Thinking about Afghanistan

This is an Archived Post. Click here to visit the most recent content

I sent this in as a reply to a commentary on CBC. I don't believe they read it on air.

Let me preface my reply with the comment that I deeply respect the men and women who, at the request of their government and by proxy their country, are serving in Afghanistan.

That said, I question our government’s justification for the mission.

First, the government justifies the mission using the words spoken by Afghan President Hamid Karzai on his visit to Canada. Access to Information has undeniably shown that President Karai’s speech was drafted by the Department of National Defence. While President Karzai said the words, the Department of National Defence put them in his mouth.

Second, the government regularly tells us of the horrid living conditions in Afghanistan. I do not doubt that this is the case; in fact, it is part of the reason I am working with a group to sponsor a family of Afghan refugees. Still, I question the altruism our government is trying to display when they justify the mission in this manner.

Within Canada, First Nations people live in Third World conditions on reserves. There’s a lack of access to clean drinking water, severely substandard housing, limited access to healthcare, chronic unemployment, limited educational opportunities, and extremely high suicide rates especially among young people. This is clear evidence of severe and systemic poverty.

If the motives for the mission were really altruistic, then surely the government of Canada would send our provincial reconstruction teams to the reserves to help out. Surely the Canadian government would be willing to spend something close to the $7.2 billion that we have already devoted to the military mission in Afghanistan. Even if Canada spent the $3.3 billion of the estimated incremental military cost of the Afghan mission, we would at least start addressing this problem occurring within our own country. In contrast, meeting the Kelowna Accord commitments would have cost about $5 billion and our Federal budget surplus this year will be close to $10 billion.

Unfortunately our government fails to see the hypocrisy in their message. When First Nations people rise up in protest, our government fights back rather than engage in meaningful discussion. We would not accept an occupying force entering Canada to deal with this injustice but our government argues that this is specifically what we must do in Afghanistan in the name of justice.

I, for one, cannot reconcile our position in Afghanistan as being purely altruistic as my government keeps trying to tell me. What then are the real reasons we are in Afghanistan?

Opinion Piece

This is an Archived Post. Click here to visit the most recent content

Hi all;

This appeared in the Telegraph Journal on 26 October. 2007 (page A7). You can sign-up now at http://canadaeast.com/ to get a free account which offers you electronic access and searching capabilities fo the Telegraph Journal, Daily Gleaner, and Times & Transcript.

Of taxes and tax cuts

Rob Moir Commentary
Published Friday October 26th, 2007
Appeared on page A7

It's interesting that Premier Graham's self-sufficiency vision requires so much "from-away" expert help to implement. The Post-Secondary Education report is one example (dare I say, fiasco). Now we hear that the Minister of Finance has turned to economists from outside the province to give advice on tax cutting. While we should welcome their expertise, sometimes you have to live here to "get it."

Our outside experts suggest we reduce the provincial corporate tax rate, currently set at 13 per cent, on our largest corporations. The experts argue that cutting the rate will attract corporations and contribute to economic growth.

What's missing in this picture? It is not just the tax rate that matters to our story; we must also consider our tax rate relative to other provinces.

At 13 per cent, New Brunswick is firmly in the middle of the pack across Canada. While we have a higher corporate tax rate than B.C., Alberta, Quebec, and a few of the territories, our rate is the lowest in the Maritimes and lower than Manitoba and Ontario.

Obviously low corporate tax rates are not the only determining factor in real economic growth. If it were, we should have a stronger economy than Nova Scotia, Ontario, and Manitoba. Moreover, suppose we cut our tax rate to attract business. Other provinces can do the same, and in the race to the bottom we lose tax revenues and important services best delivered by a government.

In order to win in this economy, we must effect real changes in the New Brunswick business climate.

First, we must invest in all levels of education throughout the province. To attract businesses, we need to have a literate population with skills that businesses want, a group of burgeoning entrepreneurs eager to look for new opportunities, and a cultural environment that respects tradition while laying the groundwork for us to explore the future.

Second, we must find ways to enhance competition throughout the province. There is no escaping the fact that our energy, forestry, transportation, manufacturing, and media industries are dominated by a few key players. Setting questions of the tax rate aside, a new business wants to know that it can expand if it sees opportunity.

Third, we should actively seek (perhaps even using short-term tax incentives) value-added businesses. Value-added businesses require labour. As a rule, workers either bring their families or start families if they feel their job is secure. As the population grows, we attract new business to service the growing population. This is the essence of the multiplier effect.

Finally, in my discussions with a number of small to medium businesses, one point has been made crystal clear. This province suffers from an excess of bureaucratic involvement.
I'm not saying all regulations are bad, but some regulations may need to be re-examined and perhaps eliminated. Strike a commission to identify the red tape, cut through it, and you directly reduce the cost of doing business in New Brunswick.

At the same time, the government must focus on closing corporate tax loopholes and the practise of giving large tax breaks to established corporations. This ensures that all corporations are paying their fair share. Moreover, it increases government revenues, permitting the government to invest in services which directly improve the quality of life in New Brunswick and attracts people and businesses to our province.

If the Minister of Finance is eager to embrace tax cuts right now - and given the surplus we most recently enjoyed, now might be a good time for tax cuts - the strongest argument can be made for a cut to the income tax rate on the lowest income bracket. Such a broad-based income tax cut would give more money to all New Brunswickers to spend as they choose. The Minister might also consider undoing the increase on corporate tax rates for small- to medium-sized businesses that was part of last-year's budget.

Putting more money into everyone's pockets and investing in businesses that are a proving ground for our up-and-coming entrepreneurs is a viable strategic goal for our self-sufficiency agenda.

Rob Moir is an economics professor at UNBSJ. In 2005-06, he ran as an NDP candidate in the federal riding of Fundy Royal. He lives on the Kingston Peninsula with his wife, Megan, and their two children, Sam and Gwyneth.

A Letter to the Editor that Went Unpublished

This is an Archived Post. Click here to visit the most recent content

Sins of Omission

The Telegraph Journal has provided rather balanced coverage of public information sessions on the natural gas pipeline connecting the future LNG terminal in Saint John to the U.S. market. Opinions are indeed mixed as people weigh the benefits of increased employment and easement payments against the costs of lives disrupted and the potential for property devaluation.

That said I am very disheartened by a recent editorial decision by staff at the Telegraph Journal.

On 10 September 2007, oil and natural gas pipelines in Veracruz, Mexico were sabotaged. The resulting fires led to the evacuation of 12,000 people and two deaths due to heart attacks.


CBC, CTV and Global covered the story. Despite the sombre mood of the September 11 anniversary, both the Times & Transcript and the Daily Gleaner each provided significant coverage with photos. So too did the Globe and Mail, the National Post, the Halifax Chronicle Herald, the Toronto Star, the Hamilton Spectator, and I am sure most other newspapers across Canada.

The Telegraph Journal however, failed to devote even a few lines to the incident in the World Journal sidebar. I checked the paper on both September 11 and 12 and searched the newspaper website.

Why is it that the provincial newspaper, distributed in the very area where a high-pressure natural gas pipeline is routed and where a second oil refinery may be constructed, failed to cover such an important story? Do people know that the quantitative risk assessment of a pipeline through the City of Saint John, which was provided by Emera Brunswick Pipeline Limited and presented to the National Energy Board, failed to explicitly include terrorism and acts of sabotage in its calculations?


Sometimes the real story is contained in the stories we fail to tell.

Graham is a Report Freak

This is an Archived Post. Click here to visit the most recent content

Hi all;

The links below take you to my comments upon some of the many reports commissioned by his government.

Self-Sufficiency
http://www.gnb.ca/2026/BriefPDF/EnglishPDFBrief/RobMoir-EconomicsProfessor.pdf
http://www.gnb.ca/2026/BriefPDF/EnglishPDFBrief/RobertMoiretal.pdf

Post-Secondary Education
http://www.gnb.ca/cpse-ceps/EN/docs/Moir.pdf

cheers,
rob

A Quick Accounting

This is an Archived Post. Click here to visit the most recent content

Hi all;

It's been a while since I have posted. Not that I haven't been interested, but I went away in June and returned to get a new knee. I spent the summer recovering and trying to deal with the billions of reports Shawn Graham's government has thrown at us. Most recently, I've been fighting to keep UNBSJ alive. To be honest, it has been quite fun but a little wearing.

Some recent highlights:

1) I gave a panel presentation on the New Brunswick Economy to the Progressive Economics Forum at the Canadian Economics Association meetings in Halifax.

2) I was a keynote speaker at the New Brunswick Environmental Networks Annual meeting in Saint John. E-mail me at robmoirndp@gmail.com if you want my speaking notes.

3) I gave a panel presentation on the Economic Value of a Community University at a Public Forum held at Germain Street United Baptist Church, Saint John.

4) I got to introduce Jack Layton at the NB NDP Biennial Convention where we elected our new provincial leader, Roger Duguay.

5) I organized a Jack Layton passage to be read at the "Save UNBSJ Rally" held Oct. 13.

6) I wrote an emergency resolution calling upon the NB government to reject the Post-secondary Education Report in its entirety and instead invest in a strong student-focused public post-secondary education system consisting of both universities and colleges. The emergency resolution passed unanimously.

7) I just joined a group in Saint John that is working towards building stronger more progressive governments at the municipal level.

8) Just today, I was interviewed by CBC TV for national coverage of the Irving newspaper scandal (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/new-brunswick/story/2007/10/09/nb-langdon-irving.html).

We're working hard to bring a strong progressive view to Fundy Royal and New Brunswick. We need your help however. What issues interest you? How can we help? How can you help us? Let us know.

Peace,
Rob

Letter to Mr. Baird

This is an Archived Post. Click here to visit the most recent content

** While the Refinery isn't in our riding, the environmental effects will be felt in our riding and around the globe. It is important that New Brunswickers take on a leadership role!

31 May 2007

To: The Hon. John Baird, Minister of the Environment
RE: Proposed new oil refinery in Saint John, NB (Project Eider Rock)

Dear Sir;

I am writing to express my concern regarding your decision to limit the federal government’s role in the Environmental Impact Assessment of the refinery Irving Oil proposes to construct in Saint John, New Brunswick. I am a resident in the outskirts of Saint John and I work in the city.

The Environment Ministry has decided to limit the scope of its involvement to a Full Federal Panel Review of the marine operations of the proposed refinery. While this is important and welcome news because of the risk increased shipping will have on the endangered right whale, it leaves out the environmental and health effects that will be felt by humans.

Local greenhouse gas emissions will increase tremendously with the operation of a second refinery. Estimates suggest that the existing refinery’s annual emissions are equivalent to putting 357,000 additional cars on the road. Given the increasing scientific evidence that anthropogenic-source greenhouse gas emissions are linked to climate change, it seems only prudent that the Federal Environment Ministry request the most stringent analysis of this proposal.

Oil refineries can severely impact human health. A 2002 Harvard Medical School report, Oil: A Life Cycle Analysis of its Health and Environmental Impacts (http://chge.med.harvard.edu/publications/documents/oilfullreport.pdf), lists a number of health concerns associated with oil refining. This list includes cancers of the lip, stomach, liver, pancreas, connective tissue, prostate, eye, brain, bone, lung and kidney, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, unspecified neoplasms, and leukemia in children (p. 28). Asthma and other respiratory ailments are of concern too. A Full Federal Panel Review of the entire operations of the proposed refinery is the only way to ensure that research in the public interest is conducted and presented in an open and public forum.

In conclusion, I ask that you revisit your decision to limit the federal government’s role in the assessment of the proposed new refinery in Saint John, New Brunswick. I strongly urge you to institute a Full Federal Panel Review of the entire proposed refinery’s operations.

Sincerely

Rob Moir (Associate Professor of Economics)

CC: The Right Hon. Stephen Harper, The Hon. Stéphan Dion, The Hon. Jack Layton, Mr. David McGuinty, Mr. Nathan Cullen, Mr. Rob Moore, Mr. Paul Zed

Stephan Dion on CBC's "The Current"

This is an Archived Post. Click here to visit the most recent content

Liberal Leader, Stephan Dion was on the Current on May 10. After hearing him talk for a while, I sent in this comment.

Liberal Leader of the Opposition, Stephan Dion stated that climate change is still a relatively new phenomenon. I think it is important to note that back in 1983, NDP MP Simon de Jong questioned then-Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, the Hon. Jean Chrétien on green house gas emissions. In my opinion, the Liberals have had a long time to deal with climate change and GHG emissions. Climate change is not a new phenomenon; what's new is the Liberal Party's sudden dedication to the issue.

A Very Busy Time

These are very busy times for me (Rob). Just a quick update on a few items and events.

1) Today (April 28) is the National Day of Mourning for Workers Killed or Injured on the Job. A ceremony will take place at the ILA Monument at the foot of King Street in Saint John - 11AM.
2) On May 1, a private members bill will be read in the NB Legislature requesting permission to grant an easement for a natural gas pipeline through Rockwood Park. People who do not want to see further legislated "breaks" for the Irvings need to submit a letter stating that they are against the private members bill to the Clerk of the Legislature (Ms. Loredana Catalli Sonier - l.catalli.sonier@gnb.ca) by 12 noon on April 30.
3) On May 1, Peter Corbyn (http://www.petercorbyn.com) is presenting a live version of "An Inconvenient Truth" at the Hammond River Angling Association headquarters - 7pm. It would really help to have a strong NDP presence.
4) On April 27, Federal Environment Minister, John Baird, publicly endorsed the 2nd Oil Refinery in Saint John - CBC's "The Current". While he is entitled to his opinion, he potentially is the judge of any environmental impact assessment and necessarily should remain neutral. Those who wish to voice their complaint should drop him a line at 613-996-0984.
5) On May 5, comments regarding the NB government's draft guidelines for an environmental impact assessment of the 2nd Oil refinery are due (http://www.gnb.ca/0009/0377/0002/0005-e.asp - gov't draft; http://www.irvingoil.com/dloads/EIA.pdf - Irving Oil's take; http://chge.med.harvard.edu/publications/documents/oilfullreport.pdf - Harvard Medical School's summary of the Oil Industry).

Good luck.