon, but mostly because I needed some place to send it and the other two probably wouldn't have printed it. As far as I know, neither did L'Aquilon.
But mostly, no, I'm not going to write for you, whoever you are. Unless you're The Economist. If The Economist asked me for a piece, I'd probably literally explode with pride. But that's not gonna happen. And therein is the problem: if you're asking me to write for you, I am doing you a favour. If I send you an op-ed and you print it, you're doing me a favour, so that's fine. It doesn't mean I'm all verklempt. I've been published in much better papers than News/North, thank you. Most notably, The Edmonton Journal once ran a letter of mine that provoked such a firestorm of replies that their staff cartoonist actually cartooned my letter the next week. I'm that cool. So no, I'm not all tickled pink when you print my op-ed in your puny paper. I'm just happy that I have a medium to broadcast my message to the masses at no cost to myself. (No financial cost, at least.)
Now if you ask me to write for you, the flow of value is reversed. You're not providing value to me by giving my message a medium; rather, you're obtaining value from me to increase that of your medium. Therefore, I expect you to pay me. Seriously. Real newspapers pay for submissions, and all the more so when they commission a piece from a noted writer - even if that notoriety is only local. They don't pay a lot of money, but they do pay. So if you approach me to commission a piece, you need to come bearing gifts.
Second, there is the matter of whether I want my words in your publication. I am, as you've noticed, a writer of some note locally. Some people recognise my name. Politicians placate me. My words have a certain weight. That's exactly why you're trying to acquire them. And therefore I ask myself: do I increase my words' currency by having them printed in your publication? Will people listen to me more after I've appeared in your publication, or less? In short, does your publication lend me credibility, or vice-versa? If you're approaching me, then the odds are, the latter.
And third, there is the question of whether your readership is the right audience for my writing. I write on certain topics and not others. If your readers obviously have no interest in my topics, why would I wirte for you? Consider the following: at the end of 2011, Squawk asked in a survey what was the most important world event in 2011. The readers answered "the marriage of Prince Whatever." I was appalled. The owner of Squawk asked me to write a piece on 2011 world events in reply. But why would I do that? Obviously your readers have zero interest in world events. It would be a waste of my writing. And a waste of my currency, too. If I start running political pieces in a paper that otherwise prints stickmen drawn by local twenty-somethings and the contents of someone's MP3 playlist, I'm devaluing my word considerably.
I did write an 1800-word piece on 2011 world events, but I didn't send it to anyone. Anyone who would print my take on world events is not the caliber of paper that I want to write for. (Now that I have this blog, though, I might put that piece up. It's my blog, after all.)
I did also write a piece for Squawk. About the lifecycle of the black carpet beetle and how to get rid of infestations. Why? Because most people here complain bitterly of black carpet beetle larvae but don't know what they are or what to do about them, and none of the other papers is likely to run a piece about them. In the end, neither did Squawk. Because the content of someone's MP3 playlist are clearly much more important than insect infestations. And therein is another reason I probably won't write for you: because in all the local publications, fluff is considered more important than information. And I only write for public consumption to share information. (Yes, some of it is information about my opinion. Everyone is entitled to my opinion, after all.)
So no, I'm not going to write for you. Because your publication is fluff, because it doesn't increase my standing, and because you're not paying me. I'll just put my writing on a blog, where only I control them. Kthxbai.
I've written letters and op-eds for both News/North and The Hub. Why? Because the people must be informed, and the newspapers aren't about to do it. And because I've been published repeatedly in both these papers, the other two have asked me repeatedly to write for them, too.
Yeah: no.
Actually, I did write a commentary on the 2011 federal election for L'Aquilon, but mostly because I needed some place to send it and the other two probably wouldn't have printed it. As far as I know, neither did L'Aquilon.
But mostly, no, I'm not going to write for you, whoever you are. Unless you're The Economist. If The Economist asked me for a piece, I'd probably literally explode with pride. But that's not gonna happen. And therein is the problem: if you're asking me to write for you, I am doing you a favour. If I send you an op-ed and you print it, you're doing me a favour, so that's fine. It doesn't mean I'm all verklempt. I've been published in much better papers than News/North, thank you. Most notably, The Edmonton Journal once ran a letter of mine that provoked such a firestorm of replies that their staff cartoonist actually cartooned my letter the next week. I'm that cool. So no, I'm not all tickled pink when you print my op-ed in your puny paper. I'm just happy that I have a medium to broadcast my message to the masses at no cost to myself. (No financial cost, at least.)
Now if you ask me to write for you, the flow of value is reversed. You're not providing value to me by giving my message a medium; rather, you're obtaining value from me to increase that of your medium. Therefore, I expect you to pay me. Seriously. Real newspapers pay for submissions, and all the more so when they commission a piece from a noted writer - even if that notoriety is only local. They don't pay a lot of money, but they do pay. So if you approach me to commission a piece, you need to come bearing gifts.
Second, there is the matter of whether I want my words in your publication. I am, as you've noticed, a writer of some note locally. Some people recognise my name. Politicians placate me. My words have a certain weight. That's exactly why you're trying to acquire them. And therefore I ask myself: do I increase my words' currency by having them printed in your publication? Will people listen to me more after I've appeared in your publication, or less? In short, does your publication lend me credibility, or vice-versa? If you're approaching me, then the odds are, the latter.
And third, there is the question of whether your readership is the right audience for my writing. I write on certain topics and not others. If your readers obviously have no interest in my topics, why would I wirte for you? Consider the following: at the end of 2011, Squawk asked in a survey what was the most important world event in 2011. The readers answered "the marriage of Prince Whatever." I was appalled. The owner of Squawk asked me to write a piece on 2011 world events in reply. But why would I do that? Obviously your readers have zero interest in world events. It would be a waste of my writing. And a waste of my currency, too. If I start running political pieces in a paper that otherwise prints stickmen drawn by local twenty-somethings and the contents of someone's MP3 playlist, I'm devaluing my word considerably.
I did write an 1800-word piece on 2011 world events, but I didn't send it to anyone. Anyone who would print my take on world events is not the caliber of paper that I want to write for. (Now that I have this blog, though, I might put that piece up. It's my blog, after all.)
I did also write a piece for Squawk. About the lifecycle of the black carpet beetle and how to get rid of infestations. Why? Because most people here complain bitterly of black carpet beetle larvae but don't know what they are or what to do about them, and none of the other papers is likely to run a piece about them. In the end, neither did Squawk. Because the content of someone's MP3 playlist are clearly much more important than insect infestations. And therein is another reason I probably won't write for you: because in all the local publications, fluff is considered more important than information. And I only write for public consumption to share information. (Yes, some of it is information about my opinion. Everyone is entitled to my opinion, after all.)
So no, I'm not going to write for you. Because your publication is fluff, because it doesn't increase my standing, and because you're not paying me. I'll just put my writing on a blog, where only I control them. Kthxbai.
2012-06-13
Perchance to dream
One of the most puzzling statements in the 2012-13 territorial budget address was this:
First of all, Moody's does not measure nor comment on a borrower's management style, only on its credit risk. So that was a non sequitur. I'm sure anyone who's ever tried to get services from the GNWT snorted coffee out their nose when they read that.
Second, Miltenberger forgot to mention the two actual reasons our credit rating is high: on the one hand, we have a strict borrowing limit, and on the other, our government is bankrolled by the Government of Canada. The chance of us not meeting our debt servicing obligations is therefore practically nil, and it's none of the GNWT's doing. If anything, I have to wonder why we only got Moody's second best rating. Canada is rated Aaa and is sure to bail us out if the need arose. In fact, if you look at how puny we are compared to Canada, we have essentially infinite money to pay our debt, give or take some administrative hurdles. I'd say our debt should be safer than Canada's. So if Moody's is ranking us lower, they must really not think much of Miltenberger's management.
Third and most importantly, let's look at our deficit as a percentage of GDP. The latest numbers I have are for 2010 and look like this:
How bad is that? Really bad. But wait! The expenditure-based GDP, of course, includes the GNWT's own expenditures, which are massive. And did I mention, bankrolled by the Government of Canada? So I always like to subtract the GNWT's expenditures from the GDP, to see what we'd look like without that gorilla. Thusly:
Now that's really bad. Consider the following:
Excel charts formatting isn't as smooth as The Economist, but hey, I'm on a budget. Of $0. Anyway. As you can see, these are 2010 deficits as percentage of GDP. In yellow we have the Eurozone, in blue the rest of the European Union (data from the ECB for both), in purple, Canada (data from the OECD via Global Finance) in orange, the Northwest Territories including GNWT expenditures, and in red, the Northwest Territories with my adjusted GDP (data as referenced above).
Spain, Portugal, Greece and Ireland are all getting bailed out, and Italy is wobbly. The European Union currently has a deficit target of 3% of GDP for its members, which will go to 0% when the Fiscal Compact comes into effect. Ireland has made huge progress since this 2010 statistic, but the other countries are missing their deficit-reduction targets on a regular basis. But while all this is going down in Europe, the GNWT has been on perma-bailout for... ever, I think, and has no deficit-reduction plans. In fact, the planned deficit is up 11% from 2010, and somehow I don't think we can say the same of the GDP.
Wake up, Mr. Miltenberger.
We remain one of the best managed jurisdictions in Canada. Our Aa1 credit rating is the second-highest rating obtainable from Moody’s Investors Service with only Alberta and British Columbia receiving higher ratings in Canada. Our debt servicing costs are only 1 per cent of revenues, and we have one of the lowest debt to GDP ratios in the country. And we intend to keep it that way.
First of all, Moody's does not measure nor comment on a borrower's management style, only on its credit risk. So that was a non sequitur. I'm sure anyone who's ever tried to get services from the GNWT snorted coffee out their nose when they read that.
Second, Miltenberger forgot to mention the two actual reasons our credit rating is high: on the one hand, we have a strict borrowing limit, and on the other, our government is bankrolled by the Government of Canada. The chance of us not meeting our debt servicing obligations is therefore practically nil, and it's none of the GNWT's doing. If anything, I have to wonder why we only got Moody's second best rating. Canada is rated Aaa and is sure to bail us out if the need arose. In fact, if you look at how puny we are compared to Canada, we have essentially infinite money to pay our debt, give or take some administrative hurdles. I'd say our debt should be safer than Canada's. So if Moody's is ranking us lower, they must really not think much of Miltenberger's management.
Third and most importantly, let's look at our deficit as a percentage of GDP. The latest numbers I have are for 2010 and look like this:
| Expenditure-based GDP (Statistics Canada) | 4,696,000 | |
| GNWT's deficit per 2010 audited F/S | 14,472 | |
| Grant received from the Government of Canada | 864,161 | |
| Transfer payment from the Government of Canada | 102,358 | |
| Total deficit | 980,991 | |
| Deficit as percentage of GDP | 20.9% |
How bad is that? Really bad. But wait! The expenditure-based GDP, of course, includes the GNWT's own expenditures, which are massive. And did I mention, bankrolled by the Government of Canada? So I always like to subtract the GNWT's expenditures from the GDP, to see what we'd look like without that gorilla. Thusly:
| Expenditure-based GDP (Statistics Canada) | 4,696,000 | |
| Less GNWT's expenses | 1,446,672 | |
| Adjusted GDP | 3,249,328 | |
| GNWT's deficit per 2010 audited F/S | 14,472 | |
| Grant received from the Government of Canada | 864,161 | |
| Transfer payment from the Government of Canada | 102,358 | |
| Total deficit | 980,991 | |
| Deficit as percentage of GDP | 30.2% |
Now that's really bad. Consider the following:
Excel charts formatting isn't as smooth as The Economist, but hey, I'm on a budget. Of $0. Anyway. As you can see, these are 2010 deficits as percentage of GDP. In yellow we have the Eurozone, in blue the rest of the European Union (data from the ECB for both), in purple, Canada (data from the OECD via Global Finance) in orange, the Northwest Territories including GNWT expenditures, and in red, the Northwest Territories with my adjusted GDP (data as referenced above).
Spain, Portugal, Greece and Ireland are all getting bailed out, and Italy is wobbly. The European Union currently has a deficit target of 3% of GDP for its members, which will go to 0% when the Fiscal Compact comes into effect. Ireland has made huge progress since this 2010 statistic, but the other countries are missing their deficit-reduction targets on a regular basis. But while all this is going down in Europe, the GNWT has been on perma-bailout for... ever, I think, and has no deficit-reduction plans. In fact, the planned deficit is up 11% from 2010, and somehow I don't think we can say the same of the GDP.
Wake up, Mr. Miltenberger.
2012-06-11
Canadian democracy takes another kick in the nuts
Great. Can't split the bill, can't discuss the bill, can't discuss amendments to the bill. 24 hours to amend a bill that affects 114 Acts and the quality of life of every Canadian. That's how much Harper cares about you, Canada: not a flying fuck.
If you voted Conservative, I'm blaming you personally. And if you voted Liberal, too. Next time, learn from your mistakes, vote NDP.
How Canada's Parliament works
I just found a pretty good site while fact-checking for a conversation on the French constitution:
This is why electing young people doesn't work out well. There is just too much to know about too many things to go into politics, and most of those things are not taught anywhere, you have to research them on your own.
- The Canadian Parliamentary System on J.J.'s Complete Guide to Canada
This is why electing young people doesn't work out well. There is just too much to know about too many things to go into politics, and most of those things are not taught anywhere, you have to research them on your own.
2012-06-10
Schumpeter steps on a Lego
Two interesting recent columns from The Economist:
The first one is cool because it's about Lego. Lego. In The Economist. Word! And most importantly, it mentions the vicious pain of stepping on a Lego. And here I thought The Economist was heartless and detatched from the common human experience.
The second should be taped to the desks of every company owner in this town. And to the forehead of whoever wrote that kindergarten-style editorial in The Hub last week. The moral is: if you did things right in the first place, you wouldn't have to worry about preventing people saying you did it wrong. So instead of bullying employees and other critics, try doing the right thing. Easier, faster, cheaper, and in the end, a lot easier on the ego.
I've been saying it for years, but now Schumpeter said it to. Listen up, Hay River.
- Simplify and repeat: The best way to deal with growing complexity may be to keep things simple, Schumpeter, 28 April 2012
- What's in a name: Companies should worry less about their reputation, Schumpeter, 21 April 2012
The first one is cool because it's about Lego. Lego. In The Economist. Word! And most importantly, it mentions the vicious pain of stepping on a Lego. And here I thought The Economist was heartless and detatched from the common human experience.
The second should be taped to the desks of every company owner in this town. And to the forehead of whoever wrote that kindergarten-style editorial in The Hub last week. The moral is: if you did things right in the first place, you wouldn't have to worry about preventing people saying you did it wrong. So instead of bullying employees and other critics, try doing the right thing. Easier, faster, cheaper, and in the end, a lot easier on the ego.
I've been saying it for years, but now Schumpeter said it to. Listen up, Hay River.
And another one
This hardly needs my commentary, if you bother to read it. And I mean you, Michael Miltenberger, with your year-on-year quadrupling corporate profit estimates. Growth ain't happening. Especially not here. So why strategise as if it was?
Even The Economist is against Bill C-38
- Energy in Canada: The great pipeline battle, The Economist, 26 May 2012
Well, I suppose it doesn't say that, exactly. What it does say, essentially, is that The Harper Government is getting rid of the environmental review process to prevent ignorant people from preventing much-needed energy infrastructure developments. And, really, as a country, we do need ignorant people to stop preventing much-needed energy infrastructure developments. Unfortunately, democracy requires that ignorant people be heard too. In fact, democracy is pretty much the rule of the ignorant. It's the very worst system of government, except for all the others.
As a matter of principle, we're better off having democracy than pipelines. Economically, we're not - for now. But then again, it's much easier to prevent energy reaching the ignorant people, than to try to teach them how to use it wisely. So in the long run, economically, we'll probably end up better off keeping our energy resources safely out of reach of the ignorant people. Democracy succeeding despite itself.
What's more to the point is that Harper's sham process is just as bad as inviting intervention from ignorant people. It's just a lot faster. And while I often say that a dumb plan executed with elan is usually better than a good plan with no buy-in, it doesn't follow that a dumb plan with no buy-in has any merit.
Eike Batista for mayor!
Nevermind Latour or Cassidy. They might be highly popular and better than all the rest put together, but they're only so good at economics and they'll never do anything bold. What we need is this guy:
I wonder how much his consulting fee is. Probably bigger than the territory's whole "GDP".
- Eike Batista: The salesman of Brazil (The Economist, 26 May 2012)
I wonder how much his consulting fee is. Probably bigger than the territory's whole "GDP".
2012-06-05
Municipal politics survey, 19 May 2012
Method
The study was conducted using Survey Monkey, an online survey engine. The respondents were a self-selected sample of Facebook users. There were 35 usable responses. No demographic data was collected.
The population size was taken to be 1262, the average number of votes cast for mayor in the last three elections (2003, 2006, 2009). The 2007 by-election was not used as MACA could not make the numbers available.
Fire hall and other capital projects
6 out of 35 respondents (17%) reported having attended the public meeting held 16 April 2012 by the Town Council to report on the process and answer questions.
The respondents were asked to identify the correct funding scheme for the fire hall replacement out of the following options:
- $6.20 million from Town reserves
- $6.20 million of which $2.94 M from Town reserves, $2.20 M from the federal Build Canada Fund, and $1.06 M from the territorial Community Capacity Building Fund
- $6.20 million of which $2.94 M from Town reserves and the rest as a 15-year, prime + 0.5% mortgage
- $6.20 million of which $2.94 M from Town reserves and the rest through increased property taxes starting in 2013
- None of the above
Respondents who attended the meeting all identified #2 as the correct answer. Out of those who did not attend, 56% picked the correct answer, 8% chose the mortgage, and 36% chose "none of the above." They were not asked what exactly they envisioned.
The respondents were asked to answer on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is "No, absolutely not", and 5 is "Yes, absolutely", the following questions:
- Was it appropriate to give the fire hall replacement priority over other capital projects?
- Will maintenance of sewers, water lines and roads receive less funding as a result of the fire hall replacement project?
- Should landowners be the only ones with a say in how the Town spends money?
The responses were as follows:
| Attended | Didn't attend | Overall | |
| Appropriate decision | 4.8 | 3.0 | 3.4 |
| Maintenance changes | 1.7 | 3.1 | 2.8 |
| Landowners' dictatorship | 2.3 | 2.6 | 2.5 |
It does not follow that the meeting was attended only by supporters of the fire hall; I, for example, had expected to disagree, having read misleading information on Facebook. The correct information presented at the meeting changed my mind.
In my opinion these results show that the Council's information meetings are effective. Those who attended clearly understood and retained what was said (one notable exception did not choose to participate in the survey). Those who did not attend, aptly, have no opinion as a group, though individually they might.
The question on the landowners' dictatorship was introduced to test support for Sandra Lester's claim that this is and should be the case. The amount of support for this nonsensical idea was surprisingly high, with 12% choosing "yes, probably" and 15% choosing "yes, absolutely." Of course, being unconstitutional and out of style for several centuries, this concept hardly needs to be dignified with a rebuttal, but just in case, consider the following:
- 33% of residents in Hay River are renters
- 42% of Town revenue comes from property taxes
So, for those who supported the landowners-only suffrage, let's say you guys vote on the 42% that comes from property taxes (even though your renters pay the taxes on one third of your properties), and the rest of us will vote on the remaining 58%. Sounds pretty fair to me.
The respondents were then asked which of the following capital project should proceed next:
- Replacement of sewer and water lines
- Replacement of Town Hall
- Replacement of the Community Centre (Arena)
- Road upgrades in Old Town
- Building a cultural centre
- Building more sports facilities
- Other – specify
The results were as follows:
This is unfortunate since Town Hall is next on the agenda, yet scored lowest with the voters. The replacement of sewer and water lines, whether deemed capital or maintenance, is probably not really in competition with the other projects since it is a separate fund with its own revenue, and, in theory, its own reserve. There were no suitable entries under "other – specify". One was for a sport facility and was included in that category, the other was for road maintenance which is not a capital item.
Council priorities
The respondents were asked to select from a list which issues they would like the next council to address. The order of the list was randomised each time to avoid biasing results towards the top of the list. Results, with 95% confidence intervals, were as follows:
| Issue | Value | Confidence | Rank |
| Economic growth | 61% | 26% | 1 |
| Permanent doctors | 58% | 26% | 2 |
| Birth services | 48% | 27% | 3 |
| Water and sewage system overhaul | 35% | 25% | 4 |
| Affordable housing | 32% | 25% | 5 |
| Accountability of council | 29% | 24% | 6 |
| Vandalism and littering | 26% | 23% | 7 |
| Protection and maintenance of green spaces | 23% | 22% | 8 |
| Land development | 23% | 22% | 8 |
| Activities for teens at night | 23% | 22% | 8 |
| Animal control | 19% | 21% | 11 |
| Development of cultural facilities | 19% | 21% | 11 |
| Transparency | 16% | 20% | 13 |
| Regulation of ATVs | 16% | 20% | 13 |
| Development of sports facilities | 16% | 20% | 13 |
| Procurement process – small contracts | 10% | 16% | 16 |
| Procurement process – large contracts | 10% | 16% | 16 |
| Replacement of capital assets | 10% | 16% | 16 |
| Food security | 6% | 13% | 19 |
| Flood mitigation | 6% | 13% | 19 |
The respondents picked on average 5 issues each.
It's very interesting to note that some of the issues that make the most noise, such as flood mitigation, are in fact very low on the collective agenda, while the top concern, economic growth, is only ever addressed in broad statements, not in specific proposals, let alone action.
The replacement of water and sewage lines, while important, should not be significantly influenced by the Council, as it has little choice but to approve the recommendations of the administration in that matter. To do otherwise would be rather irresponsible.
As for the idea of permanent doctors, not only has it been explained ad nauseam why that won't happen, but I personally would not care to see it happen, because the odds are good that I'd be stuck with a doctor I don't like for the rest of my life. With locums, at least there's always a non-zero chance of getting a good one.
It's also very interesting that the percentage concerned about affordable housing is nearly equal to the percentage of renters. Not surprisingly: the 2006 census found that rents are 27% higher here than the national average, even though the value of houses is 31% less and 20% of occupied private dwellings are in need of major repairs (8% nationally). While average mortgage payments are also 25% higher than the national average, renters are more sensitive to the disparity of what they get to what they pay for, due to the cognitive bias of the owners that inclines them to believe they paid fair value for their purchase. No one likes to believe they got hosed on a major purchase, whereas it's not difficult to convince oneself one's landlord is overcharging.
From a psephological point of view, the most interesting analysis of these results is to see which candidates are associated with the key issues. The candidates were therefore cross-tabbed against the main five issues, thusly:
| Economic growth | Permanent doctors | Birth services | Water and sewage system overhaul | Affordable housing | Average | |
| Latour, Ken | 72% | 59% | 62% | 70% | 60% | 65% |
| Cassidy, Andrew | 56% | 35% | 38% | 40% | 70% | 48% |
| Wallington, Kevin | 33% | 35% | 46% | 40% | 50% | 41% |
| McKay, Vince | 28% | 35% | 38% | 40% | 50% | 38% |
| Lakusta, Tom | 39% | 18% | 46% | 30% | 50% | 37% |
| Jameson, Kandis | 33% | 29% | 46% | 20% | 20% | 30% |
| Courtoreille, Roy | 28% | 29% | 15% | 30% | 20% | 25% |
| Hanson, Dorie | 17% | 18% | 15% | 30% | 40% | 24% |
| Marie, Elise | 22% | 12% | 15% | 30% | 40% | 24% |
| Crook, Kim | 22% | 18% | 31% | 20% | 20% | 22% |
| Collins, Eileen | 22% | 18% | 8% | 10% | 30% | 18% |
| O'Brien, Dawna | 17% | 12% | 15% | 20% | 20% | 17% |
| Cross Gauthier, Tracy | 22% | 18% | 8% | 20% | 10% | 16% |
(Note: the candidates have not themselves declared their intention to run, at least not to me. Their names were put forward by respondents to my previous surveys.)
For brevity, only the top five issues, and only the candidates who scored at least 10% on the average of the five issues, are presented. The numbers shown represent the percentage of voters interested in that issue who would vote for that candidate. The candidates are sorted in descending order by the average of their five scores.
The moral of this table is that while economic growth is the main issue for the town electorate, there is very little faith in the ability of any candidate to effect it. Cassidy and Latour scored well, but of course Cassidy and Latour score well on everything since most people are voting for them. Other than that, any candidate who can make a convincing economic pitch should have a good chance to get elected; yet conversely, since economic growth is probably the hardest problem to solve, any candidate who runs on an economic platform is facing the risk of a significant backlash if said growth fails to materialise within the next three years.
Only one respondent suggested another issue: "review, re-write and enforce by-laws."
Attributes of councillors
The respondents were asked to select from a list which skills, qualities and attributes are important in a municipal councillor. The order of the list was randomised each time to avoid biasing results towards the top of the list. The list contained nine attributes taken from the Five Factor personality model and were used to score the hypothetical ideal councillor on the Five Factors. The results for those attributes, with 95% confidence intervals, were as follows:
| Main dimension | Attribute | Value | Confidence |
| Agreeableness | Cooperation | 42% | 26% |
| Sympathy | 3% | 9% | |
| Altruism | 3% | 9% | |
| Conscientiousness | Self-discipline | 55% | 26% |
| Dutifulness | 32% | 25% | |
| Cautiousness | 6% | 13% | |
| Extraversion | Friendliness | 23% | 22% |
| Assertiveness | 19% | 21% | |
| Gregariousness | 0% | n/a |
Because the respondents likely did not understand all the terms, the top attribute was selected out of each dimension. The hypothetical candidate therefore scores some 55% in conscientiousness, 42% in agreeableness, and 23% in extraversion. This makes him what Gramzow et al. in Patterns of Self-Regulation and the Big Five calls "cluster 2" and compares to Rank's "adapted" personality type, which "learns to conform to the norms and values of society. These persons resolve the conflict surrounding autonomy by adopting the culture’s goals and standards as their own. Thus, their emotional stability comes from inhibiting pursuit of their own desires and impulses, instead pursuing and adhering to those of society." Conveniently for me, I happen to be Cluster 2 myself – though of course, I suspect Eichmann was too.
As for the other listed attributes, the results were as follows:
| Attribute | Value | Confidence |
| Integrity | 81% | 21% |
| Dependability | 74% | 23% |
| Intelligence | 58% | 26% |
| Education | 52% | 27% |
| Literacy | 32% | 25% |
| Diplomacy | 29% | 24% |
| Political experience | 29% | 24% |
| Loyalty | 16% | 20% |
| Uncritical attitude | 10% | 16% |
| Bluntness of speech | 3% | 9% |
| Numeracy | 3% | 9% |
| Construction experience | 3% | 9% |
| Business ties | 3% | 9% |
| Demagogy | 0% | n/a |
| Sleight of mouth | 0% | n/a |
On the one hand, this works out well for me, since integrity, dependability and intelligence are the three qualities I put on my resume (along with literacy only if the potential employer seems literate).On the other hand, it is a rather strange selection for two reasons. One, our three previously elected mayors (the ones whose elections I remember) are quite the opposite of this description, being high in demagogy and sleight of mouth, but low in integrity and dependability, and certainly not above average in intelligence. As far as I can tell from personal communications by citizens, the same could be said of most of the ones before them, too.
Second, it's bizarre that literacy scored only 32%, and numeracy had only one vote (mine). Municipal councillors receive a monthly briefing packet from the administration, which can run between 150 and 200 pages. Their job consists mostly in reading and understanding the information in that packet, conduct further research as needed, and then make an informed decision in a timely manner. Literacy and numeracy are so crucial to the job of councillor that both Cassidy and Latour, when interviewed separately, identified them as the first necessity for a councillor. In fact, both described the necessary attributes as follows:
- Literacy
- Ability to liaise with the electorate
- Ability to speak to the issues
- Low inclination to take things personally
- Commitment
Finally I find it very strange that "political experience" scored 29%, as the Hay River municipal council can hardly be considered anything but an entry-level political position. Perhaps the respondents meant experience in that particular position, which is certainly of some help.
Once again, the results were cross-tabbed with the candidates to see who is perceived as what. The most strikingly nonsensical finding is that everyone who picked "uncritical attitude" also voted for me. Certainly that's the first time I've ever been called "uncritical", that I know. This shows that either the respondents did not understand some of the terms, or they don't really know the candidates, or both. So a good campaign could make a considerable difference.
On the other hand, one must also consider the possibility that respondents are simply projecting the qualities and agendas they value onto their favourite candidates, which would explain why the candidates were ranked in the same order whether based on straight votes, on correlation with issues, or on correlation with attributes.
In any case, I took the top seven attributes (down to literacy, which had to be included in the list), averaged them, and then ranked the candidates on the average, thusly:
| Attribute | Integrity | Dependability | Intelligence | Self-discipline | Education | Cooperation | Dutifulness | Literacy | Average |
| Latour, Ken | 67% | 57% | 76% | 53% | 57% | 58% | 56% | 63% | 61% |
| Cassidy, Andrew | 46% | 48% | 41% | 47% | 43% | 50% | 56% | 63% | 49% |
| Lakusta, Tom | 38% | 43% | 35% | 53% | 36% | 42% | 56% | 63% | 46% |
| Jameson, Kandis | 42% | 33% | 35% | 47% | 50% | 33% | 22% | 50% | 39% |
| McKay, Vince | 29% | 33% | 41% | 33% | 36% | 42% | 33% | 38% | 36% |
| Wallington, Kevin | 38% | 29% | 53% | 33% | 29% | 42% | 33% | 13% | 34% |
| Marie, Elise | 21% | 24% | 24% | 27% | 21% | 25% | 33% | 25% | 25% |
| Hanson, Dorie | 21% | 19% | 24% | 20% | 29% | 17% | 22% | 38% | 24% |
| Collins, Eileen | 21% | 24% | 12% | 20% | 21% | 25% | 22% | 38% | 23% |
| Courtoreille, Roy | 21% | 24% | 24% | 13% | 21% | 8% | 33% | 25% | 21% |
| Crook, Kim | 21% | 24% | 24% | 33% | 7% | 17% | 22% | 0% | 18% |
| Lefebvre, Brian | 17% | 19% | 12% | 13% | 29% | 8% | 11% | 38% | 18% |
| Gagnier, Sue | 13% | 10% | 12% | 20% | 29% | 25% | 11% | 25% | 18% |
| Cross Gauthier, Tracy | 21% | 14% | 12% | 13% | 14% | 17% | 11% | 25% | 16% |
| Dawson, Bonnie | 8% | 10% | 12% | 20% | 21% | 25% | 11% | 13% | 15% |
Candidates with less than a 15% average were excluded for brevity.
Again, this shows a very low amount of faith in the proposed candidates, since even Latour, despite his popularity, scores only 61% on the qualities the voters think they're looking for, and no one else made 50%.
Voting intentions – council
The candidates proposed for this survey were those nominated in previous surveys, minus those who scored below 33% 19 times out of 20 in the last survey. The results were as follows:
| Candidate | Value | Confidence | Rank | Elected |
| Latour, Ken | 59% | 26% | 1 | yes |
| Cassidy, Andrew | 38% | 26% | 2 | yes |
| Jameson, Kandis | 38% | 26% | 2 | yes |
| Wallington, Kevin | 34% | 25% | 4 | yes |
| Lakusta, Tom | 31% | 25% | 5 | yes |
| McKay, Vince | 31% | 25% | 5 | yes |
| Lefebvre, Brian | 21% | 22% | 7 | yes |
| Collins, Eileen | 17% | 20% | 8 | maybe |
| Courtoreille, Roy | 17% | 20% | 8 | maybe |
| Crook, Kim | 17% | 20% | 8 | maybe |
| Cross Gauthier, Tracy | 17% | 20% | 8 | maybe |
| Hanson, Dorie | 17% | 20% | 8 | maybe |
| Marie, Elise | 17% | 20% | 8 | maybe |
| Gagnier, Sue | 14% | 18% | 14 | no |
| Milne, Jackie | 14% | 18% | 14 | no |
| Dawson, Bonnie | 10% | 16% | 16 | no |
| Griffiths, Jeff | 10% | 16% | 16 | no |
| O'Brien, Dawna | 10% | 16% | 16 | no |
| Buerger, Geoff | 7% | 14% | 19 | no |
| Simpson, Keelen | 3% | 10% | 20 | no |
| Dumas, Earle Jr. | 0% | n/a | 21 | no |
| Wilkie, Jamie | 0% | n/a | 21 | no |
Of course, not all these people will run. The results are similar to the previous survey, except that Milne is down from 33% ± 14%, to 14% ± 18%. The two intervals overlap, of course, so it could be just a statistical fluctuation.
There was a downward trend for all the candidates who were in both surveys, except Jameson. This is due in part to the higher number of candidates proposed, some of which (Latour, Wallington) are very popular, along with a decline in the number picked by each respondent, from 4.2 to 4.0.
The moral is that Latour, Cassidy, Jameson, McKay, Lakusta and Wallington are probably shoo-ins, should they decide to run. The battle for the remaining seats could go to just about anyone. A good campaign is therefore necessary.
Voting intentions – mayor
The candidates proposed this time were McKay and Lefebvre, because word of mouth suggests they're the most likely to run, and myself, because having read the financial statements, it occurred to me I could quit my day job for what the mayor gets paid. The results were as follows:
| Candidate | Votes | Percentage |
| None | 19 | 48% ± 16% |
| Lefebvre | 10 | 25% ± 14% |
| McKay | 7 | 18% ± 12% |
| Marie | 4 | 10% ± 10% |
Zut alors. No quitting my day job, I guess. As in previous surveys, I did not include "none of the above" as a choice, but calculated it from the number of respondents who did not answer the question. And while all three candidates' intervals overlap, only mine includes zero. Yay me! Oh well. So, we're still looking for a mayoral candidate who might be acceptable to the town, other than the ones who aren't running.
Conclusions
- People who went to the fire hall meeting support the fire hall; those who didn't have no opinion.
- There is massive popular support for fixing the sewage / water system, and very little for replacing the Town Hall.
- The issues of concern to voters AND within the Council's bailiwick are economic growth and affordable housing.
- The voters think they value integrity, dependability and intelligence, but electoral results do not support that theory.
- The voters are clearly unaware of the skills required in a municipal councillor.
Latour, Cassidy, Jameson, McKay, Lakusta and Wallington will very likely be elected if they run for council. - The voters do not want McKay, Lefebvre or myself for mayor. Because they want Latour or Cassidy.
2012-06-03
Notes on the territorial 2012-13 main estimate
The following is a set of notes I wrote for the local newspaper after the editor posted the following request on Facebook:
So, my thoughts on the budget.
The budget address itself was a bunch of canned macroeconomic platitudes based on 1940s theories and misinterpretation of statistics. I doubt your readers are interested in my detailed analysis. The main idea is that it's supposed to be an austerity budget with a surplus, but there is actually not much sense in talking about surpluses or deficits in the GNWT budget when it's 76% funded by the federal government. They call most of it a "grant" rather than "transfer payment" but that makes no difference to the reality that we're getting $1.67 billion in federal dole. So what if there is some spare change left at the end of the year? We're still $1.67 billion short of breaking even.
Speaking of our federal dole, it's increased by $73 million over last year per the main estimate. All the government has to do is exactly the same as last year. In addition, the main estimate shows an increase in corporate income tax from $20.3 million to $75.0 million, an increase of 269% year-on-year, and that's really bizarre. I'd really like to know how they figure that corporate profits are going to quadruple in a year, because even in China that doesn't happen.
So in total there is an extra $132.1 million in revenues, which is used basically to cover the shortfall in programs spending last year, plus a 1% increase which is more or less the cost of inflation. And the rest gets put in the bank. The $74.1 million "surplus" therefore depends on a huge increase in corporate tax take, and no real-dollar increase in program spending. I personally have little faith in either one of these assumptions.
The details of the main estimates are more interesting than the summary because there is actually a fair amount of money being moved hither and yon. It's not really a "everything stays the same" budget; what it's doing is moving money from programs with a positive future impact to programs with a crowd-pleasing current impact. For example, the largest dollar-amount increase is a $15.6 contribution to NTPC to subsidise power rates ($10.6 million) and the Inuvik gas problem ($5.0 million). In addition there is another $1.6 million increase in power subsidies through a different department office. For something that's supposed to be an "austerity" budget, it really makes no sense. Power subsidies make people happy in the short-run, but they're not good policy. They're not sustainable. And speaking of sustainable energy use, all those programs are getting slashed: the grant to Arctic Energy Alliance for the Community Energy Planning Program, the grants for wind energy, geothermal and hydro strategies are all gone, biomass energy grant is down $1.5 million, and the ITI Energy contributions ($4.8 million last year) are gone. Now some of these may have reached the end of their funding agreement, but the money isn't being put back into more energy sustainability programs.
The second-largest dollar increase is listed as "other" under Highways, for $5.3 million, so I have no idea what that is. And then a $3.5 million increase to law enforcement contract, i.e. the RCMP contract. That's a 10% increase. Then there is a $2.6 million increase in compensation and benefits, which sounds like a lot but it's a 1% increase with 27 positions being added, so it's barely inflationary. On the other hand the jobs are getting shuffled around, for example, the Office of Devolution is getting a $1.8 million increase in compensation, with 10 new staff based in Yellowknife; and the Health and Social Services directorate is getting a $0.8 million increase in compensation and 7 new positions in Yellowknife. On the other hand the Housing Corporation is losing $0.9 million in compensation and 6 positions, and ENR is losing $0.9 million in compensation from Forest Management but not losing any positions. So it's a zero-sum-game for the bottom line but it's not good news for GNWT employees. In that sense it's good news for the rest of us, who aren't the only ones getting the short end of the stick this time around.
The most exciting line item for the individual, in my opinion, is the $1.0 million Rent Supplement Program, which is going to subsidise working families who pay a disproportionate amount of rent. I think that's gonna be good news for everyone until we actually find out the needs test and discover that most of us barely don't qualify for any help. (I'm speculating here, but that's a pretty common feature in government programs.)
On the other hand, there are some large cuts happening, most noticeably $5.0 million from ENR's Fire Suppression budget. That's 53% of their budget. I'm not sure if we have a magical way of knowing we won't have any forest fires, or we just plan to let them burn. Also there is a $7.0 million (8%) cut to hospital services, which can't be good news for anyone, and a whole bunch of cuts to Health & Social Services, including $1.2 million (19%) from Prevention and Promotion Services, $2.1 million (9%) from Children and Family Services, $2.0 million (31%) from Population Health ("Broad population health through planning, design, development, co-ordination and ongoing management of health and wellness surveillance activities for the Northwest Territories. This includes the development of program standards, monitoring and evaluation in the areas of public health, health promotion, environmental health, disease control and epidemiology.") In all, Health & Social Services is losing $8.9 million (2%). Aptly, Tobacco Cessation was cut and the estimate for tobacco tax revenue is up. Smart!
So my overall comment on this budget is that it's neither "status quo" nor "austerity" but more "rearranging dinner seating on a sinking ship." The whole thing depends on very optimistic ideas about the business outlook, hoping there won't be any forest fires, and some important cut to some health programs. More specifically, the cuts are to programs that would produce future savings and resources, and there is nothing in it that can be expected to stimulate the economy. It's mildly bad for everybody, and there is no getting around the fact we're $1.2 billion short of paying our own bills.
Okay Hay River I need your thoughts for an article!The notes aren't intended to be published as a whole, of course, I expect her to pick one or two quotables. Less, I'll be displeased, more, she's gonna end up owing me money. But of course this is my blog, so you guys get the long version of my thoughts.
The territorial operations and maintenance budget for 2012-2013 was released last week, and I am looking for some feedback.
The budget has been called "status-quo" and will not see taxes increasing. This is the first surplus budget seen in five years, with a surplus of $74 million. Major spending this year includes education, health care, social programs, corrections and housing program -- $818 million in total.
The overall budget, which focuses on programs and jobs, comes in at $1.4 billion.
Does this sound like a budget that will benefit both the territory and Hay River itself? Let me know what you think!
So, my thoughts on the budget.
The budget address itself was a bunch of canned macroeconomic platitudes based on 1940s theories and misinterpretation of statistics. I doubt your readers are interested in my detailed analysis. The main idea is that it's supposed to be an austerity budget with a surplus, but there is actually not much sense in talking about surpluses or deficits in the GNWT budget when it's 76% funded by the federal government. They call most of it a "grant" rather than "transfer payment" but that makes no difference to the reality that we're getting $1.67 billion in federal dole. So what if there is some spare change left at the end of the year? We're still $1.67 billion short of breaking even.
Speaking of our federal dole, it's increased by $73 million over last year per the main estimate. All the government has to do is exactly the same as last year. In addition, the main estimate shows an increase in corporate income tax from $20.3 million to $75.0 million, an increase of 269% year-on-year, and that's really bizarre. I'd really like to know how they figure that corporate profits are going to quadruple in a year, because even in China that doesn't happen.
So in total there is an extra $132.1 million in revenues, which is used basically to cover the shortfall in programs spending last year, plus a 1% increase which is more or less the cost of inflation. And the rest gets put in the bank. The $74.1 million "surplus" therefore depends on a huge increase in corporate tax take, and no real-dollar increase in program spending. I personally have little faith in either one of these assumptions.
The details of the main estimates are more interesting than the summary because there is actually a fair amount of money being moved hither and yon. It's not really a "everything stays the same" budget; what it's doing is moving money from programs with a positive future impact to programs with a crowd-pleasing current impact. For example, the largest dollar-amount increase is a $15.6 contribution to NTPC to subsidise power rates ($10.6 million) and the Inuvik gas problem ($5.0 million). In addition there is another $1.6 million increase in power subsidies through a different department office. For something that's supposed to be an "austerity" budget, it really makes no sense. Power subsidies make people happy in the short-run, but they're not good policy. They're not sustainable. And speaking of sustainable energy use, all those programs are getting slashed: the grant to Arctic Energy Alliance for the Community Energy Planning Program, the grants for wind energy, geothermal and hydro strategies are all gone, biomass energy grant is down $1.5 million, and the ITI Energy contributions ($4.8 million last year) are gone. Now some of these may have reached the end of their funding agreement, but the money isn't being put back into more energy sustainability programs.
The second-largest dollar increase is listed as "other" under Highways, for $5.3 million, so I have no idea what that is. And then a $3.5 million increase to law enforcement contract, i.e. the RCMP contract. That's a 10% increase. Then there is a $2.6 million increase in compensation and benefits, which sounds like a lot but it's a 1% increase with 27 positions being added, so it's barely inflationary. On the other hand the jobs are getting shuffled around, for example, the Office of Devolution is getting a $1.8 million increase in compensation, with 10 new staff based in Yellowknife; and the Health and Social Services directorate is getting a $0.8 million increase in compensation and 7 new positions in Yellowknife. On the other hand the Housing Corporation is losing $0.9 million in compensation and 6 positions, and ENR is losing $0.9 million in compensation from Forest Management but not losing any positions. So it's a zero-sum-game for the bottom line but it's not good news for GNWT employees. In that sense it's good news for the rest of us, who aren't the only ones getting the short end of the stick this time around.
The most exciting line item for the individual, in my opinion, is the $1.0 million Rent Supplement Program, which is going to subsidise working families who pay a disproportionate amount of rent. I think that's gonna be good news for everyone until we actually find out the needs test and discover that most of us barely don't qualify for any help. (I'm speculating here, but that's a pretty common feature in government programs.)
On the other hand, there are some large cuts happening, most noticeably $5.0 million from ENR's Fire Suppression budget. That's 53% of their budget. I'm not sure if we have a magical way of knowing we won't have any forest fires, or we just plan to let them burn. Also there is a $7.0 million (8%) cut to hospital services, which can't be good news for anyone, and a whole bunch of cuts to Health & Social Services, including $1.2 million (19%) from Prevention and Promotion Services, $2.1 million (9%) from Children and Family Services, $2.0 million (31%) from Population Health ("Broad population health through planning, design, development, co-ordination and ongoing management of health and wellness surveillance activities for the Northwest Territories. This includes the development of program standards, monitoring and evaluation in the areas of public health, health promotion, environmental health, disease control and epidemiology.") In all, Health & Social Services is losing $8.9 million (2%). Aptly, Tobacco Cessation was cut and the estimate for tobacco tax revenue is up. Smart!
So my overall comment on this budget is that it's neither "status quo" nor "austerity" but more "rearranging dinner seating on a sinking ship." The whole thing depends on very optimistic ideas about the business outlook, hoping there won't be any forest fires, and some important cut to some health programs. More specifically, the cuts are to programs that would produce future savings and resources, and there is nothing in it that can be expected to stimulate the economy. It's mildly bad for everybody, and there is no getting around the fact we're $1.2 billion short of paying our own bills.
Le projet de loi C-38, ou, pourquoi nous avons besoin de réforme constitutionnelle, première partie
Cet article est reproduit de mon blog français, où je parle souvent de politique.
Il y a trois semaines, Radio Canada m'avait contactée pour voir si je voulais participer à une émission sur la réforme électorale. Ça ne s'est pas fait, parce qu'ils n'ont pas pu s'organiser comme ils voulaient, mais ils m'ont quand même envoyé leurs questions:
1. Croyez-vous que la réforme électorale est nécessaire ?
2. J'ai oublié.
3. Pensez-vous que l'Arctique va être suffisamment représenté si les circonscriptions sont redessinées pour donner plus de poids aux centres urbains ?
Bon. Alors premièrement, non, je ne pense pas que la réforme électorale soit nécessaire ; en fait je pense qu'elle serait parfaitement inutile tant que nous n'avons pas de réforme CONSTITUTIONELLE. Ça je vous l'avais déjà dit après les dernières élections, et d'aucuns pensaient que j'exagérais, alors je t'explique une fois de plus ce qui s'est passé.
Vous vous souvenez peut-être que le chef du gouvernement, Stephen Harper, avait été élu une première fois avec une minorité le 13 février 2006. C'est normal, le Canada a très souvent des gouvernements minoritaires. Notre meilleur premier ministre de toute notre histoire, William Lyon Mackenzie King, a fait 23 ans de minorités, et ça s'est très bien passé. Malheureusement, Harper, comme je vous l'avais dit, est un psychopathe, et ne sait pas coopérer. Donc il a dissous le Parlement le 7 septembre 2008 sous le prétexte que « ils refusent de faire ce que je veux ». Bin oui, imbécile, c'est ça une minorité, c'est toi qui coopère avec eux, pas l'inverse. Alors hop, il a de nouveau eu une minorité. Il avait promis de démissionner si c'était le cas, et n'importe quel politicien normal l'aurait fait, mais non, il est resté, avec une nouvelle stratégie : proroger le Parlement quand il n'obtient pas ce qu'il veut. Il a fini par se faire voter « in contempt of Parliament », ce qui est grave, et il est le seul premier ministre qui l'ait jamais été. Il continue comme devant. Enfin, en 2011, son budget a été battu au Parlement. Ça aussi, normalement ça entraîne automatiquement la démission du chef, mais non, pas Harper. Il y a eu une élection, il a fait 40% des votes exprimés. Pas de problème, on dirait, ça lui fait encore une minorité. Bin non... Grâce à notre système ridicule, ça lui a fait 54% des sièges. 167 sièges sur 309. Ça lui fait 12 sièges d'avance, c'est peu, mais ça lui suffit pour imposer sa loi... tant qu'il ne perd pas ses douze. Il y en a déjà un dont l'élection a été annulée pour irrégularité.
Alors premièrement, nous n'avons plus de gouvernement canadien ; maintenant nous avons « le Gouvernement Harper ». Puis il a refait le même budget. Puis, il a commencé à faire exactement ce que les analystes avaient prédit depuis des années, c’est-à-dire, détruire tout ce qui est utile et moderne au Canada, et s'acheter des jouets de guerre.
Cette année, le budget est sorti le 29 mars, et a gagné, évidemment, puisque le Führer a le droit d'ordonner à ses 166 sbires de voter pour, bien que leurs électeurs, et les sbires eux-mêmes, soient de plus en plus mécontents du Gouvernement Harper. Alors du coup ils ont présenté le projet de loi C-38, intitulé : « loi portant exécution de certaines dispositions du budget déposé au Parlement le 29 mars 2012 et mettant en œuvre d'autres mesures ». Comme titre abrégé, le Gouvernement Harper demande « Loi sur l'emploi, la croissance, et la prospérité durable », mais nous autres Nouveaux Démocrates, on l'appelle le projet Cheval de Troyes.
Le projet de loi C-38 fait 452 pages en PDF et modifie 114 lois, comme ceci :
L'opposition, c’est-à-dire mon parti, a demandé qu'on divise ce projet de loi pour pouvoir discuter et voter séparément sur chaque loi qui doit être modifiée ( sauf bien sûr les amendements conséquents ). Les Cons ont refusé. Il n'y aura pas de débat, point, c'est tout. Le vote est le 28 juin.
Alors qu'est-ce qui se passe quand le Parlement votera ? Soit les 166 députés Cons votent pour, ce qui voudrait dire que Harper est confirmé comme dictateur suprême. Soit il y a 7% de Cons qui ont quand-même une conscience et une colonne vertébrale et qui votent contre. Alors quand le chef du gouvernement perd sur son projet de loi le plus important malgré une majorité, qu'est-ce qu'on fait ? Il ne peut pas rester, mais il va certainement refuser de partir. D'une façon ou d'une autre, nous n'avons aucun recours constitutionnel, il ne reste donc que deux possibilités : s'y résigner comme des bœufs ( probable ), ou la révolution ( très peu probable vu la mollesse des canadiens ). Les chances que l'OTAN vienne bombarder le quartier général de Harper, l'assassiner, et montrer son cadavre au public dans un casier à viande, paraissent très faibles.
Bon, cela dit, ça m'a pris trois heures de lire le projet de loi en diagonale, donc j'ai pas le temps de vous raconter le reste aujourd'hui. Joignez-nous un autre jour pour que je vous explique pourquoi la constitution et nulle et ce qu'il faudrait faire différemment.
Il y a trois semaines, Radio Canada m'avait contactée pour voir si je voulais participer à une émission sur la réforme électorale. Ça ne s'est pas fait, parce qu'ils n'ont pas pu s'organiser comme ils voulaient, mais ils m'ont quand même envoyé leurs questions:
1. Croyez-vous que la réforme électorale est nécessaire ?
2. J'ai oublié.
3. Pensez-vous que l'Arctique va être suffisamment représenté si les circonscriptions sont redessinées pour donner plus de poids aux centres urbains ?
Bon. Alors premièrement, non, je ne pense pas que la réforme électorale soit nécessaire ; en fait je pense qu'elle serait parfaitement inutile tant que nous n'avons pas de réforme CONSTITUTIONELLE. Ça je vous l'avais déjà dit après les dernières élections, et d'aucuns pensaient que j'exagérais, alors je t'explique une fois de plus ce qui s'est passé.
Vous vous souvenez peut-être que le chef du gouvernement, Stephen Harper, avait été élu une première fois avec une minorité le 13 février 2006. C'est normal, le Canada a très souvent des gouvernements minoritaires. Notre meilleur premier ministre de toute notre histoire, William Lyon Mackenzie King, a fait 23 ans de minorités, et ça s'est très bien passé. Malheureusement, Harper, comme je vous l'avais dit, est un psychopathe, et ne sait pas coopérer. Donc il a dissous le Parlement le 7 septembre 2008 sous le prétexte que « ils refusent de faire ce que je veux ». Bin oui, imbécile, c'est ça une minorité, c'est toi qui coopère avec eux, pas l'inverse. Alors hop, il a de nouveau eu une minorité. Il avait promis de démissionner si c'était le cas, et n'importe quel politicien normal l'aurait fait, mais non, il est resté, avec une nouvelle stratégie : proroger le Parlement quand il n'obtient pas ce qu'il veut. Il a fini par se faire voter « in contempt of Parliament », ce qui est grave, et il est le seul premier ministre qui l'ait jamais été. Il continue comme devant. Enfin, en 2011, son budget a été battu au Parlement. Ça aussi, normalement ça entraîne automatiquement la démission du chef, mais non, pas Harper. Il y a eu une élection, il a fait 40% des votes exprimés. Pas de problème, on dirait, ça lui fait encore une minorité. Bin non... Grâce à notre système ridicule, ça lui a fait 54% des sièges. 167 sièges sur 309. Ça lui fait 12 sièges d'avance, c'est peu, mais ça lui suffit pour imposer sa loi... tant qu'il ne perd pas ses douze. Il y en a déjà un dont l'élection a été annulée pour irrégularité.
Alors premièrement, nous n'avons plus de gouvernement canadien ; maintenant nous avons « le Gouvernement Harper ». Puis il a refait le même budget. Puis, il a commencé à faire exactement ce que les analystes avaient prédit depuis des années, c’est-à-dire, détruire tout ce qui est utile et moderne au Canada, et s'acheter des jouets de guerre.
Cette année, le budget est sorti le 29 mars, et a gagné, évidemment, puisque le Führer a le droit d'ordonner à ses 166 sbires de voter pour, bien que leurs électeurs, et les sbires eux-mêmes, soient de plus en plus mécontents du Gouvernement Harper. Alors du coup ils ont présenté le projet de loi C-38, intitulé : « loi portant exécution de certaines dispositions du budget déposé au Parlement le 29 mars 2012 et mettant en œuvre d'autres mesures ». Comme titre abrégé, le Gouvernement Harper demande « Loi sur l'emploi, la croissance, et la prospérité durable », mais nous autres Nouveaux Démocrates, on l'appelle le projet Cheval de Troyes.
Le projet de loi C-38 fait 452 pages en PDF et modifie 114 lois, comme ceci :
- Edictées :
- Loi canadienne sur l'évaluation environnementale (2012)
- Loi sur Services partagés Canada
- Lois sur les opérations transfrontalières intégrées de contrôle d'application de la loi
- Abrogées :
- Loi canadienne sur l'évaluation environnementale
- Loi de mise en œuvre du Protocole de Kyoto
- Loi sur le Centre international des droits de la personne et du développement démocratique
- Loi sur le ministère du Développement social
- Loi sur les justes salaires et les heures de travail
- Modifiées :
- Code canadien du travail
- Code criminel
- Loi canadienne sur la protection de l'environnement (1999)
- Loi canadienne sur la santé
- Loi d'aide à l'exécution des ordonnances et des ententes familiales
- Loi de 1985 sur les normes de prestation de pension
- Loi de 2001 sur l'accise
- Loi de l'impôt sur le revenu
- Loi d'exécution du budget de 2008
- Loi maritime du Canada
- Loi nationale sur l'habitation
- Loi relative au pont de Campobello à Lubec
- Loi sur la Bibliothèque et les Archives du Canada
- Loi sur la Commission canadienne des affaires polaires
- Loi sur la Commission canadienne du blé
- Loi sur la Gendarmerie Royale du Canada
- Loi sur la gestion des finances publiques
- Loi sur la gestion des terres des premières nations
- Loi sur la gestion financière et statistique des premières nations
- Loi sur la monnaie
- Loi sur la pension de la fonction publique
- Loi sur la procréation assistée
- Loi sur la protection de l’environnement en Antarctique
- Loi sur la protection de l'information
- Loi sur la protection des renseignements personnels
- Loi sur la protection du revenu agricole
- Loi sur la rémunération du secteur public
- Loi sur la responsabilité en matière d'aide au développement officielle
- Loi sur la santé des animaux
- Loi sur la sécurité de la vieillesse
- Loi sur la sécurité ferroviaire
- Loi sur la Société canadienne d'hypothèques et de logement
- Loi sur la sûreté et la réglementation nucléaires
- Loi sur la Table ronde nationale sur l'environnement et l'économie
- Loi sur la taxe d'accise
- Loi sur l'accès à l'information
- Loi sur l'Administration canadienne de la sûreté du transport aérien
- Loi sur l'Agence canadienne d'inspection des aliments
- Loi sur l'Agence du revenu du Canada
- Loi sur l'Agence Parcs Canada
- Loi sur l'assurance-emploi
- Loi sur l'autonomie gouvernementale de la première nation de Westbank
- Loi sur le Bureau canadien d’enquête sur les accidents de transport et de la sécurité des transports
- Loi sur le cabotage
- Loi sur le Centre canadien d’hygiène et de sécurité au travail
- Loi sur le Centre de recherches pour le développement international
- Loi sur le Conseil de recherches en sciences naturelles et en génie
- Loi sur le Conseil de recherches en sciences Humaines
- Loi sur le développement des exportations
- Loi sur le droit pour la sécurité des passagers du transport aérien
- Loi sur le gouverneur général
- Loi sur le ministère des Anciens combattants
- Loi sur le ministère des Ressources humaines et du Développement des compétences
- Loi sur le ministère des Travaux publics et des Services gouvernementaux
- Loi sur le Nunavut
- Loi sur le pipe-line du Nord
- Loi sur le Programme de protection des salaries
- Loi sur le Service canadien du renseignement de sécurité
- Loi sur le statut de l'artiste
- Loi sur le système correctionnel et la mise en liberté sous condition
- Loi sur le Tribunal canadien du commerce extérieur
- Loi sur le Yukon
- Loi sur l'Ecole de la fonction publique du Canada
- Loi sur l'emploi et la croissance économique
- Loi sur l'équité en matière d'emploi
- Loi sur les accords de Bretton Woods et des accords connexes
- Loi sur les agents pathogènes humains et les toxines
- Loi sur les aires marines nationales de conservation du Canada
- Loi sur les aliments et les drogues
- Loi sur les allocations aux anciens combattants
- Loi sur les arrangements fiscaux entre le gouvernement fédéral et les provinces
- Loi sur les associations coopératives de crédit
- Loi sur les banques
- Loi sur les carburants de remplacement
- Loi sur les Cours fédérales
- Loi sur les douanes
- Loi sur les emplois dans la fonction publique
- Loi sur les espèces en péril
- Loi sur les Indiens
- Loi sur les Instituts de recherche en santé du Canada
- Loi sur les Investissements Canada
- Loi sur les mesures d'aide liées au coût de l'énergie
- Loi sur les mesures de réinsertion et d'indemnisation des militaires et vétérans des Forces canadiennes
- Loi sur les opérations pétrolières au Canada
- Loi sur les parcs nationaux du Canada
- Loi sur les pêches
- Loi sur les pénalités administratives en matière d'environnement
- Loi sur les pensions
- Loi sur les prestations d'adaptation pour les travailleurs
- Loi sur les semences
- Loi sur les sociétés d'assurances
- Loi sur les sociétés de fiducie et de prêt
- Loi sur les télécommunications
- Loi sur les Territoires du Nord-Ouest
- Loi sur les textes réglementaires
- Loi sur les traitements
- Loi sur l'immigration et la protection des réfugiés
- Loi sur l'indemnisation au Canada en matière d'expositions itinérantes
- Loi sur l'indemnisation des agents de l'Etat
- Loi sur l'Office de financement de l'assurance-emploi du Canada
- Loi sur l'Office des droits de surface du Yukon
- Loi sur l'Office national de l'énergie
- Loi visant le soutien aux aînés vulnérables et le renforcement de l'économie canadienne
- Régime de pensions du Canada
- Tarif des douanes
- Evitée :
- Loi sur la protection des eaux navigables
L'opposition, c’est-à-dire mon parti, a demandé qu'on divise ce projet de loi pour pouvoir discuter et voter séparément sur chaque loi qui doit être modifiée ( sauf bien sûr les amendements conséquents ). Les Cons ont refusé. Il n'y aura pas de débat, point, c'est tout. Le vote est le 28 juin.
Alors qu'est-ce qui se passe quand le Parlement votera ? Soit les 166 députés Cons votent pour, ce qui voudrait dire que Harper est confirmé comme dictateur suprême. Soit il y a 7% de Cons qui ont quand-même une conscience et une colonne vertébrale et qui votent contre. Alors quand le chef du gouvernement perd sur son projet de loi le plus important malgré une majorité, qu'est-ce qu'on fait ? Il ne peut pas rester, mais il va certainement refuser de partir. D'une façon ou d'une autre, nous n'avons aucun recours constitutionnel, il ne reste donc que deux possibilités : s'y résigner comme des bœufs ( probable ), ou la révolution ( très peu probable vu la mollesse des canadiens ). Les chances que l'OTAN vienne bombarder le quartier général de Harper, l'assassiner, et montrer son cadavre au public dans un casier à viande, paraissent très faibles.
Bon, cela dit, ça m'a pris trois heures de lire le projet de loi en diagonale, donc j'ai pas le temps de vous raconter le reste aujourd'hui. Joignez-nous un autre jour pour que je vous explique pourquoi la constitution et nulle et ce qu'il faudrait faire différemment.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)