Are the Ontario Green's really farther right than the federal Greens?

In the Canadian federal election earlier this year, I used the VoteCompass tool produced by the CBC to see where I stood politically. I wrote a blog post about that. I was middle-of-the-road, like the Liberals (according to the tool) on the economic spectrum, but more socially liberal than the liberals. 

Notably, I did not seem to be placed close to my favoured party, the Greens (favoured because of their environmental stance, coupled with good economics). At the time, I commented that the Greens seemed to be placed wrongly by the VoteCompass tool. I have always liked the Greens precisely because they are environmentalists who also have a good grasp of economics, and are not as left-wing as the NDP.

The new VoteCompass tool for next week's Ontario election has a fascinating contrast to the above: All the other parties appear right where they did in the Federal campaign ... except the Greens. The Greens have shifted right. Not beyond the centre, but they are no longer on the left economically. I think this new tools is placing them where they belong. See below for the output of the tool after I had used it.

The Ontario VoteCompass puts me right on top of the Liberals. I think, actually I ought to have been placed right where the Greens are: In the dead centre. 

I will likely vote for the Greens, but might consider the Liberals if my district was close. I think Dalton McGuinty has done a good job. His push for clean energy is on target, for the most part. I would hate to see the Conservatives reverse course, as they have indicated they will.

My only question to McGuinty is, if he lowers university tuition as he has promised is he going to make up difference to the universities? And more than that, is he going to reverse the decline in per-student funding?

The Keystone XL Pipeline or not? We must say no to protect the world for our descendants

I urge everybody to read an excellent post by Steve Easterbrook, in which he writes a letter to President Obama, asking him to consider carefully before approving the Keystone Pipeline.

Easterbrook's post says it all. Making it easier to bring massive new fossil fuel resources to market will put us further on the wrong track regarding climate change.

We are in an awful dilemma. Economically, Albertans, Canadians and US residents will be much better off in the next 10-15 years if we can increase access to the huge oil sands resources. Our current economic troubles are caused, in large part, by the fact that we are at or nearing Peak Oil (where supply of oil can't be raised to meet new demand, so prices rise). Making it easier to exploit the Alberta resources would buy us more time.

However, the devastation to be caused by climate change and higher C02 levels (desertification in some areas, flooding in others, increased weather disasters caused by more intense storms, shifts in food productivity, mass migrations and conflicts caused by these factors, mass species extinctions, acidification of oceans) are an even more critical issue.

We need high oil prices to force investment in alternative energy sources, and we need to resist bringing high-CO2 energy sources to market. The oil sands are extra-high CO2 resources because so much energy is required to extract the oil.

My guess is that Obama will approve the pipeline, since the votes from people without jobs and affected by the recession will likely be greater in number than the votes from people who understand the real issues at stake. I respect Obama, but he is in a tight spot politically. I think he will end up making the 'wrong' decision. Mind you, if he loses next year's election, I shudder to think what might happen if the US Republican's regain the ability to freely make decisions on issues like this.

The only possible way forward is to have everybody spread the work about the issues at stake, so more of the general voting populace can have an influence on their politicians.

Monarchy in Canada: Anachronism?

I have dual British and Canadian citizenship.

In Britain I think the monarchy is a wonderful thing: It brings many tourists, it helps provide cultural cohesion, it reminds people about the richness of their history.

But in Canada, things are not so clear. Prime Minister Harper brought back 'Royal' to the military and has asked embassies to display a picture of the Queen. However, this funny satire by Jeffrey Simpson points out how such changes probably look very odd to many in the country, and even odder to outsiders.

Canada's head of state is the Queen, who occasionally visits, and has her image on all our coins. We probably get some tourism and cultural cohesion value from the monarchy, like Britain. But I think that emphasizing the monarchy will do more harm than good. A great many Quebeckers will feel a little more alienated, and international observers will take Canada a little less seriously.

Do I think we should abolish the monarchy in Canada? Perhaps, but I would prefer to use some term other than 'abolish', and I think we should not do it while Elizabeth II is on the throne. Perhaps we could talk about 'evolving' the monarchy.

I would not like to see an elected president: That would just result in more divisive partisan politics. I would prefer to see the official head of state be the Governor-General, who would eventually become chosen from a group of elder statespersons from all parties, chosen both by the Federal and Provincial governments as well as the aboriginal people. A similar thing would happen with the Lieutenant-Governors of the provinces. Perhaps the elder states persons group could create a private shortlist from which the Prime Minister would finally pick, in consultation with the Leader of the Opposition.

But to preserve a link to the past, perhaps the reigning British monarch could then be given several honorary titles in Canada, such as Honourary Prince/Princess, or Honorary Commander of the Military.

The above would result in formal legal changes to the way government works, but in practice we would continue to be governed as we are now. It would also result in removing the need to have the monarch's image on every coin, and other things that irritate some people. And we could even keep the names 'Royal Canadian Navy' and 'Royal Canadian Air Force' as long as the rank and file members support that.

The benefits of value-added taxes like the HST, and the folly of referendums on taxes

I really hope the referendum on the HST in British Columbia ends up with a decision to keep the tax.

The Globe and Mail reports on a study by the C.D. Howe Institute that shows the HST has resulted in a better environment for business (and hence employment) while not affecting consumers negatively.

It is clear to anyone who understands the economic principles involved, that value-added taxes are far more efficient than 'flat' sales taxes that tax the entire sales price multiple times. A VAT taxes just the increase in value, and allows exporters to export without having foreign consumers indirectly pay taxes to support Canadian government services. Such taxes therefore help support jobs in Canada.

Also harmonizing the GST and PST will cut red tape and simplify things for business and consumers alike. Surely a win-win.

Putting a complex economic issue to a referendum, as was done in British Columbia, is just plain silly. The 'opposers' who forced it are populists who have an axe to grind and don't understand economics. The problem really lies with the original legislation that allowed such matters to be taken to a referendum via a petition.

I am glad I don't live in BC: The Vancouver riots and the high cost of real-estate give a negative impression, but this kind of "nonsense-onomics" will just add to my feeling that I would never want to live there. Too bad; it's a beautiful province.

Cellular and weather radar infrastructure should be expanded in Canada

Canada needs to provide better core infrastructure services in parts of its vast territory that are under-served.

Two infrastructure services that come to mind are cellular telephony/Internet coverage and weather radar coverage. I will start with the latter.

Weather Radar Coverage in Canada

Below is a map of Canada's weather radar stations, to which I have inserted suggestions for strategically placed additional stations that would provide vast areas of coverage. These would facilitate rural and first-nations (aboriginal) development, conservation efforts, tourism, resource industries, arctic sovereignty, national unity (e.g. by providing Federal services in Quebec that cross provincial boundaries), international trade (i.e. via the Alaska Highway) and general economic development.



My suggestions, marked as red circles from left to right on the map are:

• Northern coast of British Columbia, including Prince Rupert (would help  native communities, park conservation workers, fishing, port development, tourism, etc. There is already a train to the area.)
• Southern Yukon, including Whitehorse (would help the capital of the Yukon and traffic on the Alaska highway)
• Central British Columbia (would help with the Alaska Highway, and general economic development)
• Western Northwest Territories (would help visitors to Nahanni National Park, and residents of Fort Simpson)
• Central-South Northwest Territories (would serve Yellowknife and the resource industries developing there).
• Northeastern Alberta, including FortMcMurray (a major oil centre) and Wood Buffalo National Park
• Manitoba-Saskatchewan, centered near The Pas (a Via Rail train destination)
• Northern Manitoba, covering Thompson and Churchill (also Via Rail train destinations, with the latter being a major arctic-ocean port with service to Russia developing)
• Rankin Inlet and the communities along the Western shore of Hudson Bay
• James Bay, including Moosonee Ontario 
• Iqualuit, Nunavut
• Central Quebec including Labrador City NL
• Central Labrador including Goose Bay
• Anticosti and the Gulf of St Lawrence coast of Quebec (important to fishing and many small communities)

Cellular Telephony (and Internet) Coverage

I think that government agencies should also fund cellular towers around all unserved highways, railways and population centres in the same areas I have highlighted for weather radar. They would then rent access to the major carriers, or provide service themselves until major carriers agree to do so. Also, companies that agree to provide service over unserviced territory should be granted lower prices for spectrum in major population centres.

It is quite interesting to see the coverage from the two largest networks, Rogers and Bell which I have also reproduced below. (Telus shares most towers with Bell so has roughly the same coverage).  There are some smaller networks of note; for example, Ice Wireless covers certain spots in the Northwest Territories and TBayTel, which although it partners with Rogers, has coverage that doesn't appear on the Rogers map, especially along the major transportation routes of Northern Ontario. Many companies share coverage with the majors (see a comparison here) so they don't actually have their own networks, or their networks are already shown in the coverage of the majors, or their networks just cover major population centres so don't cover extra territory.


From the above, we can see that coverage is good in the major population centres, especially in Ontario and Quebec, as you would expect. But coverage in Alberta is simply incredible even in rural areas, presumably due to the historical investment when the Alberta phone system was run by the provincial government. What is telling though, is that there is little or no coverage along many transportation routes (e.g. smaller highways and the Via Rail route through Northern Ontario) and in may other rural and remote population centres or economic development centres.


I predict that in the long run, government stimulus for infrastructure such as I have described in this post would pay off in a major way. As far back as 2002, when I spent time in South Africa, I was impressed by the cellular coverage even in sparsely populated areas. Rural infrastructure is seen in much of the developing world as critical to their future; surely we can do even better in Canada.

Rogers coverage at the time of writing:



Bell coverage at the time of writing: