Phendrana Drifts

Before I dissect the Liberal policy announcement today I would like to first say kudos to the opposition for actually introducing genuine, honest-to-blog policy. It is well-costed out, it presents its values front and centre and it does not resort to using vague promises of cost-savings from other departments or something otherwise disingenuous to tell people how to pay for it. It is a large carbon tax that will in turn pay for a income tax cut and a serious of other income-supplement programs. Good on them.

However, it is not a simple tax shift. And while I remain a fan of consumption taxes over income taxes, Dion and the Liberals miss a piece of basic math. An income tax cut plus new programs in exchange for a new tax is not a simple shift. Of the $15 billion policy, only $6.7 billion is an income tax cut and $3.3 billion is a corporate tax cut (and actually $500 million of that is lost revenue because the Liberals must be assuming that corporations will produce less profit and therefore pay less taxes). Of the remainder, $4.5 billion is new social spending. Given that the income tax cuts are weighted heavily to the lower end of the income scale as is the majority of the "Benefits for Working Families and Canadians" this new policy in fact is not a tax shift, but a state transfer of wealth from corporations and wealthy Canadians to poorer Canadians. Who will pay for this policy? It isn't polluters - it is the rich. Not that I have a problem with that - I mean I have strong opinions on economics and faith in the free market - but let's not gloss over the fact that is a tax and spend program, not a neutral policy meant to discourage polluting.

On the topic of discouraging polluting (which I'm not 100% convinced it will do), the policy doesn't seem to plan on success. $15.3 billion of revenue at $40 per tonne - what if there are less tonnes? I mean, that's fantastic and wonderful but how are we going to pay for all those cool new tax cuts and Liberal spending promises? I'm just saying...

Like the majority of the critics I think the price increases we are going to see will be far deeper and will be compounded by the fact that the things that will increase most in price as a result of the "green shift": fuel, energy, consumer goods, FOOD are all things whose price is escalating from other global pressures. The price of imported food is about to go through the roof and in a country where the diesel to transport that food will have an additional $0.07 a litre charge on the fuel that drives it to Safeway it is going to be even worse. I also can't imagine this is making the 2,000 laid off workers from Air Canada or the soon-to-be-former employees of GM in Oshawa feel any better about their plight, knowing that hundreds if not thousands more will be joining them.

I really want to like this policy more. I want to reward a political party - particularly one that does not have access to the vast bureaucracy of economists, policy analyists, lawyers and engineers that the government has - for a policy that honestly will probably see me better off and tries to tackle the problem of climate change. But Dion needs to do better to win the election. This policy is difficult politics that is going to need one heck of a salesperson and communicator to get Canadians on-side. As of yet, Dion has not proven to be that kind of guy.

Labels: climate change, federal politics

If it weren't for the fact that the bill is very much alive, I'd suggest I was beating a dead horse by talking about the the copyright amendment act under consideration by the House of Commons. After all, a quick internet search will yield dozens of blogs, newspaper editorials and other commentary on the subject (even a comic book). But the horse is not dead. At least not yet.

When I listened to Industry Minister Jim Prentice and Heritage Minister Josee Verner talk about the upcoming changes, I admit my first thought was positive - having downloaded music I seemed to be moving from nebulous waters of legality and ethics into being a copyright violator in $500 (or not, should I choose to follow the letter of the law should the act make it to proclamation). As it turned out, the devil was in the details, and the details transfer a lot of power into corporate hands - specifically foreign corporate hands.

A balanced look - certainly not perfect to either consumers or copyright holders, but perhaps a considered compromise - is shattered when you read that the copyright holder can override the rights afforded by the act by putting in "technological measures" or "digital locks." Once that is done, no copying at all is permitted, under threat of a $20,000 per instance. Whether or not a copyrighted work gets a digital lock or not is completely at the discretion of the copyright holder, and all of the rights that the new act supposedly bestowes on consumers is taken away in a blink of an eye and the compromise is gone in favour of the rights overwhelmingly held by giant multinational entertainment corporations.

And ultimately to what end - will Canada experience a cultural revolution of artists producing without fear of losing revenues to downloading? I doubt it - not that we can't have a renaissance of Canadian culture, but that it has been supressed for the past decade by piracy. Artists have at best mixed opinions on piracy and are increasingly looking at alternative models for getting their works out into the community and getting paid to do so. In the end, the rabid desire to protect copyrighted materials and zealously sue those who steal music and other works is not from artists but corporate labels and studios who see the loss of millions of dollars of their money, money which I believe was a result of overinflated CD prices in the 1990s and DVD prices today.

The rhetorical question at the heart of the amendment should be "What is the point?" Why are we passing this act? If it isn't to encourage and protect artistic works - which in all likelihood will be largely unaffected, then what? I hope the answer isn't just conforming to international expectations or pandering to the US.

Reform is needed - the law is outdated and we need a better balance. Just I'm not convinced Bill C-61 is it.

Labels: copyright, federal politics, net neutrality

A friend of mine asked me two months ago my thoughts about net neutrality and I admitted I know only a little bit, but in truth I knew next to nothing. I knew it involved big communications corporations giving unequal access to the internet - but it turns out it is much more insidious than that. Below are two YouTube videos that summarize the situation pretty succinctly:

and

If the end of the end of online pornography and political debate were not enough, I cannot fathom how else society would be impacted - imagine not being able to access your government online? Or a business that has a reasonable website but can't justify the cost of being in the top tier of websites? I turn to the internet EVERY SINGLE DAY for almost EVERY SINGLE THING I DO. I'm not going to let it be taken away without a fight.

Labels: net neutrality

Twitter Updates