Parliament back in session

Relevant Link

Well, the government is back in the house, and a brief throne speech (only 4 pages long) is intentionally vague after the messiness last month.  Why make a broad based plan for the next session if it might only last a few days?  Harper looked quite grim during the speech, and knows that his days in power might be limited.  Many had doubted Ignatieff after his lack of speaking out after proroguing, but in the past week he has really begun to hang the noose around Harper's head.  And the Conservatives are responding by putting in a deficit.  In fact, I would not be surprised in the least if there aren't any broad-based tax cuts, like most Conservatives want.  The Bloc and Liberals are playing it safe by not shooting down the budget right now, while I think that the NDP are merely satisfied with playing to their base by announcing they would vote it down right now.  I don't think the average voter cares for such posturing.  It will be an interesting time the next two days.  Of course, since much of the budget has already been leaked, I can't see there being much more to be said to change an opinion.

Relevant Link

The other big news today is the appointment of a bunch of new senators.  I made a commentary about this before, so I don't think I need to elaborate more.  I don't think the new senators will really strive to make big changes, but I will hedge my bets for now.  A method for senate elections can't happen soon enough.

Here comes the deficit

Relevant Link and here

Now that Obama is president, the focus returns to Canada. The projected deficit in the next budget has been leaked out, and it is $34 billion. Perhaps the most interesting quote from the CTV article is by the parliamentary budget officer, Kevin Page:

Meanwhile, a report released Wednesday by parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page warned that deficit spending could become "status quo" for Ottawa.

In fact, Page's report blamed the coming deficits on permanent tax cuts and spending programs implemented by the Tories since 2006.

In particular, the two per cent GST cut brought in by the Conservatives costs national coffers about $12 billion a year.

It is interesting reading the comments of these news articles, and despite the fact the Conservatives are running a very large deficit, that it is somehow the Liberals' fault. If the Conservatives were so against deficit spending late last year, why have they abandoned their principles and started doing them? If the Conservatives are so fiscally responsible, why do they not intend to roll back irresponsible tax cuts done in 2007's fiscal update statement? Also, why do they think that tax cuts will be an effective form of stimulus? As someone in the so called "middle class", I doubt a $100-$200 tax cut is going to really affect any of my financial decisions, but it would devastate the coffers of the federal government. The same goes with the GST cut. The GST, though it is a poorly implemented tax (a lot of it comes back to you in quarterly payments), was essential to getting us out of debt back in the early 1990s. Even Mulroney commented that he did not like the fact that Harper was cutting it.

Relevant Link

Meanwhile, the Bank of Canada expects economic recovery to start by the end of the year. Now, I'm not denying this is not going to happen, but really they completely dropped the ball on predicting the recession in the first place. On the whole, I think that most of the financial experts try to make the best case scenario so as to keep people positive. However, when you look at the reality of low commodity prices, I just can't see things rebounding quickly. It took nearly a decade for oil prices to rise from its mid-90s low to a price that more reflected the true price of oil, and I think that the US will try its best to keep it low now. The oil sands project will be frozen until prices are above $80, and I just don't see that happening for several years. Then you hear things like how Vale Inco might shut down their mines in Sudbury for a few months (the mines represent about 10% of the world's nickel production), and you get a sense on how bad things are in the resource sector. The Canadian government (and provincial governments) foolishly squandered the surpluses generated during boom times and did not invest in parts of the economy that would generate more stable jobs. Without high resource prices, Canada's return to prosperity will be long and hard.

It doesn't surprise me in the least that Canada's productivity levels are among the worst in the civilized world. We need to invest in new technology and stop relying on the cozy world of non-renewable resources. Productivity will also decrease as our population ages. All of this paints a pretty bleak picture.

Relevant Link

Henry Champ, a longtime reporter for various networks, and fellow Manitoban, gives a really good commentary on the inauguration of Obama.  He discusses how his victory was created by embracing the new media in the Internet, much the same way FDR embraced radio, and JFK with television.  As well as those two leaders, Obama comes in with America in crisis (FDR with the Great Depression, and JFK with the Cold War and space race).

The inauguration ceremony has turned into a huge event, none that has been seen in Washington since the civil rights era.  It is rather interesting to see this spectacle.  In Canada, the start of a new government is a rather tepid affair, and begins immediately after the election.  The only thing close is speech from the throne, which will happen for the second time in two months next week.  Still, the excessiveness of the inauguration seems rather odd considering the times we are in.  I guess the people in America who are very tired of the failed presidency of Bush are just excited and optimistic.  Having optimism may be key to get out of the financial crisis and failed military ventures.  Millions are descending on Washington, and aside from security (which will cost millions), this is totally funded by donations.

Still, it seems almost ironic to me that this is even going on, considering how the country was founded to escape the rule of a king.  The president is the king of the US, which might make George Washington put his nose up if he was alive.  If Obama were to reduce some of the powers that the president has, it would certainly undo some of the damage that the Bush presidency did to the democratic institution.

Indefinite Imprisonment

Relevant Link

Well, this Omar Khadr imprisonment just got thrown another anvil its way.  The United States does not seem intent on creating the conditions for a fair trial for these people, none the least Mr. Khadr, who was only 15 years old when he was captured.  I think it is pretty ridiculous to imprison someone that young that long, regardless of crime, especially when no trial has taken place, and with the sketchy evidence to which they hold him in the first place.  Of course, this problem with Khadr wouldn't have happened in the first place, were it not for our Conservative government, which has about as much compassion as a chuck of rock.

Barack Obama intends shut down Guantanamo Bay as soon as he takes office.  It seems almost like the last throws of a madman that would cause the proceedings to restart again, as was stated in the opening link.  The military presumably wants to keep Guantanamo open due to its leverage to the enemy.  However, our democratic system, as well as that in the US, is based on a constitution that applies to all citizens.  And to not look like a bunch of hypocrites, they should really apply it to those they imprison from other countries as well.  Khadr deserves a fair trial outside of the military organization, and he deserves to be released if that is not going to happen, as per our constitution.  Section 9 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms states:

• 9. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.

And section 11 part b states:

• 11. Any person charged with an offence has the right 
  (b) to be tried within a reasonable time;

By refusing to push for these rights to be exercised, Stephen Harper has proven that he has no moral leadership to run this country.  The problem that in his circle it is popular to detain a so called "terrorist".  And it seems that now a days, grasping onto power is more important than protecting the individual rights of the citizen.

"There'll be no one to save, with the world in a grave"

Relevant Link

Barry McGuire's classic 1965 song was one of the first protest songs of the Vietnam War-Cold War era.  It is bleak.  "You don't believe we're on the eve of destruction" goes the chorus.  The message is still applicable today.

As of now, the Israel army continues to march on into the heartland of the Gaza Strip.  Some might say this is a bit of an extreme reaction to a series of missile attacks, but really this conflict has been inevitable ever since Hamas took over control of Palestine.  Hamas continues to refuse to admit defeat, and I doubt they will until Israel hunts down and kills them all off.  Of course, genocide would be frowned upon as Israel has a lot of friends in the West who think that genocide is a bad idea.  Strangely enough, genocide was an option for the west only a short time ago.  Although I do doubt that genocide will happen in this case, some other areas of the world are not so lucky.

At present, the war in the Democratic Republic of Congo continues to escalate, after several years of relative peace.  There have been millions killed in the Congo since the late 1990s, all in the desire of neighbouring nations such as Uganda lusting for their plentiful natural resources.  The war in the DRC makes the Palestine-Israel conflict look like a minor skirmish.  It doesn't help that China is in there stirring things up.

Africa is just full of bad things happening.  Zimbabwe's despair is not going away, though it is off the front page headlines.  Robert Mugabe's refusal to step down has amounted to the deaths of thousands of people, and the cholera outbreak is just the latest part of this.  I remember when the Iraq invasion was about to happen, Mugabe's forces were committing mass genocide, and it was just a footnote.  Don't forget that China's all up in there too.

Let's not forget Darfur.  Probably the largest genocide in recent history, just because there is a lull now does not mean that this battle is done.  As climate change forces nomads onto farmers' land, we have seen hundreds of thousands dead in ethnic conflicts.  I truly believe that the situation will continue to be tenuous for the year or 2009.

Afghanistan is another conflict that is escalating.  During my holiday, my uncle remarked that his son in law (who just got back from his third tour there) said that things are worse there than ever, and that they had translators quit because the people they were fighting did not speak the local languages.  Who are these so called insurgents?  Apparently they speak Russian.  Maybe Russia feels bullish about their ability to invade after the success in Georgia last summer?  Or perhaps they are Chechnyan rebels?  I really don't know as there is not much coverage on this.  At any rate, the mission in Afghanistan has been a failure for the West, as it was for the East previously.  The situation will most likely continue to degrade this year.

Iraq continues to be a hotbed of suicide attacks and other extreme acts.  The US intends to retreat, but ironically Iraq is probably more stable than the aforementioned Congo or Darfur.  Iraq does have the semblance of a government, which is more than can be said about Afghanistan.  Out of all the conflicts, I expect Iraq to be the one to be tempered the most this year.

And who can forget about Burma?  Well, I guess all of the rest of the world.  Burma is a full fledged Orwellian society where all political descent is jailed or executed.  There was a brief spell of interest after a cyclone killed off a bunch of people and a mockery of an election was held shortly after, but that has since gone away.

The biggest brewing conflict has to be the Pakistan-India conflict.  India has gone so far as to accuse Pakistan of being involved in the bombings in Mumbai.   This is all coming to a head right now, but the conflict between Pakistan and India has been happening ever since the Kashmir refused to join Pakistan after the dissolution of the United Kingdom. Look for this to become the big new war in the next year.

As you can see, there are lots of battles brewing for 2009.  And this doesn't even count nations with extreme governments like Iran or Venezuela, or countries that have growing instability such as Mexico or Ukraine, or the growing lust for power of countries like China or Russia.  The West has seen their considerable leverage erode since the the start of the decade, and the democratic ideal may be waining.  With poor turnouts in the last elections in the West (including in the US), maybe people just don't care anymore.