HST Opponents Should Come Up With The $1.6 Billion

The HST opponents are continuing to rally against the proposed harmonized sales tax that will come into effect on July 1st. Former premier Bill Vander Zalm is holding rallies across the province, the NDP is making political hay out of it whenever they can, the BC Restaurant and Foodservices Association is running ads and a website in opposition, and a petition will begin circulating in April hoping to derail the yet-to-be-written legislation. The BC Liberals, who were strangely silent on this issue for so long, have finally begun to fight back, explaining the myriad benefits that the HST will provide for the economy. The BC Liberals need to start demanding one other thing of the HST opponents: where's the $1.6 billion? The federal government gave BC a $1.6 billion payment to harmonize the federal and provincial sales taxes. With the province's budget bleeding red ink, I'd like to know where the strange bedfellows of the NDP and Bill Vander Zalm are planning on coming up with that money? Without the $1.6 billion, we'd be in an even bigger hole than we are now. And what about the tens of millions the government itself will save each year with the HST? Where will that money come from? And what about the billions in savings businesses and employers will get from the HST? What are the opponents' plans to cover all that? The HST makes both short term and long term economic sense for British Columbia and no Vander Zalm-NDP petition drive is going to convince me otherwise.

The 1990's is no excuse to ignore the deficit

With the federal budget out today, Canada is looking at 5 years of multi-billion dollar deficits still to come, going from a whopping 50 Billion this fiscal year to $27 billion next year to 17.5 billion the year after that and so on. To fight this ballooning debt, the Conservatives have sought to freeze departmental budgets and make some moves to tighten the fiscal belt, with much harder measures to come in following years. The reaction from the Liberals and NDP to this belt-tightening? They want to unbutton their pants and reach for seconds! The NDP is not supporting the budget because they want more spending on personal transfers, more spending on the environment, more spending on public sector wages, and the like. The Liberal leader, Michael Ignatieff, keeps insisting that there really is no deficit problem. After all, he notes, the ratio of debt to GDP is lower now than it was in the 1990's when the deficits were really bad. What Mr. Ignatieff fails to mention is that Canada had no choice but to tackle our deficits in the 1990's because Canada was about to have its bond rating reduced by international rating agencies. A lower bond rating means it would have been harder for us to get money to cover our deficits and we would have to offer higher interest payments to our lenders. We do not want to wait until we are back in that position before we start bringing the federal deficits and debt under control. We already spend over $30 billion a year servicing our public debt. That's money flushed away to our debt-holders that could go to any number of other programs. If we keep piling on billions to the debt just as interest rates rise from record lows, that debt servicing cost will rise. That's the real shame here as it literally forces future generations to pay for our spending. The Liberals and NDP should stop pushing for more spending and support the modest attempts to bring our deficits under control.

Government should heed CD Howe's Advice

On Tuesday, the C.D. Howe Institute, one of Canada's leading public policy think tanks, recommended the Bank of Canada perform several quick and sharp increases to the key interest rate starting in June. The institute suggests the central bank "implement a 50 basis point hike at every six-week meeting starting in July and continuing through until mid-2011." I, along with many Canadians from the finance minister to Maclean's magazine, have voiced concern with the huge debt loads Canadians have taken on laregly due to the run-away housing market and ballooing mortage payments. Interest rates are currently as low as they can go. That's not hyperbole either, the rates are at 0.25% right now--any lower and the banks would be paying you to take out a loan. Interest rates have to go up, they will go up, and they should begin as soon as possible. This would cool the housing markets, slow inflation (which stands at 2% at the bottom of shaky recovery)and set our economy on more sustainable groud. We've tended to use low interest rates for every economic application in recent years. Interest rates were lowered to fuel the economny in boom times, they were lowered to prop up the economy when cracks began to show, they were lowered when the economy tanked and now they've been pushed to rock-bottom levels to help propel a recovery. Talk about a panacea! Low interest rates are not the cure-all for our economic woes. Without action soon these record low interst rates will only lead to damaging inflation-as the recovery really starts to take hold and commodities liek natural gas and oil surge-as well as a further inflation of a housing bubble that's really going to sting when it pops.

Olympic Protesters A Sad Display

The 2010 Olympics kicked off yesterday with a great opening ceremony. However, during the final day of the torch relay, the route was interrupted several times by a sad display: olympic protesters. This ragtag group of provocateurs have been chomping at the bit to have their 15 minutes of fame and shine a light on their cause. And what is their cause? Well, judging byt the signs and placcards yesterday, it includes everything from homelessness to the oil sands, from native land claims to a corporate new world order. I even saw a "free Marc Emery" poster for god's sake. This isn't an organized protest against a particular issue, this is a group of rowdy anarchists and activists bent on complaining about something--the olympics is just the cause de jour. If we weren't hosting this international event, you can bet your bottom dollar they would have found something else to complain about. There will be no pleasing the constant griping of Vancouver's protesters. If the government gave them all a $1000, they'd demand more. If we build them houses, they'll march to City Hall for better furniture. If the skies opened up and rainbows and puppy dogs flooded the city, they'd probably be bitching about the bright lights and the noise. It's time we stop giving these people a soapbox everytime they demand one, especially when they don't even have a coherent message and there's nothing they can accomplish. The Olympics are here, that's certainly not going to change now. These "activists" had a city-wide referendum and numerous elections at all government levels to try and convince people of their beliefs. They didn't. People support the games. We can squabble over costs here and there, but the deed is done and the vast majority of people support it. Now here's hoping these fringe protesters don't get any more publicity during the next 2 weeks, lest the world leave Vancouver thinking all we have are pot-heads, drug addicts and whiners.

Hands Off My Coke!

A study from the University of Minnesota was released today which states that drinking more than 2 soft drinks a week increases your risk of getting pancreatic cancer. Since I live off a steady stream of cola, should I be worried? The study's author states that it isn't anything in pop specifically, rather it is the "high levels of sugar in soft drinks [that] may be increasing the level of insulin in the body, which we think contributes to pancreatic cancer cell growth." While the authors did test fruit juice (which is MORE sugary than most pop) and found no link, they did not test iced tea, coffee with sugar, flavoured waters, beer, wine or any of the other sweet beverages around. And if the sugar is the culprit, there is a lot of sugar in a lot of things. Did you have a glass of milk with breakfast? As much sugar in there as half a can of pepsi. What about some low-fat, prebiotic strawberry yogurt? You'll get more sugar there than in a can of 7up or Schweppes Ginger Ale. Put ketchup on anything? That's 5 grams a tablespoon. The list of items with sugar, whether added or natural, is a long one and any one of them could have similar pancreatic effects as pop. Finally, it is important to note the authors themselves point out that"people who consume carbonated, sugar-sweetened soft drinks on a regular basis tend to have a poor behavioral profile overall," meaning that it's most likely that the participants who got cancer in this study had poor diets and other contributing health and lifestyle factors besides a twice-weekly soft drink habit. Oh, and on top of that, some warn "that the study may be based on too few cases (only 140 participants developed pancreatic cancer) and that other risk factors such as smoking may have contributed to the results." Now, where's my Coke?