Agriculture

For the last few weeks I have been busy preparing for my move to Toronto so I have been unable to update this one and considering I will be busy once I arrive in Toronto, I expect to post here less frequently. However, I thought it was appropriate to write on agriculture in response to the Conservative proposals to change the mandate of the Canadian Wheat Board

International Trade and Subsidies

I am a supporter of free trade and believe agriculture should be no exception, but in order for free trade to be truly free trade that means all other countries must eliminate tariffs on Canadian agricultural products and subsidies. Until that happens, agricultural products cannot compete without government subsidies and/or tariffs. However, Canada needs to be more vigorous at the WTO in encouraging the United States and the European Union to cut and eventually eliminate agricultural subsidies. We should also work with the United Kingdom and new members from Eastern Europe who are more open to cutting agricultural subsidies in encouraging them to abandon them. The biggest pushers of farm subsidies in the EU are France and Germany. I do support aid to farmers when events in the market occur beyond their control, but I don't support permanent subsidies to farmers or shielding them from competition if other parties play by the rules.

Canadian Wheat Board, Supply Management, and Marketing Boards

Although a staunch supporter of free enterprise, I do not oppose farmers coming together and forming marketing boards to give farmers greater clout on a global level. However, I believe individuals who don't wish to participate in these boards should be able to opt out, while allowing the board to maintain whatever restrictions they wish on future membership. For example, I would support saying once one leaves a marketing board, they can never use it again when prices fall, so as to avoid undermining it and the freerider problem.

In the specific case of the Canadian Wheat Board, I support moving to a dual marketing system similiar to Ontario and Australia. Contrary to what critics say, opening the Ontario Wheat Board up to a dual marketing system has not led to it being undermined. In fact some healthy dose of competition has led to a stronger Ontario Wheat Board since it must deliver for the farmers if it wishes to keep them using it. However, I believe such change should occur through two steps.

1. Make all fifteen board of directors, directly elected by the farmers.
2. Hold a plebiscite amongst farmers.

Unlike many politicians, I believe it is quite possible the farmers would vote in favour of a dual marketing system just as they did in Ontario in 2003. If the single desk is maintained, I believe the Wheat Board should be made a private non-government operation, where it would be responsible for levying fines against the farmers as opposed to jailing them.

In terms of supply management, I support it until all agricultural subsidies are eliminated globally. Supply management doesn't cause the same distortions as agricultural subsidies, but it is not free trade. Charging outlandishly high tariffs for dairy, poultry, and egg products and using the quota system cannot be said to be free trade. Instead as someone who took economics this creates what is a called an insider-outsider theory. For those who hold the quotas, they definitely benefit from supply management, but those who don't are unable to enter the dairy, egg, and poultry sectors. In addition to that, consumers pay higher prices at the grocery store, so it is bad for Canadian consumers. Therefore we should insist at the WTO the Canadian will not abolish supply management until agricultural subsidies are completely eliminated by the EU and United States, but we should not continue our current position of keeping supply management under all circumstances. Jeffrey Simpson, who is no Conservative, has a great article on supply management

Next will be on law and order, whenever I get the time to write on it.

Social Programs

To many Canadians, our social programs is what defines us as a nation, at the very least in relation to the United States. Yet in reality, Canada has one of the least generous social safety nets among OECD countries
So the question becomes how generous should our social programs be. I've already covered my views on health care and childcare and will later on education.

In any civilized society, there is an obligation to ensure that all person's have a minimum standard of living, which is why we have a social safety net. However, a social safety net should be about helping those who cannot fend for themselves, not about creating a nanny state or encouraging dependency on government. I also do not define subsidies to corporations, non-profits, and advocacy groups as social programs, so my opinions on those will be discussed in a different topic, although generally in most but not all instances I oppose government funding in that area. Below I will summarize my views social welfare programs

CPP

Having security after retirement is essential to one's being, which is why I support CPP, however with an aging population, major re-structuring was needed to keep it stable. Thankfully it can now last until 2075. However, despite CPP's existence, I believe where possible individuals should be encouraged to personally invest and save for their retirement. RRSP limits should be indexed to inflation so they will rise annually in order to ensure Canadians can enjoy the maximum benefits of RRSPs. I support the elimination of the foreign content limit. Some have discussed the possibility of allowing individuals to opt out of CPP, however my concern is the poor who cannot afford RRSPs would not be covered due to lack of revenue. At the same time CPP rates should be kept reasonable and should be kept in a separate fund rather than going into the general revenue as done now.

EI

Should one have the unfortunate consequence of becoming unemployed, I believe EI should be there for them, at the same time to prevent abuse EI should be limited to those who lose their jobs involuntarily and those on EI should not be allowed to use it year after year as well as they should be actively seeking employment. I understand EI is important for seasonal industries, especially in Atlantic Canada so governments should work to diversify the economy so those in seasonal industries can work in other sectors during the off season. Most seasonal workers would much rather be employed year round if they could rather than just seasonally. Like CPP, EI contributions should go into a separate fund rather than general revenue and rates should reflect the cost of operation, it should not be used as a slush fund.

Welfare

Those who have disabilities and are unable to work should be allowed to be on welfare permanantely, however all other individuals should be limited to 2 years at a time and 5 years in a life unless exceptional circumstances warrant being on it longer. This reform was done by Clinton in the United States and by the BC government. The idea of workfare may work for younger unemployed individuals, but I am still skeptical about its widespread use. However, it certainly has the ability to provide the best bang for the buck. However, it effectively prevents welfare recipients from actively searching for a job or upgrading their skills by enrolling in a vocational school or post-secondary institution. If implemented, it should only be for those who refuse to look for work or upgrade their skills, not used to the extreme as it was in Ontario under the Harris government. Governments should also allow welfare recipients to work whereby for every $1 they earn, only 50 cents will be clawed back. This will help people get over the welfare wall since currently minimum wage pays less than welfare and those who do find part-time low paying work are penalized. I believe those on welfare who find part-time work should get more than those who don't, which is why I support clawing back only 50 cents per dollar earned, not the whole dollar.

Homelessness and Social Housing

As someone who lives in Vancouver within walking distance of the Downtown Eastside, I am all too familiar with the problem of homelessness. I support a national housing strategy as well as efforts to create more social housing. In addition, provinces and municipalties should work to ensure more homeless shelters are open during the winter when sleeping on the streets can be fatal. Although I generally favour less government, I don't believe investing in social housing is a waste of taxpayer's money. I do however oppose rent controls as those usually create shortages if rents charged are below market rates. It is more efficient to keep rent at market rates, but subsidize those who cannot afford rent at market rents than to institute rent controls. For anyone who understands the concept of supply and demand, this can easily be understood. There should also be screening so people cannot abuse social housing, but at the same time the cutoff should vary from city to city based on cost of living, i.e. it should be higher in Vancouver than St. John's due to a higher cost of living in Vancouver. I would propose that the lowest rent charged in the city be used to decide who qualifies or not. Anyone whose monthly income is more than 55% of what the cost of the lowest rent is would qualify for social housing.

Next topic will be on agriculture, which the Liberals just released their platform on. Note that mine will be more pro-free market than any of the party platforms.