Assorted Links: October 28, 2007

"Bureaucrats afraid to take action for fear of breaking new rules, think-tank says..."

Right.  Because our federal bureaucrats were such bold risk takers under the old rules.

The rules-laden Federal Accountability Act is backfiring and creating a bureaucracy of risk-averse "Dilberts" who keep their heads down, don't trust anyone and put process ahead of getting things done, warns a report by Ottawa think-tank Public Policy Forum.

The newly-released report, which draws on interviews with 50 leaders in the public and private sectors, including former prime ministers Joe Clark and Paul Martin, concludes that the Conservatives' signature legislation went so overboard with rules, regulations and parliamentary watchdogs looking over bureaucrats' shoulders that it is killing morale and stifling innovation, creativity and effective leadership.

As "innovation" is bureaucratic code word for new regulations and controls, the Accountability Act may be another Harper masterstroke.  One of the ways in which Reagan slowed the growth of government was by allowing for massive budget deficits.  As a result there was simply no money left over for new government programs.  In attempting to make the federal Public Service more accountable - and so in theory more effective in "helping" Canadians - he has also increased its paralysis and thereby limited its effectiveness in controlling Canadians lives.  Or maybe I'm just thinking wishful here.

The Wooden Giraffe of Love

The Trojan Horse of American politics.

Senator Clinton said in an interview with the November issue of Essence magazine, that Bill Clinton was "so romantic'' and recently brought her home a wooden giraffe from a trip to Africa.

"I know the truth of my life and of my marriage, my relationship and partnership, my deep abiding friendship with my husband,'' Senator Clinton said, according to excerpts of the interview on the magazine's website.

"Now obviously, we've had challenges as everybody in the world knows - but I never doubted that it was a marriage worth investing in even in the midst of those challenges,'' she was quoted as saying.

"I'm really happy that I made that decision - again, not a decision for everybody. And I think it's so important for women to stand up for the right of women to make a decision that is best for them.''

There are very few figures in modern political life that I find genuinely repulsive, creatures without any redeeming features. Hilary Clinton is one of them.

Senatorial Diversions

What's the easiest and simplest way to rally the federal Conservative Party's base, without aggravating any other part of the country?  Senate reform.  To Western Canadians, particularly Albertans, the Red Chamber is a symbol of those Eastern Bastards still calling the shots.  In Western Canadian mythology the CPR, the high tariffs imposed to benefit Central Canadian industry, NEP and the Senate are the leading exhibits in the case against Confederation as it stands now and has stood since 1867. 

Senate reform, however, puts everyone else in the country to sleep.  It is regarded by most here in the Imperial Capital as a constitutional anachronism, useful for patronage appointments.  it doesn't matter and of course has no symbolic weight to Ontarians.  We are, after all, the only province in Confederation without a gripe, a thought that helps add to the already considerable smugness of the place.  So out goes Hugh Segal, Red Tory par excellent, ensconced in the Upper House by Paul Martin, at the orders of Big Stephen himself, to throw some red meat to the base.  Nicely done.  Only Nixon could go to China, perhaps only Hugh Segal can create a Triple-E Senate.  The wonders of the political world never cease.

A Conservative senator wants voters to decide whether to put Canada's sleepy upper chamber into permanent repose.

Senator Hugh Segal - who could be doing himself out of a job if people say yes - says he believes in the value of the Senate, but its legitimacy as a non-elected body is dubious.

Segal, a former chief of staff to Brian Mulroney, says he wants a debate and a referendum on the Senate's future.

"We've had 17 efforts at reforming the Senate since 1900," he said. "All of them have failed.

"The legitimacy of the place is under attack on a pretty regular basis."

Segal says he'd personally vote against abolition because he feels the Senate offers regional and provincial interests and can be a check on poorly drafted laws rushed through the Commons

He notes, though, that Canadians never voted for an appointed Senate.

Or indeed any portion of the British North America Act. 

When Greed Isn't Good

When the government is being greedy.

Put yourself in the Alberta Premier's shoes. You're about to seek re-election. The polls show you that nearly nine out of 10 Albertans think energy companies don't pay enough for the resources they pull from the ground. Roughly six in 10 believe that if you charge a bit more, their lives will improve. Oh, and by the way, if you fumble this, there's a chance you'll be remembered as the bozo who killed a 36-year political dynasty. What would you do?

Mr. Stelmach will outline his royalty plan in more detail today. But the direction was set weeks ago. The industry will pay more, not because the government is desperate for the money (it isn't) but because energy companies in Boomtown haven't won as many friends as they thought.

[...]

Usually, it's easy for red-meat-eating conservatives to dismiss environmental complaints as the work of granola-crunching greens who should just hightail it back to British Columbia, where they belong. But it's much harder for them to dismiss Mr. Lougheed.

Nor did it do the industry much good to have municipal leaders in the middle of the boom pleading for someone, anyone, to slow it down. Oil sands developers are busy turning Fort McMurray into a moonscape, but the mayor can't guarantee clean drinking water, and employees can't get in to see a doctor? Something's not right.

Alberta isn't the only place in Canada where finding a doctor and getting clean drinking water is a problem, recall Walkerton and numerous Indian Reservations.  Is the problem really money?  Ralph Klein, as this article notes, was fond of saying that he didn't give a "tinker's damn" about royalty revenues.  Quite rightly too. Simply because you can tax doesn't mean you should. 

Alberta has been experiencing the kind of growth that hasn't been seen anywhere in the rest of Canada since the 1950s.  As much of the public infrastructure of the province is state controlled - as it is virtually everywhere - the state needs more money to maintain and expand that infrastructure.  One could, of course, simply privatize that infrastructure, but that's not within the realm of current political possibility.  The question is whether the province, which has billions in surplus and no debt, really needs additional revenue.  Or is Eddie Stelmach's little spree more about governments never having enough power or money?  Is the electorate worried about rapid growth?  Or just envious of those who are making a killing in the current boom?

Politician, heal thy self

Jim Flaherty, the federal Finance Minister, has exhibited an odd populist streak in his nearly two years in office.  Late last year he campaign against high ATM user fees - one of the scourges of Canadian history surely.  This campaign faded rather quickly as it became clear, even to members of the MSM, that banks generally didn't charge their own customers for using ATMs, they charged other bank's customers for their use.  This policy resting on the rather uncontroversial notion that even in Canada, even the banks shouldn't be expected to subsidize their competition. 

The rather sudden convergence in the values of the American and Canadian dollar have provided another opportunity for the minister to grandstand.  Waving a copy of a Harry Potter novel - perhaps a favourite with the minister, providing as the novels do more than a few parallels with elective politics - he noted the wide variance in price between a copy on sale in Washington D.C. and one in downtown Ottawa.  Canadians are being gouged!!!  A trade association soon pointed out that had Mr. Flaherty simply gone to Costco, or Amazon.ca, he would have gotten a price even lower than the one he saw in that Washington bookstore.  The expectation of instant price parity in all goods - including, strangely, those produced in Canada - assumes that retail prices are like those of commodities whose spot price is quoted in the news.  Much of modern economic activity isn't conducted on the basis of spot prices, few large organizations could plan very far ahead without some predictability as to revenues and costs.  Long-term contracts are often struck to minimize price risk, the result is that prices are often "sticky" and take a while to adjust.  This is compounded with currency risk.

No private business is going to start agreeing to pricing parity for American and Canadian imports / exports if they believe that the relatives values of the two currencies might abruptly change in the short-term.  That the average consumer might not consider these factors is understandable.  That the Minister of Finance, for one of the world's leading economies, doesn't understanding this basic bit of economics is inconceivable.  Expediency and feigned ignorance are famous political bedfellows.  Terence Corcoran has a little fun with Mr. Flaherty.

When Mr. Flaherty says, "I just want the market to work and I want prices to go down to reflect the increased purchasing power of the Canadian dollar," he doesn't really mean it.

When it comes to robbing Canadians, the real dollar takers are state-run monopolies and other government sectors that don't have to worry about competition. Canada Post, provincial liquor monopolies, farm marketing boards, any government service that's not competitive -- which means all government services -- are notoriously indifferent to market forces.

Canada Post, for example, recently announced a 5% price increase, to US93¢, on letters mailed to the United States. With the Canadian dollar up 40% on the U.S. dollar over the last few years, you would expect the Canadian-dollar cost of paying the U.S. post office to carry Canadian mail to go down. Not so, says Canada Post, which has an elaborate and incomprehensible explanation of why currency values play no role in the cost of international mail delivery. It has to do with the "universal postal union" and annual negotiations that somehow wash out all currency issues so that dollar values are not a factor.

Sounds like nonsense to me. So, instead of publicly humiliating Wal-Mart and Zellers, Mr. Flaherty should insist on a clear explanation from Canada Post as to why it costs twice as much to send a letter to the United States when the two currencies are now at par.