Always with a warrant

“A local lawyer is suing the Toronto Police Services Board for what he says was an unlawful arrest and a violation of his Charter rights during the city’s G20 summit – an incident the police say was simply an attempt to maintain public safety.

Nicholas dePencier Wright is seeking $25,000 in damages, plus other fees, in small claims court for a run-in with police on June 27, 2010, the second day of G20 meetings at the Metro Toronto Convention Centre. The lawsuit follows a probe by the province’s police watchdog, the Office of the Independent Police Review Director, in which investigators substantiated Mr. dePencier Wright’s claim that he was unlawfully arrested.”

• Lawyer suing police after arrest during G20, By Stephen Spencer Davis, Globe and Mail.com, Thursday, Feb. 16, 2012 3:00AM EST

When I was growing up, we were taught the precautionary principle a lot. Taking Drugs was bad because we could hurt others and/or ourselves. Drinking and driving was bad because we could hurt others and/or ourselves. Having sex without a condom was bad because we could hurt others and/or ourselves. That principle saved me from a lot of bad choices.

What is funny is that as we get older, we feel we get wiser. So we abandon that principle. Or put differently, since we are all adults we act in a more “rational” manner. From my brief time on this earth, nothing can be further from the Truth. For example, since the Chretien Era, the RCMP has gotten themselves into trouble dozens of times. There was the Pepper Spray Incident and the Dziekanski Death. There have been accusations of poor decisions in various reports about the death of Officers in Mayerthrope AB or the Territories. While the RCMP polices much of the country well, the Force has made very public errors of late: Errors which are likely due to a lack of oversight. Given that history, why would we want to give that force more power to conduct investigations without a warrant? In fact, why would we want any policy force to conduct investigations without judicial oversight?

That question of judicial oversight has been bothering me of late. For, judicial oversight is essential to our democracy. As J.S. Mill noted in his book “On Liberty”:

“But reflecting persons perceived that when society is itself the tyrant – society collectively, over the separates individuals who compose it- its means of tyrannizing are not restricted to the acts which it may do by hands of its political functionaries. Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself. Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough…”

Or put differently, J.S. Mill was worried about the strength of judges to stand up for minorities within society. However, he always assumed that judges would review the mandates of society. In his writings – penned before 1867, written before Canada’s birth – he assumed that Judges would issue warrants. This was because he understood his history. He knew that the English Star Chamber set its own rules and often caused more problems than it solved. And it was not because the British did not experience terrorism. The Gunpowder Plot of 1605 would just be one example.

So Imagine what a great Liberal Democratic Philosopher would say about our country that brought forth legislation which does not even allow a magistrate, or judge, to review breaches in one’s privacy or one’s right to a fair investigation and trial. Whether it should be an investigation into terrorism or into pedophilia, everyone should have the opportunity to have a fair trial. Just ask Donald Marshall Jr., David Milgaard and others that have been wrongly accused of crimes.

Their lives were broken because societies’ need to blame someone. These are not just simple mistakes. In general, the wrongful convicted went through the system. Search warrants were executed correctly and these citizens received a fair trial. However, the verdict was wrong and the problem is that these cases have consequences.

A CBC.ca report (Canada’s wrongful convictions: Cases where the courts got it wrong October 14, 2010), noted that “advocates say many who were ultimately exonerated watched their applications stall for years in the federal review board process.” While, a 1992 report prepared by the Library of Parliament states that “Wrongful convictions undermine the two prongs of the criminal justice system’s legitimacy…if someone is wrongfully convicted, that person is punished for an offence he or she did not commit and the actual perpetrator of the crime goes free.”

So the system failed these people. Some might ask why; but the answer is obvious: these were people that were at the margins of society. In Scott Turow’s book, Ultimate Punishment, he notes that:

 “in May 2002, Parris Glendenning, the Governor of Maryland, followed Gov. Ryan’s example and suspended executions in his state for a year, pending a study of racial disparities in who gets sentenced to death. (The report by Raymond Paternoster of the University of Maryland was released on January 7, 2003, and concluded that both race and geography affect death penalty decision in Maryland,…”

The same types of disparities show up in Canada. Let us point to the Royal Commission Report that came out Nineteen years after his conviction. As a BC Civil Liberties Association Report notes “Donald Marshall was exonerated by a Commission of Inquiry that found that racism and prejudice against Aboriginal peoples and a willingness at all levels of the criminal justice system to presume that Aboriginal peoples are prone to criminality resulted in Marshall’s wrongful conviction. Very simply, had Marshall been White, the investigation would have taken a different turn.” Various other reports show that other visible minorities in Canada share the same fate.

As noted by Scott Turow, another problem in convicting innocent persons is false confessions that are due to coercion. These false confessions can be the result of physical force or exhaustion due to lengthy twelve hour interrogations. And the reasons are simple:

“Under enormous pressure to solve these cases, police often become prisoners of their own initial hunches. A homicide investigation is not an academic inquiry allowing for even-handed consideration of every hypothesis. Instead, it’s conducted in an atmosphere where primitive fears about unknown, dangerous strangers imperil our sense of an orderly world. There is a strong emotional momentum to adopt any explanation. Cops often feel impelled to take the best lead and run with it.” While the author is American and describes the American system, he also described to “T” what happened to two Canadians: Steven Truscott and Guy Paul Morin. Both were accused of killing young girls and both were found guilty even though they were innocent. There were men who were found guilty in a case where Judicial Oversight was present. Imagine what would happen if there was not judicial oversight.

Right now, with all of our safeguards, Canada is a leader in Child Pornography litigation. The Sex Crimes Unit (Child Exploitation Section) of the Toronto Police Force often is a lead agency. BPW London’s website notes the story. In 2003, Det. Sgt. Paul Gillespie was frustrated with his resources. Sex criminals had great equipment; while the police were using antiquated computers. Paul was understandably angry, so at the end of a shift, he wrote a rogue email to Bill Gates, Chairman of Microsoft. It was simple: “Your technology helped created this mess; help us clean it up.”  That email started a partnership between Microsoft and the Toronto Police Force’s Sex Crime Unit. It culminated in the creation of software known as the Child Exploitation Tracking System (CETS).  This was all done within the existing legal framework.

One could look at various terrorist arrests made by civilian agencies in Canada, the US or Britain without the use of warrantless searches. As we learned in Canada through various investigations into the Air India bombing, as long as the police work is good, terrorists can be arrested and prosecuted. This always begs the question where is the need for warrantless searches in Canada? Will it become an unused part of the Code or will it be declared unconstitutional? Will it become like section 83.23 of the Criminal Code where a judge can now order someone be arrested because a police officer suspects that they know something. That same person has no right to silence. While they have a right to a lawyer, we will have to see if their rights to due process are maintained. For let us not forget, that Maher Arar started his ordeal because Canadian Security Services suspected that he held some information.

Or let us look at another example: the Security Certificate. In 2007, the security certificate process was found to be in violation of sections 7, 9 and 10 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada in the landmark Charkaoui case. Instead of opening up the system, the minority Conservative Government introduced a system which allows the government to choose the lawyer representing the accused. In this new system, the lawyer representing the accused, “a special advocate”, cannot see all of the evidence against his or her client, they can only see a summary of the evidence. And to put icing on the cake, the advocate cannot share the “evidence summary” to their client to verify the story. At the time, Supported by the Liberal Party, this legislation passed. Yet, it raises questions: how can a lawyer defend his or her client, when the system is rigged against them? Or as J.S. Mill might say:

“Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough; there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling, against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development and, if possible, prevent the formation of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own. There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence; and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs as protection against political despotism.”

Is there an argument for warrantless searches? Of course, there is. Right now, when police officers have reasonable cause or reasons provided by the course of an investigation, they can go into people’s houses, onto people’s computers or read through their journals. To date police officers can go through your garbage, your bank accounts or your car without a warrant. Why do they need more? Supposedly 94% of all police requests to telecommunication companies to view client data are approved. So why do we need to give police more search powers?

My concern in this matter is about the “Other” as much as it is about me. As a person of Caribbean Heritage, I know profiling exists at either a conscious or unconscious level. If you are in the wrong place at the wrong time, anything can happen. This is especially true, if one has the “heat” that comes with public fear. Before the early eights, as an example, men would often drive home drunk. It was just an accepted risk. However, in the early eighties, we started to fear the consequence of drinking while under intoxication.  Laws and Police Practices changed because of fear. Everyone turned to their friends, neighbours and colleagues to ensure that no on they know drove under the influence. While, we have come a long way, that fear still prevails through our society. This is why it is easy for politicians to decrease the amount of alcohol that we, as citizens, are allowed to have in system.

Or look at terrorism. Before September 11th, Canadians promised that individual rights would not be touched because we experienced government without limits. From 1960 to 1970, there were a string of violent sovereigntist groups in Quebec. They culminated in the FLQ: A group that killed a cabinet minister and captured a diplomat. So in October, 1970, Canadians saw troops in our streets and had all of their rights and liberties taken away. Without the review of a judge, Police could arrest and hold citizens for days. Mass arrests in Quebec became normal. While, many police forces outside of Quebec conducted searches without warrants. Ever since, we have heard about how police forces mistreated citizens during this time. We promised ourselves that we would be better.

Therefore, the same Prime Minister that took our rights away in 1970, worked for twelve years to give us a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Prime Ministers after that provided more tools like the separation of CSIS from the RCMP and stronger oversight requirements.

Furthermore, let us not forget that Canadians have always suffered from terrorism. While, in high school in the 90’s, I was on a male high school swim team. One of my teammates went to Israel. It was a shock to me when I saw him on the front cover of a Newspaper wondering aloud why a friend of his had to die. She had a pipe-bomb slipped under her beach towel. There was Air India 182, Pan Am Flight 103 and an incident involving a Canadian Pacific plane in a Japanese Airport.  Yet with all of that, we seemed to have forgotten our own history and our lessons.

Lord Acton said “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” So I ask our party to remember that warrants are not a luxury but a necessary part of our democratic fabric. They allow all of us to be free and to live in our society without having to worry about undue intrusion into our lives. However, they allow us to have a reasonably fair trial should we be suspected of being in the wrong. So, as a party, we should commit to a stance. If we ever are to pass legislation, we should find a way to incorporate warrants and other tools of judicial oversight. The phrase, “Always with a Warrant”, should become our mantra. So by protecting the Judicial Warrant, we are protecting the “Other” and maybe someday ourselves from unwarranted investigations.

Response to Andrew Coyne: Why we should never use Torture Ladened Information

“Of course, there’s an important difference in the two situations: the Nazis are no longer with us, whereas today’s practitioners of torture are very much in action, in countries around the world. It is legitimate to be concerned that Canada’s willingness to use the information they produce would, in effect, create a “demand” for torture (though I rather doubt the supply would dry up in our absence) or indeed open the door to the sort of nod-and-wink outsourcing of brutality we have seen before. That would certainly be a concern if it were generally the practice to use such information, but it cannot be ruled out even in the more circumscribed policy the government has adopted.

Still, unless we are prepared to say that, having received word of a plot to, say, blow up a plane over Montreal tomorrow, we would do nothing with it on the off chance that it might have been obtained through torture, I think we have to live with that possibility.”

• Coyne: Walking the moral high wire between terrorism and torture, By Andrew Coyne, Postmedia News February 10, 2012

When dealing with policy there is only one truth: History is your best teacher. For, we can look at policy tools used throughout written history to weigh the validity of a new approach. For example, in Medieval Europe, if one was charged with a crime, one would often face a “Trial by Ordeal”. An ordeal would be faced and each varied. Fire, combat, water and boiling water were just a few of the trials offered and they worked on a simple basis: “Judicium Dei”. In English, this means that if an accused was innocent, God would protect them.

These trials become less common the closer that one gets to the Renaissance. They were abandoned for other trials: “Trial by Judges” and “Trial by Juries”. A part of the reason for that was simple: the King and the bureaucracy often victimized others. For evidence of this truth just look at Chapter 39 of the Magna Carta. It reads as follows: “No free man shall be arrested or imprisoned or disseised or outlawed or exiled or any way victimized, neither will we attack him or send anyone to attack him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.” As far back as 1215, attempts were being to limit the ability of the Crown to use torture as a public policy tool.

More evidence of this is available should it be required. One could read a website called “phoenixandturtle.net”. Or one could read a book. In 1836, David Jardine wrote “On the Use of Torture in Criminal Law in England Previously to the Commonwealth”. Through these sources, I found many examples. In 1580, warrants were sent out for a number of men including Harte, Bosgrave, and Pascal. They were sent to the Tower of London. So was Alexander Briant in 1581. In fact, in his case, instructions were given that would shock us today. If he did not confess, Ms. Briant was to be shown the tools of torture that were to be used on him to “terrorize him with a sight of the means of torture at the Tower”. If he remained obstinate, he was to be put “to torture.”

Or one can read, David Hume. In his book, History of England, Mr. Hume noted the Star Chamber “possessed an unlimited discretionary authority of fining, imprisoning, and inflicting corporal punishment, and whose jurisdiction extended to all sorts of offenses, contempts, and disorders, that lay not within reach of the common law.”

However, one does not have to go to distance history. Agnes Macphail – a Canadian MP – fought in the 1920’s to eliminate physical punishment from Canadian jails. For even that was being abused. Our history tells us that governments tend to abuse its ability to inflict physical punishment. So how can a government be expected to use torture in any sort of judicious manner.

For, Torture does two things. Firstly, as Mr. Coyne noted, it allows the torturer to get all sorts of information from the victim. Some of it is real, some of it is fabricated and other bits are likely propaganda or misinformation.

However, the second most important thing about torture is that is reinforces the torturer’s perspective. In 2000, Sasha Abramsky wrote a piece called Trial by Torture. In it she documented a single brutal unit of the Chicago Police Department that allegedly tortured confessions out of dozens of suspects, including 10 who are now on death row. These events supposedly took place over a two decade time frame. Or put differently, torturers can bend the truth to fit their perspectives, opinions and “story”. Therefore, torture can drive one further from the truth and not towards the truth. If one listens to Congressional Investigations various aspects of the War on Terror, this truth is repeated. The techniques of the FBI are often far better than those of the CIA, DIA and other clandestine agencies. The FBI’s techniques were simple: they were banned from using “enhanced” interrogation techniques. They just used tried and true civilian policing practices – just questioning and evidence.

This institutional blindness is not a new phenomenon. Canada is home to a group called the “Association in Defence of the Wrongly Convicted”. The group’s mission is to defend people that the system has found guilty. Or put differently, these Wrongly Convicted people have been accused of a crime by Society as a whole including Police Officers, Crown Attorneys and Judges. Those being accused are innocent. If we take the same logic to torture, it is likely that Torturers will “taint” the evidence that they are trying to find. That is why torture is inadmissible in our modern legal system. This is why we do not use torture.

So, if evidence is derived from torture, it is questionable because it could be tainted – either by the torture’s biases, the victims fabrication’s or attempts at misinformation. Therefore, why would CSIS want to use it? For, it will likely cloud a picture that is already clouded. Consequently, it will likely lead one to the wrong answer.  

With this being said, some might argue that Mr. Coyne was not in favour of torturing individuals, he was just in favour of using information already obtained by torture. Or put in other words, as long as CSIS or the RCMP do not torture, we are okay. We would be just using information from other coutnries that do torture inmates, terrorists or suspected terrorists. Fair enough, so let us give everyone a reason for excluding questionable evidence from the process altogether: Canadians Governments or Security Agencies may ask others to do what they cannot do themselves. Take the example of Maher Arar. He is a Canadian who was detained in the US and sent to Syria. While in Syria, he was tortured. We know that his ordeal started because someone in the Canadian Security Apparatus added his name to a “list”. Given that he received a formal apology for his “terrible ordeal” and $10.5 million, one cannot say that the Canadian Government was not responsible for the subsequent events. While, the events in Arar’s case seem to be accidental or unintended in nature, one cannot say that a future government could not be more “aggressive” in the pursuit of the “truth”. Without a definitive legislative framework, the descent down a slippery slope is possible.

Being a multicultural and multiethnic country, many of us travel through countries that do not have the same respect for Human Rights that Canadians do. Imagine if one of us were added to a list. Henk Tepper does not have to imagine it, he is living the experience. He is a Canadian jailed by the Lebanese government at the request of the Algerian Government. Henk has no ancestral links to Algeria or Lebanon. We are not sure if he is committed a crime. The only thing that we know is that a shipment of his arrived in Algeria and might have been contaminated with a bacterium. He has been in jail since February 2011. His story has run in a number of Canadian newspapers. He has not been formally charged and he is waiting for someone to resolve his situation. Imagine if Henk had been arrested in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan or China and his name had been on a list provided by Canadians. What would happen to this man?

From a Canadian perspective, not much would happen. Reporting for the Toronto Star, Tonda MacCharles wrote the following: “The federal Conservative government cannot be forced to ask the United States to return Omar Khadr to Canada, even though the young Khadr’s Charter rights were violated in Guantanamo Bay, the Supreme Court of Canada declared today.”

Abousfian Abdelrazik also ran into trouble. Mr. Abdelrazik claims that he was tortured in Sudan. Given Human Rights Watches reports (including Sudan: How Human Rights Abuses Caused the Disaster” and “Africa Watch Letters Protest Abuses of Human Rights by All Parties to the Conflict in Southern Sudan”), one could say that Mr. Abdelrazik was likely telling the truth. What is most interesting is that the Canadian government has admitted in court submissions that two CSIS agents interrogated him while he was in Sudanese custody. Furthermore, as Paul Koring noted in his piece,“Abdelrazik deserves no compensation, Ottawa argues”, (Globe and Mail, October 14, 2010), let us not forget that Mr. Abdelrazik was returned to Canada because “ a federal court judge ruled the Harper government had violated his rights and ordered him flown home.”

Taken together those three cases paint a damning picture of what our government has done. The Canadian Government does not have to torture its own citizens. It can have other countries do it. Given that Britain’s MI-6 and the American CIA have rendition programmes, one cannot be said to be safe in Europe. If you don’t believe me, please note the following report from the NY Times:

“In a landmark ruling, an Italian judge on Wednesday convicted a base chief for the Central Intelligence Agency and 22 other Americans, almost all C.I.A. operatives, of kidnapping a Muslim cleric from the streets of Milan in 2003.”  (NY Times, RACHEL DONADIO, November 4, 2009, Italy Convicts 23 Americans for C.I.A. Renditions)

So if the British and American Governments do this, why should a future Canadian not follow? Or put differently, if Canadian Security services are allowed to use information derived by torture even in extreme circumstances, what is to stop Canadian Security Services from dropping hints to other agencies?

This is why a strict policy and legislative framework is needed. Our politicians must be on the record as to their feeling about torture.

Much of my passion for comes from my own self-interest.  As a travelling Canadian, I have been through the US, Jamaica, Barbados, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Russia, Finland and the Bahamas. While leaving Russia, I was pulled aside in 1998 for no particular reason. My passport was taken away for what felt like 30 minutes, while my travelling companions looked on. What would have happened to me if I had been on a list? Consequently, this is why I argue that CSIS should not use information which might have been derived from torture. For, wrongly or rightly, I may be the next person who is asked for information in a foreign country where the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms will not protect me. So in memory of Martin Niemöller, I will speak up for the Other, before there is no one left to speak for me.

Another nail in Canada’s Competitive Cellphone Market: Yet another prediction to come true.

“The Harper government’s attempt to engineer more competition for the benefit of Canada’s 27 million wireless users has been successful in a couple of ways: Prices have fallen for the average customer, and service plans are now more flexible. The question is, for how much longer? The upstarts’ networks are still poor – both in quality and scope – and there is constant talk of consolidation among players that may be too financially weak to go it alone. Many believe the endgame will see the Big Three eventually consolidate their grip on the market by buying up their smaller rivals, returning the wireless industry to its former state as a cozy oligopoly.”

-          Canada’s newly competitive cellphone market at risk, Rita Trichur and Iain Marlow, Globe and Mail, Saturday, Feb. 11, 2012

So the Globe and Mail has finally heard the rumours that Bloomberg first reported months ago: the present cellphone structure is unsustainable. However, for those who read this blog, they would have been aware of this fact for months. Or put differently, if one looks at the structure of other country’s cellphone market, one could have seen that the new ‘competitive market was doomed to fail. For, in all other countries, there is a way to share existing telecom infrastructure. This is not the case in Canada.

Unlike Canada, most other jurisdictions brought forth competition with real substantive change to the landscape. In the American Case, the Telephone System – owned by AT&T – was broken up. Due to a case filed by the US Government in the early 70’s, the US Courts required AT&T to spin off , sell off or  divest itself of many underlying businesses. This disinvestment radically changed the US market. Firstly, companies were structure in such a way that they had to work together. For example, at first, Regional Baby Bells could only provide local phone services. Therefore, local customers had to find a long distance provider. This meant that local and long distance providers had to work together to ensure the seamless integration of services.

Furthermore, some of the facilities were given to other providers. Such that now, the US now has a viable market for independent cell tower network providers. Or put differently, in the US, cell phone companies can buy, build or lease their antenna service. This means that it is easier for a competitor to come to a market. Or put in the Canadian Context, if Canada had had independent cell antenna network providers, Wind, Mobilicity or Public Mobile might have saved millions, if not billions, of dollars in building out their network because in the short term they could have leased cell towers in various cities. Therefore, the maintenance of the core of philosophy of AT&T Corp- “One Policy, One System, Universal Service” – allowed the American Telephone System to incorporate viable and long-term competition into their telephony model.

In England, the story is a little different. While, they do have competition, they have a different market model. On the wire side, British Telecom was required to split itself into two sides: regulated and unregulated. The Regulated Side is the infrastructure side. This would include the antennas, wires, switching systems and the like. While, the unregulated side of British Telecom provides services to retail customers. Or put differently, the unregulated side connects the “last mile”.

The “last mile” is a telecommunications industry term which describes the person who connects a client to a larger network. So in other words, no network goes everywhere. Therefore, my phone provider buys services from other telephone, satellite, cable and communication companies to ensure that I have the illusion that my phone in Calgary seamlessly connects to Toronto, Montreal, New York, London, Tokyo, Jerusalem or Moscow. Therefore, in Canada, our last mile provider also has significant infrastructure. This is not the case in the United Kingdom.

For, British Telecom’s regulated side must sell services to other “last mile” connectors. Consequently, one does not need to build a lot of infrastructure to compete for consumers. A new company can either build facilities or lease phone lines from BT on the wire side of the Business.

This Universality on the traditional telephony side of the business has also extended to the cell side. For, major cellphone network operators open up their facilities as well. Therefore, Everything Everywhere, O2, Vodafone and Three allow over 20 other provides, including Virgin Mobile, Tesco, GiffGaff, ASDA Mobile and FamilyMobile, to rent or lease their cell tower times or facilities.

Consequently, there is a reason why Canada has some of the highest cell phone rates in the world. We have not applied the open, “mix and match” approach that has been used in much of Europe and the US. Accordingly, it is not surprising that in some countries also have a lively cell phone rental business. Or put different, openness and flexibility breeds more of the same.

In Canada, this needs to happen. Yet, our own cell phone providers are largely unwilling to tackle the problem. They understand that if they close their systems, the expense of creating another network in such a vast country is astronomical. This ensures the incumbent’s competitive advantage. Even Wind, with a large international partner, is having trouble. Like Fido, AT&T Canada, Sprint Canada or another of other attempts at competition, the present market is doomed to fail.

The truth is that unless the federal government intervenes with a vision and legislation, we will continue to have a handful of cable and telephone companies. For example, Rogers and Telus have always had closed systems. And while Bell Canada did allow Virgin on its network, Bell Canada bought them out for some unknown reason.

If you don’t believe me ask yourself this, why did Shaw – the second largest cable company in Canada and one of the largest telecom companies in Canada – decide that they were not going to create a cell phone network with the wireless spectrum that they paid several million dollars for. After indicating that they were going to build a cell company, Shaw changed its mind. Why? Size, Capitalization and Market Readiness were not issues. My argument would be that cost was.

Bell Canada and Telus already have network sharing agreements to reduce costs. Why would Telus and Rogers have bid for Microcell Communications – Fido’s partner company? The simple answer is the cost savings and improved service. Between integrating the facilities and customers, purchasing a failing cellphone company meant more to the incumbent players than we could ever imagine. So the truth is hard, most – if not all – of the existing start-ups with disappear through merger, acquisition or bankruptcy. This would even be true if the feds lower the foreign ownership restrictions. So unless telecom facilities are opened to competition we are likely to see a return to the Telecommunication Oligopoly that existed before.

A Reason to Read My Blog: Ministerial Responsibility and the Independence of the RCMP

 “The protocol is an appropriate balance between the independence of the RCMP on law enforcement matters and its accountability to me as the minister responsible for the RCMP,” Toews said.

“Senator Kenny knows that this policy was in place when the Liberals formed government, it’s simply a continuation. When he was denied a secret meeting that he wanted, he went to the media,” Toews added. “And, so I find it rather surprising, his tact.”

• RCMP commissioner not ‘muzzled,’ Toews says: Minister says Public Safety handles meeting requests to ensure fairness – same as the Liberals did; CBC News,  Jan 20, 2012 5:00 PM ET

Let us assume for a second that Minister Toews is right. Let us assume that the former Liberal Government required the RCMP to get a “stamp of approval from the Department of Public Safety”. The question should be: “was that the right policy?”. In my mind, it was not. It was not right then and it is not right now for the policy did not emphasize the most liberal of values: Ministerial Responsibility, Legislative Oversight and Independence of the RCMP. These values should be embraced by the present Liberal Policy for they respect the value of the Other. 

Strong Legislatures are essential to our democratic processes. It is the way that governments, in our system, are held responsible. It is the basis of Responsible Government. If a government is irresponsible it is up to the Legislature to rain it in. This is how we respect the Other: by putting limits on Government.

Our forefathers fought for the idea of responsible government because they understood what happens when governments are not restrained. In 1837 and 1838 Rebellions raged through Upper and Lower Canada. For, Colonial Governments were unresponsive to their publics. The executive branch listened to some but not all. This is why Lord Durham called for responsible government in his famous report.

While, John Stuart Mill glorified legislative control because he understood English History. The rule of King alone was not sufficient to guarantee the welfare of the Public. That is why in his greatest book – On Liberty – this great English Philosopher noted the value of the “Rule of Law”. For, like their citizens, governments tend to look for easy solutions. With a military or police force at hand, it is only too easy for Governments to look for solutions that emphasize power and force. Joseph Howe knew this. This is why he fought for Responsible Government in Nova Scotia.  Louis-Joseph Papineau fought for it in Lower Canada. William Lyon Mackenzie fought for it in Upper Canada.  They fought against the Family Compact and the Château Clique. They fought to have legislative control over the executive, the executive council and the lieutenant governor. Like the Reform Movement in England, they fought for meaningful power over their government. So that we could enjoy “liberty” as the British understood it: the Supremacy of Parliament with popular accountability.

Sometimes, this accountability was just the basics: having the Colonial Government follow the law as it stood. For the Rule of Law was not always guaranteed. For example, the Family Compact lobbied successfully for years to keep the right to church land. In the Constitutional Act of 1791, as much as 1/7 of all land was granted to the Church. Yet, the Anglican Church monopolized lands reserved for all Protestant denominations. At the time, the Protestant Churches had few legal courses. The Courts had different rights and were either slow or powerless before Parliament. So Executive Control was essential. By controlling the Executive, the Legislature could enforce the word and spirit of the law.

Therefore, it is not surprising that in 1850’s and 1860’s, Liberal Conservatives and Liberals – like John A. MacDonald, Alexander Mackenzie and George Brown – fought for and defended their fellow citizens. They did this not because it was easy. They often faced violent opposition for their beliefs. Yet, they stood for them. Our forefathers, consistently, fought for the ‘Other’. They fought constantly for each other. They fought to ensure that their legislature would have effective controls on the Crown. This meant that the crown would follow both the spirit and the letter of the law.

With that being said, we – as a society – have forgotten that 200 year old lesson: In Parliamentary Government, The Legislature should always have control over the Executive. This is a lesson that I want to emphasize here. Consequently, the RCMP should be under the control of Parliament and not under the thumb of the executive or the government. Senator Kenny should bring forth legislation to reinstate their previous arms-length relationship to the government. Up until 1984, like the Armed Forces, the RCMP was a body that took the majority of its direction from the House of Commons. However, this was changed under the Mulroney Government. For, it was that government which made the RCMP a part of the federal bureaucracy. And this has had some dangerous consequences.

According to Robwipond.com, Paul Palango, author of Dispersing the Fog: Inside the Secret World of Ottawa and the RCMP (Key Porter, 2008), has noted that the change in the relationship “has made it quite clear that the force can be influenced by the Prime Minister.” For, the RCMP is beyond any provincial legislature and no federal agency has the ability to independently review the RCMP’s activities. When it was responsible to Parliament, Parliament could review the RCMP’s actions. This is not the case any longer. If one questions this assertion, just look at the case of Maher Arar or Robert Dziekanski. When both cases started, the RCMP claimed that they were in the right. Government’s reactively defended the RCMP. It was only when evidence started leaking out, showing their guilt that questions started to come to the fore. Only after evidence gathered did governments call for Commissions of Inquiry. Only then did we begin to learn the truth.  Having the RCMP as an arm of the executive, clearly has not helped their ability to police areas or either federal or provincial jurisdiction. In fact, it has made them more unaccountable to the law.

Therefore, all Liberals should want to restore the RCMP to its former independent status. Like the Armed Forces, the RCMP could have a better internal investigation service. In addition, Parliament could copy Ontario and have an external investigative force that works independently from a strong internal investigation service. But most importantly, the RCMP should be held to account by a strong Parliament holding independent investigations. Only in that way can the legislature again hold sway over the executive and cabinet. Senator Kenney could lead such a charge in the Senate, just as opposition MPs could lead that charge in the House of Commons. In fact, a number of Conservative MPs might even support this cause. However, Parliament again would be supreme.

But this leads me to my second point: the responsibility of Senators and Members of Parliament to hold Ministers accountable. Most Members of the Federal Legislature have been lacking in this responsibility.  If we take the example of the amendments to the Canadian Wheat Board Act, one might remember that a federal judge noted that the Minister must be held “accountable for his disregard for the rule of law”. Even though there are actions that can be taken – including presenting the matter to the RCMP, a Crown Prosecutor or a Judge – no Federal Politician has taken any such action. The Legislature has seeded its roll to the Executive and the Crown. This action is not acceptable in a Liberal Democratic State.  Ministers can be held accountable under law and they should be. If we can do this, we can remind all Canadians of the power of the rule of Law. These are Liberal Values that need to be restored. This is what our Party should stand for.

Why Canada will stop the Commonwealth from changing the rules of Succession

“Amendment by unanimous consent

41. An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province:

(a)   the office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province;”

• Constitution Act, 1982, Part V – PROCEDURE FOR AMENDING CONSTITUTION OF CANADA

“Canada supports updating royal succession rules so that a daughter of Prince William can take the throne one day, a spokesman for Prime Minister Stephen Harper says.”

• Canada supports royal succession rule change, By Laura Payton, CBC News, Posted: Oct 13, 2011 12:31 PM ET

One could sit down and argue about the need of the monarchy. But I will not. For one thing is obvious, the Harper Government will not deal with the issue of the Rules of Succession for the Monarchy. This might seem like an extreme position to take. However, I assure you that the truth and the reasoning is simple: Mr. Harper does not want to have to amend the Canadian Constitution. In the early eighties, Mr. Harper was an aide to a Progressive Conservative Member of Parliament. Under the Mulroney years, he saw the hardship that can come with amending the constitution.

In dealing with other constitutional issues, including Senate Reform, Mr. Harper has chosen to side step the General Amending Procedure. So why would Mr. Harper take on the harder task of amending Canada’s head of state. Updating this part of the Constitution is a huge mind field and this Prime Minister is not brave enough to take it on.  However, to understand this let us look at the history.

In the 1930′s, Canada was a part of the self-governing polity of the English Empire. So updating of English Constitutional Law, at the time, had some effect on us. English Constitutional Law was being changed for a number of reasons. For example, to contend with the growing calls of the Dominions for more power, the Statute of Westminster was passed in 1931. It allowed for Dominions within the British Empire to largely administer themselves.

Then there was the case of Wallis Simpson. That simple love affair led to the Abdication of Edward VIII through the Abdication Act (i.e. His Majesty’s Declaration of Abdication Act 1936). Passed by the British Parliament, this act allowed the Throne to be passed to Prince Albert, Duke of York, who became King George VI. For me, the most interesting part of this story was the Canadian Reaction. Our Federal Government acted differently than every other Dominion in the Commonwealth. The Irish, for example, passed the Executive Authority (External Relations) Act 1936. Or put differently, the Irish changed their rules of succession. On the other hand, Australia, the Union of South Africa, and New Zealand gave their consent. Yet, Canada did something different.

In 1936, the Canadian Government gave consent to the actions of the British Parliament. They passed an Order-in-Council to authorize their consent. This was the law and was legal. However, in 1937, the Canadian Parliament passed the Succession to the Throne Act. This act ensured that Canadian Jurisprudence was in line with other jurisdictions.

Unlike other parts of Canadian Law, the Crown was defined in clear terms. No longer would Canada have to refer to English Constitutional Law, Precedence or Tradition; as the Canadian Parliament declared a Canadian line of succession. The problem for the Harper Government is that this law is now a part of the Canadian Constitution.

For, as far as I can tell, the Succession to the Throne Act is still in force. Nothing in the SCHEDULE to the CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982 mentions it; nor do any previous constitutional amendment mentions it either.  If this is the case, then a whole set of problems ensue. Or put differently, when the Constitution Act, 1982 came into force; it crystalized the existing powers of the crown. The problem is one of those powers is the line of succession as described by the Succession to the Throne Act, 1937. For some proof, just look at the original British North America Act. Section two of the act started that “the provisions of this Act referring to Her Majesty the Queen extend also to the Heirs and Successors of Her Majesty, King and Queens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.” While that portion of the act was repealed in 1893, the sentiment still remains as a part of Canadian Law. For, we still keep track of the order of succession. So when Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, came to Canada, we understood he is second in line to the Crown, as per the Act of Settlement of 1701 (UK) and the Succession to the Throne Act, 1937 (Canada).

Consequently, a change to the order of succession is a change to the office. And by section 41 (a) of the Constitution Act, 1982, any change to the “office of the Queen, the Governor-General and the Lieutenant-Governor of a province” requires the consent of the federal Parliament and all provincial legislatures.

Given that Stephen Harper has not been willing to go to various provinces to seek consent to change the Senate, one could assume he will not go to the provinces over changes to the succession of the crown. However, in the unlikely case that he does, one could not see the Right Honourable Stephen Harper getting unanimity and there are two reasons for this. Firstly, it is hard to see how ten provinces could come together on any issue right now. Alberta and BC, for example, are required to hold referendums on any constitutional changes. Without some form of Senate reform, those two western provinces are not likely to agree to any changes to the Crown. The National Assembly, in Quebec, is not likely to approve any changes to the crown without some quid pro quo; while Ontario has a minority government. This does not bode well for the changes that need to be made.

The second reason for my conclusion comes from Stephen Harper himself. His government has not been known for its “conciliatory” nature. Stephen Harper is brash and has offended a number of Canadians. BC, Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island have all been given ultimatums from the Federal Government over RCMP policing contracts. Ottawa has demanded the return of HST harmonization money from BC. Mr. Harper’s government has taken on various unions and the Parliamentary Budget Officer. He has fired Linda Keen, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission chair, for doing her job. This does not include the recent changes to federal health expenditures or provincial discontent over changes to the Criminal Code. Mr. Harper has not shown himself to be a negotiator like previous PM’s like Trudeau or Mulroney. So why would Mr. Harper want to take on a monumental Constitutional challenge now? Or, who would support him?

Accordingly, Canada will not change its Constitution and by the rules of the Commonwealth Crown, if one realm will not change its governing law; the law cannot be changed in all realms. So the English are dependent on Canada to amend the Act of Settlement. Yet Canada will not act. Now do you see why Canada will prevent the modernization of the British Commonwealth?

Rethinking Intellectual Property Rights

“Apple has been engaged in heated legal battles around the world claiming that Android smartphones and tablets infringe on its patents. Android loyalists see the legal attacks as a desperate, oppressive move by Apple to stifle competition, but perhaps the success of Android is a function of the ways it “borrows” Apple intellectual property.

According to leaked excerpts from the Steve Jobs biography which will be officially released tomorrow, Jobs is quoted saying, “I’m going to destroy Android, because it’s a stolen product. I’m willing to go thermonuclear war on this.”

• What If Steve Jobs Is Right?, By Tony Bradley,  Content of PC World, Displayed on MSN Canada on October 24, 2011

To understand the importance of Intellectual Property arguments, let us look at something we all understand. Let us look at the book. The book or the codex is a remarkable piece of technology. For it has been used for over 1,000 years to keep knowledge. Depending on the language, it can be read from left to right or right to left, it has been the most portable way of accessing knowledge from most of recorded time. Now imagine that that piece of technology was owned by someone.

I am not talking about the text or the knowledge, I am talking about the way that pieces of paper are bound to a spine. In numerical order, as suggested by the table of contents, those pages make up a single object. The spine is connected to the cover and may be a dust jacket. It is a piece of technology that we are taught to use. Either our parents or a teacher explains the meaning of the letters. The vowels and consonants are ordered in a specific way to form words. When the words are read in order the words make sentences and so on and so forth. Imagine someone had owned this way of disseminating information.

They would charge a fee to explain it, a fee to use the system and a fee for each book created. These fees would be above and beyond the knowledge held in those books. These fees would be paid the inventor of the codex. One can go on with this idea and realize how ridiculous it is. However, this is how modern computer companies treat their technology.

Very few ideas in computers are public domain. Or put differently, very few computer ideas are not owned. For example, let us take the programming language called “HTML”. It is the basis for every website. It is used by all computers including those with Windows, Linux, Apple, Palm, RIM and Android operating systems. This programming language is universal because the owners of the language have allowed it to be in the public domain. Or put differently, HTML is free to use. This is why we all use and view webpages like a newspaper. Just like the book, the public domain feature has allowed HTML to become a global tool.

The same could not be said of the ePublishing industry. Every company has a format. Even though there are two universal formats, Adobe’s PDF and International Digital Publishing Forum’s ePUB, many device companies are trying to corner the market, so that their customers have to go back to their “home company” for additional content. Therefore, Palm has a proprietary format. (i.e. .pdb) and so does Amazon (i.e. .azw).  Sony and Microsoft have two proprietary formats each (i.e. Sony’s  .lrf; .lrx; Microsoft’s  .lit, .chm).  And these are just the well-known formats.

So as has happened to me, if I bought one proprietary formatted eBook, I cannot trade it. In other words, if I buy a Book on an iPad, I cannot transfer it to a new Kindle or Sony digital book reader. That is if the Harper Government passes their proposed legislation. Or put differently, just because I buy a book, it will not mean that I own a book.

Even worse, if Apple, Amazon or Sony decides to get out of the eBook game or goes bankrupt, I will have to buy all of my digital books again. If you do not think that this could happen, please remember that Apple almost went bankrupt in the 1990’s.  Given the large number of software and hardware companies that no longer in exist or have been radical changed, one could say that it is only a matter of time before a major company leaves or is forced to leave the eBook space. The question is what happens at that point?

No one knows. The rights, for example, for the eBook reader and material do not flow through to the user. Those rights, under today’s law, would flow through to the entity that purchased the rights from a bankrupt company. Under Canadian Bankruptcy Law, those rights could be changed or adjusted since all previous agreements for access to any digitally locked data could be changed. Patent agreements would be extinguished and so would any previous user agreements. And this is only the beginning.

We have not talked about the international exchange of digital rights or the cost to society for not being able to share digital content. So where do we go from here? I would argue that we need to have a cost sharing programme. One where the public purchases the private rights, so that the rights fall into the public hands. This would mean that we all could take advantage of gains and leaps in technology. Inventors would be paid for their work, but society could add onto inventors ideas.

This is only one way of looking at the situation. However, one thing remains clear: as a society, we need to change from where we are. The only question that remains is: “where will we end up?”.

Unions are not at the Heart of Airlines Problems, Part Two

So let us finish our conversation on Transportation Policy; so that we can move onto more exciting policy discussions. Considering this issue through the usual liberal lens – treatment of the other – is easy. For in this area, small “l” Liberals and big “L” Liberals share the same values: fair treatment of minorities while obtaining what is best for the public. This rubric of “fair treatment of the other” allows us to look for a policy position which provides fair treatment for airline companies and the travelling public.  However, ‘fair treatment of the other’, as a policy tool, also means guaranteeing the interests of other stakeholders including employees, unions, investors, and the Canadian State. Lastly, this tool of fairness does not preclude the addition of the full cost of travelling to the travelling public. Consequently, it is my belief that the fair treatment of all elements of the market is necessary. The question is how does one accomplish this? 

My suggestion is simple: let us find a way to maintain an open and diverse marketplace where companies cannot provide services at below the market cost. Admittedly, this policy will require government intervention into the market place. So most laissez-faire economists will have an issue; but history is on our side. For the real issue for Air Canada and Canadian was the lack of profitability. This is especially true when dealing with  Jetsgo, Canada 3000 and any number of failed airline companies in Canada.  They both started offering flights for a $1. How can one make money back on a per seat basis; when one needs to pay a pilot, a co-pilot, a grounds crew, a maintenance crew and others to get the plane off the ground? Since the Reagan Administration deregulated their industry, the US has been dealing with this same instability. Furthermore, the spread of market philosophies through various world governments has only allowed this instability to spread.

Thirty years of market failure begs for a regulated solution. Just look at the recent Financial Crisis. It took less than a year for governments to get involved. Banks, Insurance Companies and other financial entities were saved in most countries. The Conservatives have fought for tougher criminal legislation because they have argued that there is an immediate criminal danger. This is even though crime rates are falling throughout the country.  Yet, no one is willing to look at a failed transportation policy: one that eats up capital and creates an airline bankruptcy every five to ten years. So what government solution can we look at that will maintain investor’s capital and keep employment stable?

My contention is that airlines’ single biggest problem is the structure of their industry. Generally speaking, airline companies have to run networks to ensure that they are competitive for people rarely have to get from point A to Point B. For example, I like to go to Barbados. However, I am rarely able to find a flight from Calgary to Bridgetown, Barbados, and back. Westjet only runs a seasonal service to Barbados from Calgary. So I have always flown there on Air Canada. This means that I have to fly through Toronto.

Most airlines have a hub network because that is cheaper. Housing, repairing and servicing airplanes is an expensive endeavour. For, everything about it is specialized. The mechanics need to be trained on specific jets and generally need years of training and experience. Consequently, it is not surprising that airlines congregate around hubs. Calgary, Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal have been hubs for different airlines for nearly a half century. Westjet could evolve in Calgary because Canadian used it as their hub. Or put differently, because the infrastructure was there more could follow.

So, Calgary now is Westjet’s hub. Just as New York, Toronto, Montreal, Atlanta and Denver serve as hubs for other airlines. With this type of structure, one problem is obvious: not every route is intended to make money. Some routes are intended to funnel people to profitable routes. Other routes are intended for profile or long term potential growth. Consequently, it is easy for airline companies to have non-profitable routes.

Therefore, if an airline is intending to lose money on a route, who cares if they are losing 1%, 5% or 10%. Generally speaking that airline doesn’t; as long as it matches other marketing or profitability targets. However, from a public policy point of view, the problem is obvious: airlines looking to make profit on these routes will have to deal with an uncompetitive dealer who is operating planes for a reason other than profit. This market structure means it is more likely that a competitive operator will offer uncompetitive prices.

Simply put, if one or a few market players are willing to lose money on routes, a policy answer is required. My solution would be to start with a price floor. By providing a floor, airline operators would not be able to drive the market on cost alone. Therefore, on a long term basis, airlines would not be able to drive each under. 

Airlines would declare whether each particular route was intended to be profitable. Or put differently, in winter months, Air Canada might want to run a scheduled jet between Thunder Bay and Toronto. Winter months in Canada provides a great travelling market. People want to go to any number of “sun” destinations. However, Air Canada would not likely make a profit if it flew to 8 or 10 sun destinations from Thunder Bay. Consequently, Air Canada might provide a lost leader to Thunder Bay. For, while a flight from Thunder Bay to Toronto might not be profitable in itself, the flight might provide audience for more profitable routes: the sun destinations. In this case, Air Canada would be forced to declare that the Thunder Bay to Toronto route is not profitable.  As a result, Air Canada would be forced to abide by a price floor.

Such a floor could be established by “auction”. All airline carriers could be asked to declare whether they intended to make a profit through the servicing the route or not. If they intended to make money, they would be asked what their costs might be. From there, the federal government could establish a baseline or floor. The Federal Government could take the lowest cost projection or it could provide a floor based on a calculation (i.e. the average cost or use some other formula). Either way, a price floor could be established through numbers, evidence and audits. Companies could then compete, on individual routes, knowing that they can potentially make a profit. This would be the case should a carrier be a government owned or supported carrier, or a for-profit airline.

Additionally, the federal government could create a “CDIC- like” fund to deal with the collapse of a domestic airline or to get Canadians home if their airline collapses. When Jetsgo Corporation collapsed, it left a lot of people in the lurch. On March 11^th, 2005, CTV staff noted, in an article called “Travellers stranded as Jetsgo shuts down”, that “not only are Jetsgo’s 1,200 employees out of work, but a reported 17,000 passengers have been left stranded during one of the busiest travel times of the year — March break.” Passengers were stranded in Canada, the US and Mexico. Among the passengers were 300 RCMP Officers who attended a national memorial service. When an airline fails, it affects us all: governments, police, military and civilians. 

When Canada 3000 failed, it left 50,000 vacationers stranded in up to 91 destinations. One can look at a number of failed airlines including CanJet, Harmony Airlines, Zoom Airlines, Roots Airlines and Skyservice. Each of them stranded Canadians in different destinations and those citizens had to pay again to get back to their own homes. Some might have purchased travel insurance or might have gotten money back from VISA. But various stakeholders processes would have taken time and would have not gotten Canadians home. Would it not be easier if we had a structure that was designed to do this.

A market failure fund does not require a huge amount of money and it could be based on aircraft movements. This would mean that those that use the system the most are the ones that pay for its maintenance. In 2010, NAV Canada reported that there were 12 million aircraft movements in Canada. These movements include take-offs, landings and overflights in domestic airspace and international airspace assigned to Canadian control. If even half of those movements incurred a $1 fee, $6 million dollars would be collected. If we use Canada 3000, as our example, one would estimate that a fund would need between $75 and 260 million dollars to deal with a collapse.  Depending on the way it is structured a “CDIC- like” could be operational and self-sufficient in less than 10 years.

This is not a unique idea in Canada. More than 90% of our financial companies have some sort of similar market failure fund. Assuris, CIPF and CIDC are just a few of them. This emergency fund might issue debt first to develop a large amount of investable capital. Or it might have a government or industry based guarantee. Either way, there are solutions that are possible. The question is are we brave enough as a part to fight for them.

Getting travellers to pay for the full cost of travel is important. It is a liberal and a Liberal Value. Since “Free riders” destroy markets; everybody should pay their way. This is a first step towards a sustainable market system. It allows investors to make a return; while accomplishing a national public goal. This is a Liberal Policy and one that we should investigate as a party.

Why Kevin O’Leary is wrong: the Airline Industry problem is not Unions

Some might not look at Canadian Airline Policy as something that the Liberal Party should tackle but it is a huge looming problem. At this point, Canadian transportation policy is largely based on private actors using public infrastructure. Airlines, for example, pay for the use of Not-for-Profit Airports. In turn, those Airports are charged rent by the Federal Government. Bus Lines use public roads. While, the only public players in the transportation field are intercity rail carriers like VIA and GO (Government of Ontario Transport Company) and inner city carriers bus systems like the Toronto Transit Commission, Calgary Transit or Metro Transit in Halifax.

Given that our Transportation Industry is full of private actors, it is possible that the bankruptcy of some players could have severe public policy consequences. For example, let us look at the fall of Canadian Airlines International Ltd. It was an airline that operated in Canada from 1987 until 2001. To be truthful, after the deregulation of the industry a number of airlines including Pacific Western Airlines, Canadian Pacific Air Lines, Eastern Provincial Airways, Nordair and Wardair got together to provide an alternative service to Air Canada.

However, a problem occurred: Canadian and Air Canada created too much capacity in the market and did not charge full market value for their service. After years of competition and racking up large amounts of debt, in 2000, Canadian went bankrupt. This was a major problem for the Government of the Day because Canadian was a large carrier.

At the time, it was the second largest carrier in Canada. To give one an idea of the scope of the Canadian just look at its fleet size. It had 163 jets at the time of its dissolution. This compares to Air Canada today which has 205 jets. Furthermore, at the time, Canadian flew to 160 destinations in 17 countries including an intensive network in Canada. It was necessary for the Federal Government to intercede and they did. On Aug. 13, 1999, the Federal Government suspended the Competition Act to let the airlines legally talk about restructuring. Furthermore, on Nov. 8, 1999, Transport Minister David Collenette said he expected Air Canada to take over Canadian Airlines. Or put differently, instead of allowing Canadian to fall into foreign hands – AMR had a proposal on the table – the Federal Government made it clear that it wanted a “made in Canada” solution to the situation at hand.

Consequently, as Liberals, we should discuss transportation policy from time to time because we will need to deal with hard situations. The question which we need to discuss today is how should a Liberal Government deal with airline market. For, problems may abound. Reuters reports that “The International Air Transport Association (IATA) cut its forecast for airline industry profits by a quarter to $3.5 billion for 2012 and warned the industry could plunge to an $8.3 billion loss if Europe’s debt problems trigger another banking crisis.” Furthermore, Canadians have seen the bankruptcy of American Airlines Bankruptcy; while the gossip about Air Canada’s Future is getting louder. So what is a Liberal Government to do?

If one listens to CBC’s Kevin O’Leary, one might think that cutting unions would be the answer. Chapter 11 proceedings helped Delta Air Lines and United Airlines to cut costs and restructure in the face of high fuel costs, slowing demand and high labour costs. So why should this solution not work for other airlines?

Well because it has not worked. US Airways went through the bankruptcy process twice. When Delta went bankrupt in 2005, it was the fourth of seven major carriers which went bankrupt. The recent bankruptcy of American Airlines will likely not be the end. For there will be more consolidation in the US airline Industry. Reuter indicates that “Since the Delta/Northwest and United/Continental mergers, American and US Airways have been considered logical partners for a potential combination, but analysts have said American’s high labor costs and unresolved contracts with its unions make any deal too difficult to negotiate.” Or put differently, the US companies will continue to merge, cut and go bankrupt. This has been the status of the US market since the early 1980’s, when deregulation started under the Reagan Administration.

However, one thing has been missed. Just look at this quote: “AMR’s decision to finally bite the bullet and file for Chapter 11 … was a transformational event,” said CRT Capital Group analyst Michael Derchin. “Virtually every airline is expected to benefit somewhat from AMR’s capacity retrenchment”.

Or put differently, what if overcapacity or too much capital are the real concerns? What if the problem is too much money coming from sovereign and wealthy interests is coming into the airline market? This is my contention.

Just look at the market. There are still a number of governments that own flag carriers. Estonian Air is owned by the government of Estonia. LOT Airlines, a Polish Carrier, has 2/3’s of its shares owned by the Polish Government. Bulgaria Air, Cubana, Ethiopian Airlines, Royal Brunei Airlines and Royal Jordanian also still have flag carriers. The interesting thing about those flag carriers is that they have government backing. This means that if a particular government wants to support its carrier it can. It can provide money for wages, gas or other services. Sometimes, it could be required to run a profit. While, other times profit is not important. Either way, a national flag carrier is not like a private carrier. For one needs to make profit; while the other has to fulfill national goals.

Yet, they all compete for the same passenger. In other words, the national carriers affect private sector players. In the case of LOT Airlines, the costs are noticeable. On their website, they note that they suffered operating and net financial losses in 2008, 2009 and 2010. However, LOT is a member of the Star Alliance. Consequently, LOT works closely with Air Canada and twenty five carriers. Further, LOT provides services in Canada, Australia, the US, Europe and Russia. This means that LOT has a significant influence on prices in a number of countries.

In additional to flag carriers, there are now “near flag carriers”. For example, let us take Emirates Airlines. They are an independent airline that has great financials. However, one thing sticks out. Emirates Airline has a lot of debt. While some is publically floated, most of the debt is held by the UAE or various Emiratis. Furthermore, Emirates Airline is only paying an effective interest rate of about 3%; a rate which would be reminiscent of a stable government. This is while there competitors would be paying interest rates which are between 6% and 12% Or put differently, “near flag carriers” get a lot help that allow them to provide a service for less than the market rate. If one notes that Emirates Airline has a number of strategic partnerships with airlines, like Sri Lankan Airlines; one can see that sovereign carriers are messing up standard market forces.

However, it does not end there. Governments privatization is causing even more chaos in the market. Air New Zealand, El Al, Monte Negro Airlines and Kenya Airways were all privatized within the last 10 years. While, in 2004, the Federal Government of Nigeria and Virgin Atlantic Airways signed a Memorandum of Mutual Understanding (MMU) that gave birth to the airline: Air Nigeria. So, there are a lot more carriers, or larger carriers, in the market. While this might seem to be good, one can only see issues. For, all of these countries have likely put a lot of money into these new private market carriers. Consequently, other private market carriers around the world will likely have to upgrade their planes – in response – or be considered to be second class carriers.  This would mean that capacity, as a whole, would increase.

Meanwhile, we have seen lots of wealth and private money come into the market. Porter Airlines is an example of this. Brent Jang wrote an article entitled “Porter: the little airline that could” for the Globe and Mail. (Published Friday, Nov. 20, 2009 7:44PM EST; Last updated Tuesday, Apr. 27, 2010 10:51AM)

“Porter’s shareholders include some of the smartest money on Bay Street: OMERS’ Borealis Infrastructure Management Inc. (which holds 21.4 per cent of the shares), EdgeStone Capital Partners (18.3 per cent), GE Asset Management Inc. (14.6 per cent) and Dancap Private Equity Inc. (3.1 per cent).

But the largest block of shares, 42.6 per cent, is held by Regco Capital Corp., the vehicle of a group of investors led by Mr. Deluce, veteran Bay Street money manager Ira Gluskin and Donald Carty, Porter’s chairman, with whom Air Canada clashed frequently when he was CEO of American Airlines Inc. and Canadian Pacific Airlines.”

The Caribbean provides us with another example. Most of the Caribbean is served quite well by foreign airlines including those who were based in Canada, the US and Britain. Consequently, it is not a surprise that Caribbean flag carriers repeatedly failed. For, there was an issue of overcapacity.

Instead of following governments lead, private money came into the game. They provided capital to airlines that should have gone bankrupt. Therefore, BWIA and Air Jamaica and their descendants, (i.e. Caribbean Airlines and the new Air Jamaica) were allowed to continue to compete in a money losing way for market share. We know that this is the case because, as of July 1^st, both airlines are now owned by one corporation. However, because of international carriers, an overcapacity issue still exists. History tells us that this is the case and the market will reaffirm this.

So, the problem with the airline industry is not the union structure; the problem has been too much capital. If you question that just look at UPS. It is a unionized firm that makes more money than FEDEX – its non-unionized competitor.

Consequently, now that I have shown that the market has too much capital; my next blog will directly deal with potential policy implications for a Liberal Government.

Ministers need to be held responsible for our Parliamentary Democracy to work

“Canadians should understand that at stake here is not just a technical point of law, but the integrity of parliamentary government. In placing Section 47 in the Wheat Board Act, Canada’s 36th Parliament made a commitment to grain growers that it would not consider changing the rules for marketing their crops without their consent. To hold that such a promise means nothing once another party has a majority in the House of Commons is to deny Parliament the capacity to make such commitments to citizens whose interests are so directly affected by legislation.”

• Does it matter if our laws are passed illegally? By Peter H. Russell; Published Friday, Dec. 30, 2011 2:00AM EST

“Whereas the introduction of a pro forma bill in the House of Commons before the consideration of the Speech from the Throne demonstrates the right of the elected representatives of the people to act without the leave of the Crown;

Whereas that custom, which can be traced to 1558 in the Parliament at Westminster, is practised in a number of jurisdictions having a parliamentary form of government;

And whereas it is desirable to explain and record the constitutional relationship represented by that custom;

Now, therefore, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:

1. 1.    This bill asserts the right of the House of Commons to give precedence to matters not addressed in the Speech from the Throne”

• Bill C1, 1st Session, 41st Parliament, 60 Elizabeth II, 2011

I do agree with Mr. Peter Russell that the amendments to the Wheat Board Act were put forth to Parliament illegally. I do agree that Parliament risks becoming a rubber stamp that can deny “the capacity to make such commitments to citizens whose interests are so directly affected by legislation”. However, I do have to disagree with his argument. Or put differently, while I do not disagree with Professor Russell’s destination; my issue is with the route that he took.

For, Parliamentary Supremacy is clear. Section 18 of the Constitution Act (1867) says that “the privileges, immunities, and powers to be held, enjoyed, and exercised by the Senate and by the House of Commons, and by the members thereof respectively, shall be such as are from time to time defined by Act of the Parliament of Canada, but so that any Act of the Parliament of Canada defining such privileges, immunities, and powers shall not confer any privileges, immunities, or powers exceeding those at the passing of such Act held, enjoyed, and exercised by the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and by the members thereof.”

One of the first and simplest powers of Parliament has been to meet to discuss any issue at hand. Simply look at Bill C1. It has been introduced at the beginning of each Parliament since 1867. The bill notes that the House of Commons has the right to “give precedence to matters not addressed in the Speech from the Throne”. A similar bill is introduced in the Senate. Or put differently, any Member of Parliament had the right to amend the Canadian Wheat Board.

Just as backbencher, Tory MP Candice Hoeppner, in May 15, 2009, brought forth a private member’s bill to eliminate the registry.  While, I may disagree with the bill, it was introduced. The bill was reviewed by the standing Committee of Public Safety and National Security.  Many groups spoke against Bill C-391. This included the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Canadian Police Association, the Canadian Association of Police Boards, the mayor of Toronto, and the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians. But the House of Commons and the Senate discussed this piece of legislation because they have every right to discuss this. They have every right to discuss almost everything. That is unless the Speaker declares it “un-parliamentary” in nature.

In the Toronto Star article in March 2011, NHL could lose Air Canada sponsorship over headshots, Minister of State for Sport Gary Lunn called a hockey hit “unacceptable”. In 1991, the Senate of Canada defeated Bill C-43. It was a bill that would have allowed abortion to be added to the Criminal Code of Canada.

Even Section 44 of Constitution Act (1982) says that “Parliament may exclusively make laws amending the Constitution of Canada in relation to executive government of Canada or the Senate and House of Commons.” Parliamentarians need to have the freedom to discuss everything including the very nature of the country. While, I disagree with sovereigntists, the ability for them to discuss their issues in legislatures across the country means that we have not had to have a violent conversation about the future of the country. Discussion has allowed us to become a great country. This is the basis for Parliamentary Supremacy.

However, such a system possesses an obvious problem: if Parliament’s acts are neutral, how does one ensure that one Parliament can bind another? By making any important rule a ‘law of the land’.  The Great Leap of that the English Constitution made was that simple fact. Even, the Sovereign (King or Queen) had to obey the Law. The Head of State and eventually, the Head of Government, were bound by the Magna Carta and other great bills of the English Constitution. This was done by making every person responsible for their actions.

So while a Member of Parliament, Member of the Cabinet/Executive Council or Crown, may have the right to say anything in Parliament, he or she does not have the right to do anything. This concept is one of the privileges of being a Member of Parliament. This is why Stephen Harper apologized to a number of cultural groups including Aboriginal Canadians on the floor of the House of Commons. For, Members of Parliament are excluded from liable in civil court. Yet, Parliamentarians can be charged for criminal act such as bribery.

Consequently, there are limits to Parliamentary or Executive Privileges. Ministers, even if they are MPs, have to follow the law. For, neither privilege protects them from Criminal Charges. Doing something against an act of Parliament would be a subversion of Parliament. That is why I disagree with Peter Russell: Parliament did its job, a Minister failed to do his.

Within our system, a Minister – who is an MP – has multiple responsibilities. They have a responsibility to the Crown. They have another to the legislature. As an MP, they have a responsibility to their constituents. However, most importantly, they have a personal responsibility to implement and follow the law.

Just as the Crown is required to follow acts in which they are mentioned, so is a Minister. In this particular case, Canada’s 36th Parliament made a commitment to grain growers. That Parliament said that “it would not consider changing the rules for marketing their crops without their consent” and Parliament made the Minister responsible to uphold the law. This is why Judge Campbell stated very clearly that one of the reasons for his decision was to hold the Minister “accountable for his disregard for the rule of law”. The minister failed to get that consent. Consent that he choose not to seek.

Ministers have a variety of tools to ensure that their jobs can be fulfilled. Firstly, if a Bill passes both the House of Commons and the Senate, it still requires Royal Assent to become law. A Postmedia article, entitled “Liberals ask Gov. Gen. to withhold royal assent on wheat board bill”, quoted two constitutional experts – U of T’s Peter Russell and Queen’s University constitutional law expert Ned Franks – as saying that it was nearly impossible for the Governor General to interfere. For since the King-Bing Affair in the 1920’s, Canadian Governor-Generals have been on a tight leash. The Crown, in Canada, almost always takes the government advice. Or put differently, the Government could have withheld Royal Assent. But the Minister and the Harper Government most likely gave that Governor-General the go ahead to sign the legislation.

The Minister could have withdrawn the legislation, but he did not. Gerry Ritz, The Minister in question, could have advised the Senate to slow down. But he didn’t. Just look at his words after a press conference. On December 7th, in an article entitled “Tories to reform wheat board despite court ruling”, CBC quoted his as saying: “”Let me be clear, we will never reconsider western wheat and barley farmers’ fundamental rights to market their own wheat and barley.” Or one can look at a piece written for the Winnipeg Free Press, republished by Canada.com, called “Federal Court ruling on wheat board bill won’t alter decision: Ritz” (December 7, 2011).

Ritz said the federal government is “disappointed with the decision” and the government plans to appeal. But the minister dismissed the significance of the judge’s ruling, saying “this declaration will have no effect on continuing to move forward for freedom for western Canadian farmers.”

These are actions which are more than just illegal. These actions bring the Crown and “the administration of justice into disrepute” because they do not reflect a government that is interested in providing peace, order and good government; as prescribed by Canadian law, as would be expected or demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

The issue in many ways is not the role of Parliament but the role of Minister. This is why Professor Russell is wrong. The Minister or Ministers involved in this decision should be held accountable for their breaking of Canadian democratic and constitutional norms. As I have said in the past, this breach is likely criminal in nature. The only question is will the Liberal Party of Canada stand up for the Constitution and Parliament or will it be left to citizens to do that job?

Patents and the Crown

“Businesses in Canada planned to spend $15.6 billion on industrial research and development in 2011. That is five per cent higher than the $14.9 billion they had planned to spend in 2010, but still below the $16.8 billion they spent in 2007”

• Canadian firms planned to spend more on R&D in 2011:  Spending relative to GDP declining, lags other OECD countries ; By CBC News – Posted: Dec 9, 2011 11:24 AM ET, Last Updated: Dec 9, 2011 12:33 PM ET

 

Canada still has not recovered from Nortel. Nortel was a world leader in telecommunications and it put Canada on the map. So much so that Alcatel-Lucent, Cisco, Microsoft, RIM and Nokia are among the few companies that have bid for patents held by the former telecom giant. Around Nortel, other companies grew. Terry Matthews, became a billionaire by forming telecommunications companies Mitel and Newbridge Networks. He was quote, in cantechletter.com in their November 2011, as saying:

“‘The Nortel ecosystem is still there. There is still lots of research and development capability in Ottawa. But the ecosystem has a shelf life of seven years at most. This is a really good time to start a new company before the talent disappears.’

‘The company that once generated 20 per cent of Canadian research and development is gone’ said Matthews ‘Get over it.’”

The first time I realized the size of Nortel was when I was in Jamaica as a young lad. I turned over the phone my Grandmother had because it was similar to the one I had at home. It was a Northern Telecom phone.

This should not have been surprising because Nortel was big. Rivka Gewirtz Little – Senior News Writer for searchitchannel.techtarget.com in 2008 – wrote that “Nortel has a lot to live for: namely an installed base of 200 million equipped lines, great intellectual property and a loyal partner community.” Nortel serviced 150 countries. In February of that year, Nortel sill employed over 32,000 people worldwide. This included 6,800 people in Canada and 11,900 in the US. They still provided network infrastructure and communication services to customers across Asia including Mainland China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korean, Japan, Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, India, Pakistan, Australia, New Zealand and Turkey. Nortel was clearly a national technology champion and they spent more on Research and Development than any other firm in the country.  Yet, even when they were around, Canada did not spend as much per capita on Research and Development as most G8 countries.

A part of that comes from the fact that we do not spend a lot of money on defence spending. The US developed the Space Shuttle Programme and the Internet, in part, because they were looking for military solutions. Nuclear and Solar Energy Development can be traced back to military projects; so can most rocket, missile and other projectile projects.

Canada used to spend a lot of money on technological development. During the 1950’s, and 1960’s, governmental action was responsible for a lot of technological development. For example, the Shuttle Programme used Canadian Expertise. So did the F-14, F-15, F-16 and F-18 fighter jets. They are in fact related to one jet the AVRO Arrow. The Arrow actually was the basis for many Western jets. The Concorde – A British and French Co-Operative Venture – also used Canadian expertise. Cancelled by the Diefenbaker Government, the AVRO Arrow pushed aerospace knowledge, just as Nortel developed our telecommunication expertise.

Today, Canadian companies and governments are not doing the Research and Development required to maintain our society and level of wealth. The evidence of this assertion is clear. Canadian Economic Efficiency and Productivity is at historic lows. Since the mid 90′s, the Federal Government indicated that it would lower corporate taxes to increase Economic Efficiency. Yet, after cuts in the GST, individual and corporate taxes, we have not seen much of a movement in the numbers. In fact, on Jan.19, 2011, CTV News reported, in an article entitled “Strong loonie, low productivity restraining recovery “, that the Bank of Canada Governor Carney said, “We have not made the productivity gains that we would need in order to retain market share, let alone gain market share.”

While the Bank of Canada noted in a statement that “‘the cumulative effects of the persistent strength in the Canadian dollar and Canada’s poor relative productivity performance are restraining this recovery in net exports and contributing to a widening of Canada’s current account deficit to a 20-year high’; the reality – as noted earlier – has been that Canada has had trouble with our productivity numbers for quite some time now.  With all of that being said, what are the policy consequences? What can a Liberal Government do with this knowledge? I would argue that we can turn knowledge into wisdom. Simply put, Canada has not been developing patents and useful Intellectual Property. So let us change this. Since, the market has failed in this respect, let us develop a solution. My suggestion is that the Crown develops Intellectual Property.

Like the Royal Canadian Mint (RCM), the Crown could create a corporation that creates valuable Intellectual Property. So, instead of coins, Intellectual Property would be created. Like the RCM, this crown entity could contract itself to Canadian Governments, Foreign Governments and Private Market Entities. For the purposes of this paper, this new entity will be called the Royal Canadian Intellectual Property Development Organization (RCIPDO). The RCIPDO would have two principles: to develop Canadian Economic Activity through research and to do so without any cost to the taxpayer.

While, any development costs would be fronted by the Federal Government, those same costs would be recovered through the provision of services: Through the creation of Intellectual Property. For example, RIM has several thousand patents. Those patents have a life time of between 5 to 50 years. These patents provide income because they can be “lent out” or “rented out” through licensing agreements. As we have seen through a variety of lawsuits, patents are precious and valuable.

For without patents, companies cannot make products. Samsung found that its products were removed, for a time, from Australia and Germany. This occurred when Apple sued them for copying their product line. Something, similar has happened to RIM, Microsoft and IBM. This is why a number of technology companies formed a consortium to buy Nortel’s last major asset: approximately 6,000 patents and patent applications encompassing technologies such as wireless, wireless 4G, data networking, optical, voice, Internet, and semiconductors. The patents were sold for $4.5 billion to a consortium including Apple,

EMC, Ericsson, Microsoft, Research In Motion, and Sony. So why not develop patents so that companies based in Canada, foreign or domestic, can have a leg up. If this is the case, our domestic economy will have a leg up.

So how would it work? As long as all companies have a chance to gain, most of our trade deals allow the Crown to create property. Companies with “substantial operations” in Canada – foreign or domestic –could be allowed to buy a license for cost or a minor profit. While, foreign companies that were not willing to set up shop here would be expected to pay the “full market cost” for licensing arrangements. As one can see, companies would make a decision based on a “cost benefit analysis”. In some cases, a company like Ericsson, Apple, Cisco or Airbus might set up operations in Canada to gain access to relevant Intellectual Property. While in other cases, firms based in Europe, Brazil, China, Russia and India might just pay to use Canadian Intellectual Property. They would pay for our scientists to do research. They would pay for our citizens to work in a great country.

This is important because, as a country, we need more economic infrastructure. This is the way that Canada can develop it. This is a way of improving our present economic system: a system that does not commit enough money to pure and applied research and technology. Universities are not designed to market, develop and build products or companies, while companies as noted earlier are not putting the necessary dollars into Research and Development. Canada – relative to the US – has fewer angel investors, venture capitalists and start fund dollars. So, it is not a surprise that our country has a lower economic efficiency rating; when compared to our G8 partners. Nor, is it a surprise that China is going to graduate more per capita engineers than any other country in the G8. As a country we need to do more.

Furthermore, this idea of a Crown Corporation, or a non-share legal entity, which develops intellectual property has other advantages. Firstly, unlike tax breaks or grants, the use of intellectual property is not short term in nature. Patents in the medical field, for example, have a minimum of a twenty year life span. Like a plant, those patents provide a chance for spinoff opportunities. If you want an example of this truth, just look at Magna Inc.’s development. Magna is a major player in Canada’s auto part manufacturing sector. It developed because successive governments – Progressive Conservative and Liberal Governments, federally and provincially – supported automobile companies in Southern Ontario and Southern Quebec. GM, Toyota, Ford and Chrysler are just some of the companies who have stayed and developed Canada. Or put differently, Magna’s development was enhanced by having three huge car manufacturers in its backyard. Long term incentives can develop industries.

If one wants to look at a short term solution, just look at the sale of Stelco to American Steel. In 2007, U.S. Steel paid $1.1 billion for some of the Stelco Corporation facilities. At the time, Stelco was going through the Bankruptcy process, so its assets were likely worth more than the selling price. Besides the value of the facilities, the deal was attractive because of the tax breaks and grants that were available. When the economic downturn happened in 2008, the economics of the deal changed. So, the deal became unprofitable. American Steel started laying off its employees: an act which ran contrary to the deal struck. In fact, the Federal Government had to go to Court to secure the return of the grants and tax breaks made available to American Steel. At the end of the day, the two parties settle out of court. US Steel promised to make a $50 million capital investment into two of its facilities and donate $3 million to local community and educational programs.

The difference between short and long term thinking is further emphasized by comparing the sale of American Steel to the purchase of Nortel’s patent portfolio. In American Steels’ case, after spending $1.1 billion dollars; a foreign company gained Canadian assets. Of a workforce of 3,105, they laid off 2,400 workers. This plant would likely be working at less than capacity in the short term and the hope is that this plant will be more profitable in the future.

While, Apple, EMC, Ericsson, Microsoft, Research in Motion and Sony were willing to spend $4.5 billion USD just to ensure access to patents of a long dead technology firm. They will have to hire people to build new devices. Would it not be better to have them hired in Canada? If the crown bidded for those rights, it might have encouraged the creation of Canadian jobs.

However, access also has another benefit. This Apple-RIM-Microsoft led consortium will be paid by other technology firms who want to use those existing patents. That is right; RIM will receive money for sitting on a strong patent portfolio.  Would it have been nice if the Nortel patents could have profited the Canadian economy? Therefore, investing in Patents can have a long term benefit because the Crown will be creating taxpayer owned assets that provide a return through licensing fees.

Therefore, offering cheap intellectual properly can offer a better return than tax breaks. The US has shown this with their military spending. For over fifty years, The US government has underwritten huge projects that have led to the development of software firms, aerospace firms and Silicon Valley. Why can we not learn from the lessons that they provided.

Additionally, the Crown Agency can be a cost effective tool. Canadians can make the development of Intellectual Property cheaper by having a single research institution to manage the cost of R&D. Just look at battery technology for Automobiles. Movement on the topic has been very slow even though there have been Experimental designs on the books since the 1970′s. Experimental companies have come and gone.

As a result, Research has been lost, sold or sat upon. Furthermore, stable companies have changed their opinion, several times, on experimental technologies. For example, GM introduced the EV-One in California in the 1990′s. It was the first mass marketed electric car in the world. Yet years later, the technology was scraped. If it was not for a bail out from the US and Canadian Governments, GM would not likely have ever pursued the technology again. With all of that beings aid, their new electric car – the Volt – was redeveloped without using the older technology GM started from scratch.

Imagine if the technology was public domain. Any car company could have gone to the Crown and asked for licensing rights. The new company would have paid back the Crown and might have established a new plant in Canada. Our scientists have work, our government will get paid and our economy flourishes. Our workers might have another job to go to and our economy can be turned into a knowledge based one. It is a virtuous circle. It is the way we should go.

Our major cities would attract world class companies and world class employees. All provinces would see more companies developing offices and institutions. Most studies have shown that from the 1990′s to now, Economic Efficiency has been marginal. This is even though taxes have been cut significantly. The Development, though, of an Intellectual Properly Base can have a direct effect on our economy by providing new ways of operating and new technologies. Why would the federal government not act in this manner? This is what I think a Liberal Government should do.