Emerson said he is hearing more and more “horror stories” of companies forced by border delays to warehouse costly inventory on either side of the Canada US border and “referring to it as a just-in-case supply chain rather than just-in-time.” He said the post-9/11 security approach among U.S. government departments has led to a raft of new border obstacles, fees and inspections. “Private companies are in some cases finding they have no choice but to produce on the US side of the border.”

Looking deeper in to this problem, we actually see that both countries have turned their border security agencies over to their respective Customs agencies in the aftermath of of the attacks on Sept 11, 2001. What’s the problem with this? Well both these agencies have historically been impeding the flow of goods through the Canada US border. On top of all this, border security is now big business in the United States. Firms lobby not only Homeland Security but also the US Congress to get their latest goodies adopted.

What’s the solution? We’ll its definitely not Emerson’s anti-American inferiority complex, but rather a more co-operative approach. We are not anywhere in sight of the day where we can scrap NAFTA and start selling all our oil to China. Well sure we need to diversify. But how?

Why are we so dependent on the Canada US border? It wouldn’t take a Nobel Prize winning economist to find the answer – “geographical proximity”. That’s exactly the problem. Canadian businesses have been relying on that sole advantage to trade with the United States. We need more incentive and support from our government to increase our productivity; in only that way will we able to diversify compete on the global markets. We need to stop complaining about United States acting on its best interest; rather its time we start doing the same.

Mayor Miller’s take: “it is a very difficult decision.” he said the vote poses a “fundamental question” for the city: “Is this city government going to have the resources and the ability to invest, not just to maintain services, but to invest [in new services],” he said. Mr. Miller responded to oppositions by saying “these taxes are fair and reasonable,” convinced that a “yes” vote will help the city push even harder for the province to upload social services now partly paid by local property taxpayers.

The tax on land transfers (up to 2-percent) and a $60 fee for vehicle registrations is expected to raise the city about $180-million to $200-million for 2008.

My take: “You spend like New York, but you aren’t New York!” (agreeing with a lobbyist who was escorted out by security guards for loudly interrupting Miller with the above statement)

• 27-percent of Canadians are strongly in favour of removing the penny from circulation
• 18-percent are strongly against the idea of dropping it
• Economists say that inflations has led to the penny being more hassle than it’s worth
• Many Canadians believe the penny is part of our heritage
• 4-percent of consumers describe it as “dirty, smelly, germ-ridden”
• It costs “slightly” less than a penny to make a penny, at the moment

The ultimate decision rests in the hands of Finance Minster Jim Flaherty.

“The Canadian Mint and the Department of Finance review the coinage system from time to time, and examining the penny’s usefulness is always a part of those reviews,” Chisholm Pothier, a spokesman for Mr. Flaherty’s office, said Wednesday. “But, at this time, there are no changes to the penny planned.”

If the penny were to be removed from circulation, my question would be how certain things would be rounded to the nickel after taxes… Sure you can round something from $0.99 to $0.95; but what about when you add the taxes? Who keeps the extra 2-3 “pennies”?

“Free markets do not mean a free pass. Canada is open for business, but it’s not for sale. And like other countries around the world, it’s important that we have safeguards in place to protect our interests.” –Jim Prentice, Industry Minister

(Some strong words huh…)

Canada’s industry minister, Jim Prentice, said the federal government will be looking to make policy/rule updates on foreign state-owned companies investing in Canada. Well, with words like Canada is “not for sale”, its pretty obvious what these new rules would impose – barriers to investments by foreign state-owned companies and hurdles in the way of foreign companies looking to invest in strategic sectors.

He also said that, according to Statistics Canada, the country’s outstanding stock of direct foreign investment stands at $523-billion, while other countries have only invested $449-billion here. I can understand there being a few sectors which require some form of protectionist barriers, but sticking the middle-finger up at the rest of the world is not an option – which Prentice is seemingly doing through his words.

Looking back in history, it is exactly this type of “leadership” behavior that led to the 1930′s Great Depression. There are countless examples in world history proving that the market is the most efficient allocator of resources. Canada itself has done extremely well by opening itself up to trade and investment.

The only room for intervention in the Canadian economy is its natural resources sectors. Americans are buying Canadian energy, steel and mining companies at an incredibly fast pace. In fact, in the first half of 2007, American companies acquired 61 Canadian companies valued at almost $118-billion CAD, while Canadian companies acquired 159 American companies worth only $28-billion. (Crosby & Company)

If Prentice is looking to put protectionist barriers on anything, it should not be the entire business sector that has been key to the wealth and development of Canada. Rather, these barriers should be put in place to prevent Canada’s “resource drain” to the United States.

In general though, Canadians seem satisfied with where the country is headed with its current Conservative party. When asked if the country is on the right track, 57 percent said “yes”. That’s down 4 percentage points from last year at this time, but up more than 10 points since the final days of the Liberals in early 2006.

Traditional views on Canadian politics and parties also seem to be changing. Liberals who say they might vote for another party, list the Conservatives as their second option – a reversal from the period before the 2006 election. In the suburbs of Toronto, where Liberal support is known to dominate, the Conservatives have climbed seven percentage points, to hold 38 percent of popular support, since the last election.

Is it going to happen (a majority)? My bet: most probably. When asked if the country is on the right track, 57 per cent said “yes”. 37.5 gets you a majority. It is perhaps more remarkable that 81 percent of respondents said their thoughts of Mr. Harper would improve if he were tougher on crime. That’s a huge number; and if campaigned with reducing hospital waiting times, I feel Harper can definitely achieve a conservative majority government.

As a leader, I’m not too fond of PM Harper, but I do like the way things are headed – at least with this minority. These minorities seem to be more dependable, and accountable. They also work harder to achieve public goals because of the increased pressure from the opposition – similar to perfect competition, versus a monopoly in a marketplace. Things seem to be a bit more balanced this way. Conservatives can cut a bit here, and the Liberals can spend a bit there. I think keeping the minority would be ideal, and equally beneficial to Canadians, and Canada as a country.

Lalonde said Quebecers use about 1.5 billion plastic bags a year, and most of them end up in landfill. He also predicted the tax would bring in a revenue of $30-million a year for the Environment Ministry.

The idea is based on a similar tax imposed in Ireland, which resulted in a 90% drop in plastic bag usage. If imposed in Quebec, I would only be confused to whether the motive was either environmental protectionism, tax revenue, or the classic “growth and development of Quebec”…

Congratulations to Ontario for taking such a bold step – NOT. Sure we will save $5-million a year, but is that really an incentive for smokers to quit? If the financial costs of smoking itself (about $10 a pack) isn’t enough of an incentive to quit, what makes Mr. Watson believe that cutting costs on therapy products will help? What we can do, is take that $5-million every year and use it to continuously educate the public of the harmful effects of smoking – a proven strategy.

An average of 16,000 people in Ontario die each year from smoking; tobacco-related diseases cost the health care system about $1.6 billion/year.

The strike revokes the ability to run city fitness centers, pools, rinks, day camps, golf courses, and as well as new permit applications and building inspection applications. Uncollected garbage remains on the streets since Friday morning, when Vancouver’s outside workers’ union, CUPE 1004 (including garbage collectors), began full strike action. If librarians walk off the job, it will be their first strike in history.

Union leaders are refusing to cooperate with City of Vancouver negotiators on a 39-month contract, that would run out March 10, 2010, nine days after the games conclude. If a different length term be offered, as union leaders request, the city faces the danger of being shut down while two billion people from around the world are watching. Definately not a small issue at hand. Perhaps the federal government needs to focus a tiny bit of attention to the issue as well, considering this poses a threat not only to Vancouver the city, but the entire country.

Other strikes, currently near or already underway (apparently its “Strike Season”): Alberta’s oilsand workers, B.C.’s coastal workers, and Canadian Auto Workers.

Champagne’s scheme was complicated, and it built over time. He supposedly saved the DND lots of money by reorganizing the department’s computer maintenance system. He eventually built enough goodwill and trust to manage the order of goods and services (that were never delivered). Champagne owned multi-million dollar homes, spent millions on private jets, vacations, and luxury autos – all on his $60,000 salary.

“I am accepting responsibility for my actions,” Champagne confessed Monday. I am more worried about why this wasn’t detected earlier. It is now much to late to retrieve the lost money. Who knows where Champagne has his money invested. This tough task can only be nearly accomplished if we Canadians give this issue more importance – after all this was our money. More importantly, we need to be assured that these socially irresponsible won’t occur in the future – especially within our government departments.