Casting into a Dieing Sea; The Unfortunate Reality of World Fisheries

Over the past century, the world has turned what used to be one of the planet’s most bountiful resources into an overexploited possession. Fish populations worldwide are becoming threatened by the growing demand for fish products. This occurrence is largely due to the world’s growing population and increased standards of living. It is estimated that one out of every five people depend on seafood as a main source of protein in their diet (Richard). Furthermore, countless regions and even entire countries rely on fishing operations to sustain their communities. The countess other world issues however, that are tied in with fisheries depletion are not the root causes for concern. The cause for concern lies within commercial and factory fishing, and the lack of global concern for a sustainable future. The effects of mass fishing have already devastated fish populations such as the Atlantic Cod, and has displayed devastating effects on marine biomes. Growing tastes for specific species of fish has also contributed to the repulsive amounts of bycatch caught, killed and released into the sea. The root causes of this global threat lie within man’s greed, not man’s need. Due to the tremendous negative impacts faced by global fish populations, fisheries sustainability is one of the most significant issues of the twenty-first century. The core threats originate in the growing and highly competitive commercial markets, the unsustainable methods of fishing, and the lack of political will to tackle illegal and irresponsible operations. The global consequences of fisheries depletion are endless, and the ripple effect is truly devastating. The western world is at most times detached from the hardships in foreign nations, but when it comes to fisheries, it is directly affected and part of the problem. Oceans house amazing and vast amounts of resources, and it is every nation’s right to take their fair share. But with rights come responsibilities, and in an environment as fragile as our world oceans, it takes all but one source of abuse to take down entire ecosystems and wipe out species. The crisis that has been occurring in our oceans over the past century is an issue often ignored in the media. It is an issue that takes a back seat to concerns humans have with things they can directly see or witness. Due to this disturbing ignorance, the problems have grown and are now able to be seen on a shocking scale, spreading their effects on both the natural and economic world.

A Brief History of World Fisheries

There was in fact a time when the world’s fisheries were perfectly sustainable. It was a time when populations thrived and lived within their natural environments in harmony. As shocking as this may be, this time was just a few centuries ago, and in the past century situations gotten even worse. In a mere one hundred years, man has turned what has thrived for millions of years into a threatened resource (Skerry, 34). In 1497, John Cabot sailed from Europe across the Atlantic Ocean. He arrived in North America, to what he called “New Founde Land” and discovered the bounty of the native seas (Canada, 3). At this time, great explorers and sailors would report on the amazing amounts of fish in the oceans; oceans which had never been fished before (see Appendix 1.1). As John Cabot reported, fish could be caught by simply dropping a net into the water, and hoisting up your catch (Ibid). Skill was not needed for catching this rich resource off the coasts of North America, and due to this find, by 1550, 400 ships per season would make the trip to fish the enormous supply of fish such as cod and Halibut (Ibid). These however, were the days without the massive amounts of technology invested into huge fishing industries, but come the 1900’s fisheries were in trouble.
As with the industrial and technological revolutions in society, the fishing industry saw its own time of dramatic change and expansion. Operations became more productive, and growing technology ensured a growing catch size. Between 1950 and 1989, the fishing industries saw such great advancement that the world catch went from 67 million tons per year, to 89 million tons. The rapidly increasing global catch sizes meant one thing to industries, and that was more profit. Newly acquired tastes for certain species led to over-harvesting in many fisheries, and population groups were fished relentlessly until the vessels had to move due to declining catch. In Brief, the world’s fisheries were becoming unsustainable, and the rate at which they were being caught was, and still is, much higher than that at which they can reproduce.

The Boom and Bust: The Reasons Behind Depletion

People often don’t view the world oceans as a delicate system. It is commonly viewed as a dangerous expanse of our world, and one with endless resources. Unfortunately, just like on land, our world oceans have been polluted and abused so badly that populations are on a sharp decline, and the ocean environment is being destroyed. It is estimated that many large fish species such as the shark and Blue Fin Tuna, have seen up to 90% depletion in their populations since 1900 (Sharkwater). However, it is not only the large species that face depletion and deserve attention. The world needs to focus on the foundations of the aquatic food chain, and how every link plays an important role in world oceans.
When the base of a food chain is disturbed, everything else above it is affected.
Plankton and ocean plant life is at the base of this food chain, and it is starting to disappear. This can be tied in with many other world issues as well, such as global warming, waste disposal and animal rights. Due to the damaged ozone layer, ultraviolet radiation is harming the microscopic organisms in world oceans. This radiation is also affecting juvenile fish species (Canada). According to the Scripps Institute
of Oceanography in California, “The population of Zooplankton in the waters off the coast of Southern California has declined by 70% in the last 42 years” (Ibid). This is most unfortunate news for both the fisheries, as well as the fishing industry. It is generally seen that where there is more plankton, there are more fish, and the most populated waters are mainly along coastlines where plankton is abundant (see Appendix 2.1). One major problem with waste disposal is that it affects fisheries in their most vulnerable environments. Disposal is usually along coastlines or in rivers leading out to sea. These just happen to be the locations where fish populations are most abundant, and offspring are commonly born. Due to human development, waters along these regions are getting cloudier. Erosion, construction, pollution and fishing techniques cause the water to become gloomy with kicked up mud and other debris (Ibid). This blocks the sunlight that countless ocean plants use for photosynthesis providing our world with oxygen. In fact, ocean plants provide 70% of the oxygen in our atmosphere (Sharkwater).
Further destructions comes with how fishing industries conduct their operations. A negative trend has emerged know as the boom and bust, and regardless of how many times this has happened, fishing industries persist in using the same destructive methods. It has occurred so often, that analysts divide it up into four stages. First we see the discovery, when fisherman discover a new abundant population of fish species in an area not previously explored. As the word spreads, intense exploration of the area begins and commercial fisheries are given large catch sizes due to high population, resulting in high profit (Berrill, 4). Due to the good times and extra profit, the second stage begins to unfold known as the expansion. It is like any other business; the industries improve their operations and technology, and begin fishing with a much higher intensity thanks to their abundant income (Ibid). Following the massive expansion phase comes depletion of the fish populations in that area, or even as an entire species. As the fishing industries try to expand to maintain their large catch sizes, they overextend the use of the fisheries, and as a result, lose money. Their costly operations rely on high catch sizes, but when the fisheries enter population depletion and catch sizes are lower, they can no longer afford such costly operations (Ibid). The final stage of this series, and the most unfortunate, is the collapse of the fishery. This is also followed by a probable debt or bankruptcy to the fishing industry. In many cases, the fishery has been so badly damaged, it has to be shut down, and many fishermen go unemployed (Ibid).




The Victims of the Boom and Bust

There are countless cases to demonstrate the boom and bust cycle. We in Canada often hear most about the Atlantic cod fishery. The first immigrants to the East Coast, coming from England and Ireland, were completely dependant on Cod. Each summer, the fish would swim to the coastal areas and the fisherman would catch them with line and hooks. It was then salted, dried, and stored to support the growing human population (Canada, 8). Come the mid-1800’s, the cod fisheries began a massive expansion. Many nations began to realize the opportunity this bountiful source of protein provided, and it was not long until large numbers of fishing vessels sailed off the shores of the East Coast (Ibid). In March of 1954, a technological advancement came out of Scotland that would forever change world fishing industries. Scotland introduced the Fairtry, the first factory freezer trawler with nets that could be hauled over its stern (better for all weather conditions). It was equipped with automatic filleting machines and cold storage devices (Ibid). Electronic Equipment and location devices came about, allowing fishermen to literally see the cod, and drop their nets right on top of them This brought the catch from 300,000 tones per year, to 775,000 by the 1980’s (Ibid). Despite the warning of populations declining, most fishing industries ignored this information and were even encouraged by the government with subsidies (Ibid, 10). As more nations got involved and technology increased, the cod population decreased exponentially. From 1990-1994, the Atlantic cod stock off the east coast of Canada fell 95% (See Appendix 3.1).
Another fine example can be seen with the California sardine. This fishery use to be rich and abundant just as any other, but fame led to its downfall. Sardines live in large schools, making them a fishermen’s dream. These schools were as large as a few hundred million fish spanning a diameter of eight kilometers (Berrill, 6). Upon their decline, the sardines still maintained their large schools, just less of them, making the ease of capture relatively the same (Ibid). Their demand grew in global markets, and the fishery expanded far beyond its sustainable limit. The fishery ultimately saw its peak and then sharp collapse in 1935 (See Appendix 3.2). Whenever one fishery collapses, the fishing industry doesn’t just shut down and die, they move on to the next available resource and start the cycle all over again. After the collapse of the California sardine the Peruvian anchoveta was next on the list. This is no doubt one of the most devastating examples of the boom and bust. The anchoveta was a species untouched until the 1950’s (Berrill, 8). It entered the boom phase as the global demand for fish meal products was on the rise, and the profit of fishing operations was increasing dramatically (Ibid). Peru ended up buying the California canneries and fishing vessels once used for sardines and dominated the world market (Ibid). The anchoveta fishery off the coasts of Peru grew so drastically, that it accounted for 25% of the world catch by the mid 1960’s (Ibid, 9). A short while later, in 1970, the fishery hit its peak, and the unsustainable practice collapsed closing down the fishery (Ibid). (See Appendix 3.2)

Bycatch and the Destructive Methods of Fishing

The root causes of the damage done to marine ecosystems and countless fisheries is due to the abusive and unsustainable methods of fishing. The main three categories of fishing techniques are impounding, entangling, or hook and line (Commercial Fishing, 107). The method of impounding involves surrounding schools of fish with long nets. One example of this method is the purse seine. The second method, the method of entangling can be seen by the use of gill nets. These are long nets that remain suspended in the water where schools of fish are known to swim by. As the fish pass through, they get tangled in the net’s fibers and holes. These nets are so massive, that just one gill net can hold multiple thousand pounds of catch. To put this into perspective is the following quote from Michael Berrill’s book “The Plundered Seas”;

“Imagine a ship of 300 to 400 tonnes, with a crew of fifteen to twenty, able to stay at sea for one to two months, setting its nets one a day. The nets, called driftnets, come in five to ten sections, each 5 to 10 kilometers long. When set, the entire net is 25 to 55 kilometers long, hanging like an invisible curtain 10 to 15 meters below the sea surface.”

These nets obviously do not have a specific catch, and countless different unwanted species get tangled and die each year in their grasp. Hook and line methods, also known as long lining, is one of the other methods used that can be just as damaging. It consists of a long fishing line, often miles line with hundreds or thousands of hooks. The hooks often remain suspended in the water, as many long lines are attached to floats on the surface (Ibid). Arguably the most destructive method of fishing is bottom trawling. It involves towing large nets behind a fishing vessel, which drag across the ocean floor to collect catch. These nets are held opened by giant steel structured tied to each end that dig into the sea bed keeping the net flush with the ocean floor (Skerry, 39). It would be like randomly driving a giant bull-dozer through the city. Bottom trawling causes massive habitat destruction, including coral shattering, and seaweed removal (Ibid). (To see visual examples of these methods of fishing, see Appendix 4.1)
Large fishing operations are not as advanced and specific as some people would think. Although their technology is impressive, and their catch sizes are high, many people don’t stop to think what is actually being used, or discarded. Bycatch is a major threat to the world’s marine ecosystems, affecting both marine animals as well as plant species and crucial habitat. This issue is partly the cause of populations decline in literally all large ocean predators, which have seen 90% depletion in the past fifty years (Halweil, 70). Countless vessels out for a specific species, will often catch large amounts of fish that either do not meet the proper specifications or market value, or are not even the intended species (Berrill, 62-72). This is a major problem in almost all commercial fishing methods, but a particular problem with long lining and trawling which may account for up to 50% of all bycatch (Skerry, 39). European and Asian markets have been some of the worst for this problem, and situations around the world have yet to see any substantial recovery. The World wildlife Federation noted in 2006 that up to 80% of catches in the North Sea fisheries are thrown overboard dead, or to die. They also stated that for every swordfish illegally caught off the coasts of Morocco, two sharks are killed in the process ("Commercial Fishing Devastates Europe's Oceans - WWF"). Bycatch has never been by any means a small issue. It is estimated that 30% of the fish caught around the world are thrown back, which accounts for billions of fish per year (Ibid). In many cases, fishermen will haul in large nets full of fish, none of which they will keep. Some fisheries however, are worse than others, and growing competition in world markets are further intensifying the situation, leading to more bycatch (Skerry,53). In the more recent years, West Africa’s fisheries are heading in the same direction as Europe’s, and the large amounts of bycatch which could be used as much needed food for Africa is thrown back, as it is of little value to larger world markets (Ibid). (See Appendix 4.2 for examples and visuals of bycatch)
Long lining operations around the world are notorious for catching sharks and other large fish species. In many cases, the sharks are only used for their fins and then thrown overboard, dead or alive (Sharkwater). This has become a massive problem due to the growing markets in Asia, particularly China, where the fins can be sold for four hundred dollars per kilogram (Ibid). Worldwide, it is estimated that 40 million sharks per year are killed just for their fins (Skerry, 33). Bycatch its not only a problem with fish species, but tons of other coastal and ocean wildlife, and in some cases, it is not alive at all. As displayed in appendix 4.2, everything from ocean birds, to turtles, to corals can get caught in the process. While long lining, baited hooks also catch the eye of sea turtle and birds looking for a meal. In many cases, these animals will die as they can not free themselves from the trap (Sharkwater). Bottom trawling presents an all new breed of bycatch, and that is large amounts of structure picked up from the ocean floor. The large steel weights that hold down their nets shatter corals, rip up plant life and kick up mud clouds so massive, they can be seen by satellite (Refer back to appendix 4.2 – bottom trawling). These trawling operations are common when fishing for shrimp and prawns, which are one of the worst fisheries in terms of bycatch (Berrill, 63). For every one million tones of shrimp caught, there is five million tons of bycatch (Ibid). Crab fisheries are also among the worst, with over half of the catch being thrown back (Ibid). (see chart in appendix 4.3)
Global Markets and the effects of the First World Appetite

In Canada, the fishing and oceans industry has an output value of about $22.7 billion dollars. The industry employs 152,000 Canadians with a total commercial catch of over 1 million tons (DFO). The amount of fishing vessels registered in Canada alone totaled 23,244 in 2004. As with countless other nations, many people residing in coastal areas, and large sectors of the economy depend on ocean resources (Ibid). Many nations however, with some of the highest catch sizes (and in some cases over double the Canadian catch – see appendix 5.1) are newly industrialized and developing nations (Berrill, 26). The newly industrialized nations mostly depend on smaller scale fishing operations, and remain relatively close to their coastline compared to the wealthier operations from the developed world. Recently however, due to growing economies and more productive fishing operations, countries like South Korea, and more recently yet, China, have started to fish more distant waters (Ibid). Many of the fisheries along the north and south west Pacific are some of the most abundant in the world (Refer back to appendix 2.1), and only recently have many developing and newly industrialized nation been able to fish them (Bocknek, 12). Between the industrialized world and a growing industry in the developing worlds, the annual global production of fish reached 156.3 million tons by the year 2000 (see appendix 5.3).
The western world’s tastes in present day fisheries have dominated the global markets, causing massive destruction. However, more recently it has been the Asian markets with their growing demand that has driven populations to their demise. Between the developed world’s ‘sophisticated’ tastes and the Asian markets demand for shark fin and other wasteful products, many fisheries are being terribly exploited. Boris Worm, the lead researcher at Dalhousie University in Halifax states that one third of seafood species in our oceans have collapsed to this day. He also warms that “If this trend continues, if we don’t change the way we are managing ocean ecosystems, this trend projects that 100% of species will collapse by the year 2048 or around that” (Ommer). The problem with increased demand and higher price tags on fish products does not only harm fish populations, but also the people of developing countries. For example, fisheries off the coasts of Africa are exploited by world markets, leaving local fishermen with declining catch sizes, and depriving locals of the much needed source of protein (Skerry, 41). In many cases, only the carcasses of fish are left to sell in local African markets, as the fillets are sold to higher bidders elsewhere in the world (see appendix 5.4). In order to make a living, many African fishermen can not afford to keep fish that is of no value to global markets, even if it could mean feeding thousands of starving locals. As seen in appendix 4.1, Senegalese fishermen, hoping to catch the sought after shrimp and sole, haul in an ‘empty’ yet full net, wasting valuable protein for Africa. Many third world nations are left with only what they can afford to keep, contributing to hunger and violence. With highly prized delicacies like shark fin selling for top dollar in Asian markets, violence and human exploitation is inevitable. Massive black markets have opened up for such products, and corrupt governments work along with illegal fishing operations to make money (Sharkwater). Countless ships constantly fish illegally for shark and other prized possessions like sturgeon for caviar and don’t get caught. Even when they do get caught however, it is often hard to stop them because of ties with either corrupt government or with gunboats. Many fisheries are so valuable and attractive to poor nations, that militias will even get involved in the process (Ibid).

The Rough Waters Ahead: What Must be Done to Protect World Fisheries

With 0.01% of the oceans closed to fishing, and total collapse of all fisheries in the foreseeable future, protection of world oceans is one of the most contemporary and concerning global concerns (Skerry, 78). After the technological revolution took its toll on global fisheries, researchers began to see the astronomical damage that industries were inflicting on the world oceans. Unfortunately, by the time many boom and bust cycles are caught in the act, they are already in the stage of depletion and exploitation, with no real governing body to put a soon enough stop on the operations. Many markets are uncontrollable as they operate on a global scale with national boundaries prohibiting intervention by protection agencies found in much of the developed world. Managing our world oceans is not as simple as monitoring one or two species in a few particular areas. Countless ocean environments are interconnected forming a massive ecosystem, every part affecting one another in astonishing ways. When one link of this global chain is removed or weakened, it affects the sustainability of the entire system. This is why it is up to every nation to do its part to help restore the world’s fisheries. David Suzuki, one of the world’s most renowned environmentalists, has laid out ten principles to managing our fisheries in the future (Suzuki). First off, as stated above, one must look at and manage the entire ecosystem, not individual stocks. Secondly, the world needs to adopt a more precautionary approach to the management of our fisheries. It is better to err on the side of caution than to risk irreversible damage as seen in the past. Another major shift that the world must see is giving the say to people who are for the best interests of the fisheries, not profit. If the world continues to let the industry and global market demand decide, the unfortunate forecasts of future fisheries are likely to come true. The world must also decrease its wasteful capacity, and plan sustainable fishing methods that work around natural fluctuation in fishery populations. If there is a lack of understanding or regulation regarding natural cycles, industry will continue to fish when species are in vulnerable positions. Biodiversity is another concern that must be dealt with to ensure a healthy and balanced future in world oceans. Every species plays an important role in the balance of ocean ecosystems. Every species is an important link to this global chain, and crucial to the survival of many other species. The habitat of these species also need top priority if overall health of the environment is to exist. Trawling operations threaten this very element, and until operations respect the fish habitat, they will not be able to respect the fish species. In regards to bycatch, and the needs to reduce it, the reasons are self explanatory. The oceans can not afford the millions of tons of discarded species, and furthermore, the world should not stand for these immoral practices. The countless fish caught as bycatch all play a significant role in the ocean ecosystem. When species like shark, and even fish lower on the food chain are caught by the millions, it disrupts global balance and throws off the entire food web. Finally, the world markets and consumers must be educated. The issues regarding fisheries sustainability must come out of the dark, and be shared with the world to help consumers make contentious decisions. Until people realize how the food they eat got on their plate, and the impact that it had on the world, demand will allow the destructive methods to continue (Ibid). (For a list of sustainable seafood products, see appendix 6.1 regarding low to high risk species.)
The irresponsible practices in today’s fishing scene not only exploit countless species of marine wildlife, but also millions of people in the developing world. It is my belief this problem will one day be solved, but it will take a global effort. If we see this issue as merely a low priority concern, and never give it the global recognition it needs to be solved, we will not make any headway. The world’s view towards many ocean species also disadvantages them in terms of protection, because species like the shark are not as cute and cuddly as pandas or monkeys. Why does everybody sit still while millions of sharks are slaughtered for their fins, and thrown back to die an agonizing death? The world must understand all creatures deserve equal respect, and it can not be justified to let our oceans die right before our very eyes. I know what harm we are causing today, and I know that future generations will look back at the irreversible harm we have caused and wonder why we chose to ignore the problems. Yet we should never forget that the gloomy forecasts put out by experts are only true if we continue our current patterns; only true, if we let them happen. Perhaps the most significant legislative changes will have to come from environmental protection agencies and the fishing industry itself, but there is one thing that trumps these two elements combined; the consumer. In the end, it is the consumer that decides what the industries fish for; it is the consumer, that decides what populations are being threatened or saved, and it is the consumer, who can save our world’s most vast and incredible resource, our world fisheries.

Works Cited
Berrill, Michael and David Suzuki. The Plundered Seas: can the world's fisheries be saved?_. Nancy Flight. 1615 Venables Street, Vancouver, British Columbia: Greystone Books, Douglas & Mcintyre, 2001.

Bocknek, Jonathan. _World Fisheries: Understanding Global Issues_. Tina Schwarzenbeger. North Mankato, Minnesota, USA: Smart Apple Media, 2002.

Canada and the World. _Net Loss: the crisis in world fisheries_. Waterloo, Ontario: Taylor Publishing Consultants Ltd., 2001.

"Commercial Fishing Devastates Europe's Oceans - WWF." Switzerland: September 28, 2006. Reuters News Service. April12, 2008.

.
Commercial Fishing. _Macmillan Encyclopedia of the environment_. Stephen R. Kellert, Matthew Black et. al. 2. New York: Macmillan Library Reference USA, Simon and Schuster, 1997. 107-109.

"DFO Core Activities." Communications Branch, Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Economic Impact. 2007. Fisheries and Oceans Canada. April 2, 2008. http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/index-eng.htm.

Halweil, Brian and Lisa Mastny. State of the World, 2004. A Worldwatch Institute Report on Progress Towards a Sustainable society. _The Consumer Society_. Linda Starke. 2004. New York, NY: W.W Norton & Company, Inc, Castle House, 2004. 13-17, 70-71, 92-93.

Molyneaux, Paul. _Swimming in Circles; Aquaculture and the end of the World Oceans_. 245 West 17th St., New York, NY: Thunder Mouth Press, 2007.

Ommer, E. Rosemary. "Sustainability of Fish and Fisheries in Canada." Canadian Federation for the Humanities and Social. Eco-research project, MUN. April 22, 2008.

http://www.fedcan.ca/english.fromold/breakfast-ommer0398.cfm.

Richard, Jean Francois. "A Fishy Situation." High Noon: Twenty Global Problems, Twenty Years to. 2002. April 21, 2008. http://www.theglobalist.com/DBWeb/StoryID=2647.

"Scientists Warn of Depletion of Ocean fish in 40 Years." April 2, 2008. http://www/planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/38286/story.htm.

Sharkwater.­ DVD, Rob Stewart and David Hannan. An Alliance Films release, Sharkwater Productions Inc. and Warner Bros. Inc., Canada 2008.

Skerry, Brian. "Still Waters: The Global Fish Crisis." National Geographic Saving the Sea's Bounty (April 2007): 33-99.

Suzuki, David. "Sustainable Fishing." David Suzuki. April 2, 2008. .

A Nation in Peril; The Economic Consequences of Quebec Separation

A Nation in Peril; The Economic Consequences of Quebec Separation

The controversial question of a possible referendum has long been part of the political and social friction between Quebec and the rest of Canada. It is especially contentious because it not only encompasses economic issues, but sovereignty and social issues as well. It can be seen today that the separatist movement is far from over. Separatists in Quebec persist in their claim that the rest of Canada still fails to adequately recognize their unique culture. They believe themselves to be a disadvantaged minority in Canada, and as a result, their political leaders have called referendum after referendum. However, the issues revolving Quebec’s independence are not as simple as a yes or no vote. Throughout the issues history, separatist party leaders have put forth very controversial terms of separation; put in brief, they want full independent recognition while getting countless benefits from the Canadian government and economy. How could this be fair to other provinces? Or perhaps a far larger concern would be what sort of message this puts across to other minority groups in Canada. Referendum after referendum, the vote has turned out with a majority ‘no’, but despite the persistent refusal by the majority of Quebecers to form a separate entity, politicians persist. But putting social issues aside for the moment, there are more disastrous concerns lying in another realm. The separation of Quebec to form its own nation would undoubtedly prove to be an economic and political disaster for both Quebec and Canada. The fact that these issues are tied in with social passions just make the issue even more delicate. As John McCallum puts it, “If passions dominated economic rationality and the breakup were bitter and acrimonious, the consequences would be much worse”. McCallum is Chair and Professor of Economics at McGill University in Montreal. His reasoning coincides with those of many other economists, but like any other economic forecast, it is hard to predict the true possibilities of such a major event.
A Brief History of the Quebec Separatist Movement

The thoughts of separation between the Francophones and the Anglophones can be traced back as far as the 1700’s. However, the most influential and significant movements relevant for this topic and for sovereignty can be seen throughout the 1900’s and in contemporary society. Some would argue that the whole issue of a referendum got started and hit its peak intensity in the 1960’s. During this time, Quebec became the center of a terrorist movement to separate Quebec from the rest of Canada to form a French speaking nation; as Canada at the time recognized only English as its official language. The roots of separatism therefore emerged to be mainly based on culture and race. Separatists also insisted that Canada was holding them back in terms of government policies. The leading terrorist group in the 1960’s and 1970’s, known as the FLQ (Front de Liberation du Quebec), lead a movement against Anglophones and the government (Black October). Known as ‘Black October’ in 1970, it was the peak of terrorist actions against the government, including over 400 bombings, and the kidnapping of political leaders. This period came to be known as Canada’s worst peacetime crisis, and one which initiated a long battle to come (Ibid). The issues of independence is still important today because although Canada recognized both English and French as the official languages of Canada in 1974, many people feel nothing has really been accomplished (The Roots of Quebec Separation). Quebec is still a francophone province, with 80% of its population speaking French, and there is still active separatism within it (Ibid). Although the issue has calmed down since the events of the 1960’s, the root concerns and issues brought forth by the separatist movement are still present. A referendum held in 1980 for Quebec to become an independent nation was wholly turned down, and the same outcome was seen in 1992. However, in 1995, the votes took a shocking and drastic turn about. The referendum results were 50.58% ‘No’, and 49.42% ‘Yes’, the closest call in history (The Roots of Separatism).
The Results of the 1995 Referendum – (Nationalism and French Canada)
No
50.58%
2,362,648
Yes
49.42%
2,308,360
Valid Ballots
98.18%
4,757,509
Rejected Ballots
1.82%
86,501
Participation Rate
93.52%
4,757,509
Registered Voters
---------
5,087,009
“No” Majority
1.16%
54,288

What this shows is that the younger generations seem to be more inclined to separate than those slightly older generations of the recent past. Furthermore there is a clear separation of the people who vote for or against this issue. The natives in northern Quebec almost entirely vote no, as well as those in most urban areas. It tends to be the more ‘old fashioned’ rural areas of Quebec voting the overwhelming ‘yes’. As one FLQ member, Paul Rose, had said, “ I didn’t belong to any political party, I just decided to join and protest as a Quebequoi. Our parents were nationalists, it’s something that all Quebecers grew up with…”(Black October).
Since the close call of 1995, the separatist movement has not really increased in intensity. The following chart shows the support throughout the past (notice the peaks in support) Examples:
-1981, Parti Quebecois (PQ) wins re-election
- 1994, PQ wins majority in Quebec – 1995, referendum
Chart Citation : (Nationalism and French Canada)

The nationalists in Quebec are currently trying to build back the political will to get the ball rolling once again, but it seems now more than ever that there is a lot more awareness of what separation would really entail. The question must also be clear, and the conditions of separation can no longer be as indecisive as they were in the past. The issue is still important today for all of these reasons; the nationalists in Quebec still want what they wanted 50 years ago, and the economic forecasts of a possible separation in today’s society are seemingly getting worse.

If Quebec were to be compared to other nations that have actually gone through this similar process of separation, a disturbing trend emerges. The very fact that there is so much emotion tied in to the issue puts it on a different level. It would be nice to say emotions and grudges wont be a factor, but human nature says that simply cant be the case. If one looks at the Czech-Slovak separation as an example the evidence of social economic damage is evident. Slovakia’s relations with much of the Czech Republic went downhill (If Quebec Goes) Quebec may very well find the same scenario occurring with western Canada. After Slovakia’s separation, they experienced a 9% decrease in production over two years and their unemployment rate went up by 3% (Ibid). The possibility of the same outcome is very likely in Quebec due to reasons discussed in the next section of this paper. One can also compare Quebec separation to that of the American civil war, and separation of the southern States. After separation, the southern states found they could not support themselves. They lacked all of the crucial societal sectors that they once benefited from with the northern states such as manufacturing and industrial sectors (Sectionalism). This can be seen with Quebec as well, as the rest of Canada surely generates wealth for them in Agriculture, production and natural resources. however, the northern states also lost the benefit of many raw materials gained from the south, and so there is seen a loss to both sides (Ibid). Canada needs Quebec to support many sector of the overall economy. Just one example would be their hydro generation.
Many other independence movements are difficult to compare to Quebec. although many European countries have undergone separation, they were not for the same reasons, or acting under the same system of government. Take Croatia and Yugoslavia for example; the main reasons there were political due to the attempts to escape communism (Economic Growth). In this case, the European Union (EU) offered acceptance, and economic aid was offered by countries such as the USA (Ibid). This however is not the case for Quebec, as it is mainly about racial independence, and they will have a much harder time finding sympathy as a country trying to escape communist rule. Furthermore, Quebec could not be accepted into the EU simply because non of its assets lie on European soil. The only possibility for Quebec to join would be if a European nation such as France were to adopt them, but that would be defeating the purpose of separation in the first place.

The Economic and Social Costs of Quebec Separation

The list of economic and social consequences of separation go on and on for both Quebec and Canada. Economically, and perhaps one of the biggest blows to Canada, would be the extreme amount of tax loss. According to Statistics Canada 2006 census, Quebec had a population of 7,546,131; that makes it the second largest province by population, and all that tax money would be lost. Other than this, much of the major economic losses lie in the short term for both Canada and Quebec. Separation would negatively impact business throughout both nations, due to the “lets wait and see” attitude of potential investors. There would also be issues over federal debts, and business ownership. Even considering Canada’s monetary losses through taxes and business, Quebec wishes to have full Canadian support with currency, military, and other major backbone sectors of society which tax dollars pay for. This is no doubt a lose-lose situation for all of Canada and seems like a win-win for Quebec.
This however is not saying Quebec will only benefit, for the economic effects of separation would surely prove to be disastrous for both Canada and Quebec. But as any issue of this magnitude there are pros and cons. The main factors proving overall ruin are that separation would be disastrous in economic, political, and social regards, are as follows. A large part of the Canadian economy is based in businesses and corporations. Investors are constantly innovating and improving their assets in Canada. If a separation were to occur, it would cause massive uncertainty among the investing world in Canadian business, especially those based in Quebec. Many businesses that are based in Quebec could have to face different policies, taxation laws, and countless other changes including damage to the labour force. This would certainly drive some business out of Quebec to avoid the uncertain economic times. It is estimated that up to 15% of the 1.4 million jobs in Montréal could be lost (If Quebec Goes). In the short run, Quebec would suffer as its own nation, as it would have to assume a large portion of the Canadian debt, perhaps even as much as 22%-27%, (Ibid). Quebec would also lose the annual monetary benefits divided up between provinces, which would be a loss of about 3 billion dollars annually (Ibid). These newly acquired deficits would be added to Quebec’s now shaky economy, and put Quebec’s debts at around 11%-13% of their GDP, that of which would also take a hit (The Economics of Quebec Separation). Quebec also has a history of high unemployment rates, and with uncertainty in the economic markets during the transition phase, unemployment could be a cause for concern (If Quebec Goes). If many people decide to move to Canada, or change their business locations and asset values, this could cause the unemployment and the possible 15% job loss. The following chart is taken from statistics Canada, and shows a slowly recovering trend, but Quebec’s history is still high compared to other provinces. (Ontario = 6.3) (Ibid).

All of the scenarios that could lead to job loss and climbing unemployment rates a very possible, and in fact the most likely outcome. Keynesian economics focuses of government intervention throughout times like this, however, in the midst of all of the other major changes this may be tough. There would not be adequate government focus on intervention to stop the climbing unemployment rates (If Quebec Goes).
At a time like this, as Canada and the United States lie in economic slowdown (which some fear to be an incoming recession), separation may very well put these countries in one. The new Quebec would also be in for a severely damaged economy, as many head offices and large firms may choose to leave or downsize their assets in Quebec. Having a free market economy means that much of the large movements in business assets could not be stopped. Furthermore, a chain of unfortunate events would start to unfold for Quebec. Many Anglophones (who represent about 20% of Quebec’s population), are likely to emigrate to Canada. This large movement would surely disrupt the economy in terms of business and taxes paid to Quebec. (The Economics of Quebec Separation). The purchasing power of Quebecers is also likely to go down at these times for the following reasons. Sectors of service or sectors integrated on a Canada wide scale would see an increase in costs by about 5% according to economist Marcel Cote. Many service sectors of things such as natural gas and telephone lines would see increased costs, due to the across boarder transfers (Ibid). if Quebecers have to pay more for the staple products and imports of commodities, the overall purchasing power will see a decline in Quebec (Ibid) Politically, a major part of the Canadian government is centered around Quebec, and the fact that Canada is a bilingual country is a result of Quebec. There are more than 25,000 federal civil servants working out of Quebec (for Canada), and if separation were to occur, much of the political sector in Quebec would likely crumble within months (Ibid). This would be due to politician wanting to remain in Canada, an the mass amount of job loss and voter in-confidence. Many speculators like Marcel Cote would also suggest major markets based in Quebec would suffer: “Quebec Dairy Farmers would lose a third of their highly protected market, representing shipments of $1 billion a year to the rest of Canada” (Ibid). This is not to say that Canada will cut ties, however, it does suggest that Quebec would lose it’s protection in Canadian markets. Cote also goes on to suggest that many of the natural resource sections may not suffer significantly. The major exporters will still have ties with other nations to export their goods. It would be the impact on urban areas and smaller private business sectors, due to their reliance on protected sales throughout Canada (If Quebec Goes). One must also look at the economic goals of a country. In order for investments to thrive, there must be political stability. It is seen that every time a referendum vote is present, the Canadian economy is shaken. Imagine the effects if Quebec were to actually follow through with separation. Economic growth is also a major goal, and due to the downsizing and uncertain times of both nations, this could not be accomplished. Price stability would also be a major concern for Canada, and especially for Quebec. The unhealthy state of both economies would surly push Canadian monetary value down, and deflation is possible. This would have a ripple effect on all of Canada, and further discourage investments (Economics Now).


The following gives examples of the different factors that would contribute to deflation in the economy:

Convergence of Adjustment Pressures
Real Shocks:
- Montreal
- Farmers
- protected markets
-others

Restrictive Fiscal Policy:
- Budget Cuts
- Tax increase
- adopted federal debts

Restrictive Monetary Policy:
- high interest rates
- Capital outflow
- loss of investments
Territorial Disputes
(Aboriginals)

All = DEFLATIONARY PRESSUREScitation - (figure 1: If Quebec Goes…)

Canada would also have to negotiate key elements into the negotiation, such as asset division, and government forces division. The Bank of Canada for instance would remain Canadian only, as Cote suggests, and Quebec would only be able to take its share of the assets (Ibid). Other divisions such as those regarding military force would also cause tension. Armed forces division is unlikely to go smoothly since every fighting member is under the title “Canadian Armed Forces”. It becomes easy to see where great possibility for an uprising could occur. Quebec would now have to pay for a national defense force without as much total government revenue. Marcel Cote and other economists estimates that Quebec would have to cut military spending by about 25% , or $700 million (Ibid). This would give Quebec a total military allowance of $2 billion, which is $200 million less than they Currently get from Ottawa (Ibid). Compared to Canada, who spend approximately $385 per capita on military, Quebec would only spend $280 which would be among some of the lowest levels worldwide (Ibid).

Due to the fact that Economics is seen as a social science, social aspects of this issue must also be addressed. One must look at the image separation would puts out to all other provinces or other minorities. Canada should not be seen as a group of separate entities, but rather a united country of vast diversity and acceptance. The question that must be asked is why should Quebec be able to separate and form its own nation? What if all provinces decided to do this? The separation of Quebec could very well be the first step towards a major Canadian breakdown. If other provinces were to all break off, the economic consequences for Canada would be unimaginable. Losing an entire province means losing an entire part of the countries economy, and it is usually worse for the new nation, as it must ‘rebuild’ itself in one sense. One can compare this again to the struggle of the southern states after their newly claimed independence. One other significant group in Canada is the aboriginal communities. Regardless of other current issues seen between the natives and Canada, there is no doubt that most of the native people would not want to leave Canada (The Economics of Quebec Separation). This is partly because native land claims deal with treaties between Canada and the aboriginal people, and most of Quebec’s land mass is seen as native land. This would undoubtedly unwrap up an all new issue with the native communities. As mentioned before, the native regions of Quebec almost entirely voted ‘No’ in all referendums. Just like the Meech Lake Accord in 1990, the aboriginal communities would not tolerate the injustice, and would one again demand appropriate recognition. (Nationalism in French Canada).

A Brief Look at the Possible Benefits and Long Term Sustainability

It can be generally assumed that in the long run, Quebec may very well be in good shape by global standards. An example of this short term struggle, but long term stability can be found in many of the smaller European countries. If we assume that a separation would happen amicably, there are a few possible benefits for Quebec and Canada. First off, Quebec would get the global recognition it has long strived for, and would hopefully be recognized and accepted by NAFTA, the UN and other international institutions. Quebec would be able to sign agreements, taking part of the armed forces, and setting up common institutions between itself and Canada. The Canadian dollar would be used in Quebec, making trade between Quebec and Canada easier, and more efficient. Accepting this, the PQ also says that they will have little influence, if any, on Canadian monetary policy. Due to a separation, Canada would also be rid of approximately 25% of its federal debt, and would no longer have to support Quebec with its annual division of monetary benefits, a $3 billion savings. Quebec would also no longer assume any debt placed on them by the rest of Canada, and they can manage their own institutions as they wish with their own fiscal policies. In the long run, investors will see the remaining and growing potential in both Canada and Quebec, and business will once again find its place and flourish. Politically, and somewhat humorously, Canada will no longer have to deal with what has been a long and painful battle with the separatists. On the same note, the nationalists in Quebec will no longer feel they are taking a back seat in Canada. Perhaps one of the largest benefits for many people of Quebec is not one of monetary concerns at all. They would finally receive complete recognition as a unique and separate nation. The nationalists in Quebec would get what they have really been after, and as Jane Jacobs puts it, we are all somewhat the same:

“We care that we have a community. We care how our nation fares, care on a level deeper by far than concern with what is happening to the gross national product. Our feelings of who we are twine with the feelings about our nation, so that when we feel proud of our nation we somehow feel personally proud. When we feel ashamed of our nation, …the shame or the sorrow hits home” (The Question of Separatism).

Local Issues, Personal Opinion, and Final Conclusion

The issue revolving Quebec separation seem to hit home not only in Quebec, but all over the rest of Canada as well. I myself even tend to get caught up in the complex issues. The reason behind this is because it doesn’t only affect Quebec, it affects every province in Canada on a political and social level. Quebec is part of Canada, and regardless of how the western provinces feel about the nationalists in Quebec, we should all try to realize we would be losing a part of ourselves. Separation is not so much ridding Canada of a problem as it is creating many new ones in our economy, and ruining our country’s heritage. Quebec does not belong to Quebecers, it belongs to Canadians. In my opinion, such a major political and financial decision should not only be left to one province. Separatists want an independent nation to recognize their independent heritage, but what about Canadian heritage? The predictions laid out under the possible long term benefits are just as the heading suggests, possible, and long term. When it all comes down to it, the rosy scenarios are likely to be far from the reality, and separation will most likely be far from pleasant (If Quebec Goes). It would be difficult to negotiate practical terms of separation, and the shaky economic times presented by separation would make the division of debt and assets a major problem for Canada and Quebec (Ibid). As economic and political times grow hostile, so will the territorial battles between the natives and Quebec. their land treaties and benefits come from Canada, and they would most likely not want to get involved with making new arrangements with Quebec (it isn’t even their jurisdiction). The very hope that these issues can be solved amicably, in my opinion, is ridiculous. As many would say, and I would agree, “Canada is a healthy country convinced it is sick” (Explaining Quebec Separatism). This is especially true for the nationalist in Quebec, who would likely never feel they are satisfactorily represented, and thus we lie in a vicious cycle. Canada tries to please Quebecers, and their political parties respond with more demands, and more blackmail. In a political sense, Quebec has taken Canada hostage. It is in my opinion that the majority of Quebecers supporting separation don’t realize the major impact that this would have on Canada, and on Quebec. They have gotten themselves so tied up in race that they are failing to see what Canada is all about, multiculturalism and unity. Besides these points, the social passions have taken them away from the multitude of economic impacts.
I came across an interesting quote spoken by Lord Durham shortly after arriving in Canada in 1838; “I expected to find a contest between a government and a people; I found to nations warring in the bosom of a single state; I found a struggle, not of principles, but of races” (Nationalism and French Canada). I believe this is what the issue really comes down to, a war of races; a war which should not be fought anywhere, let alone in Canada. Globalization is forcing unity between cultures worldwide, and the thought that Canada is the problem and Quebec becoming an independent nation is the solution is unfounded. The economic consequences placed on Canada and Quebec if separation were to occur are enormous and unaffordable. We would all be affected by the enormous financial losses, the investor in-confidence, and monetary deflation. As Canada rides rough economic times, the impact of separation could very well put it near a recession, and Quebec perhaps in one (If Quebec Goes). Let the other countries given as examples lay out an economic warning for Quebec; for it would be a true tragedy to make the same mistakes. It is my hope that this great nation does not fall victim to these unfortunate happenings. Quebec needs to realize what they have as a part of Canada, and all other provinces must acknowledge their contributions to Canadian society. It is only then that this issue, and the potential threats to the Canadian economy, can be put behind us.

Population Growth: A Road towards Prosperity, or a Route to Disaster?

The Earth is undoubtedly wealthy in resources. It has sustained billions of creatures for billions of years, all the while allowing natural selection to weed out excess populations. However, in recent history, humans have changed this process through tremendous growth and innovation. With the human population quickly approaching seven billion, there is no doubt that we will be placing much more stress on our global systems. Yet, even with the obvious facts of strain on our environment and resources, the debate is still up in the air about whether population growth will equal prosperity or disaster.

On the pros side, many would suggest that more people means more ideas and innovation to help us flourish. They would also argue that greater populations mean greater output and productivity. Many of these thoughts fall into the Cornucopian Thesis, which states that as technology advances, human innovation will enable us to make new resources to replace diminished ones. But besides the arguments of potential physical gains, many people who support or accept population growth do so on the grounds of human rights. Trying to limit human population would largely depend on limiting birth rates in countries around the world; particularly in developing nations. The ideas of sterilization infringe many human rights policies, and the ideologies of family planning found here in North America are not necessarily shared around the world. Furthermore, we have seen the effects of plans such as the one child policy in places like China, and know that it often leads to the killing of thousands of infants. Developed nations make up less than 1/15th of the worlds populations, yet they use ½ of all the earths resources. The moral question is, how can we limit birth rates world wide to ensure sustainability, using our policies, when most of the wasteful resource depletion can be tied back to us?

Taking into consideration all that a larger population has to offer, I still believe that there are limits to growth that can not be ignored. As seen on CNN’s Crossfire debate and “The Nature of things” many analysts argue that there are natural laws that can not be ignored, regardless of scientific innovations. Analysts such as Nick Eberstadt speak on the growing demand for resources as our population increases. It is a known fact that we are depleting resources such as fossil fuels at such a rapid pace, that it is only a short matter of time before we run out. Our careless chase for food supply in oceans has in many cases turned what used to be a renewable resource, fish, into endangered species. Even with the global population just over 6 billion, we see widespread famine and poverty due to unavailable resources such as food and fresh water. This also brings up the issue of water supply. As of 2008, the supply of fresh water is still unable to adequately meet global needs. People who would suggest that this supply is well suited for 3 billion more people have no idea what negative side effects are sure to follow. First off, if we approach the issue from a humanitarian perspective, we could equally distribute the freshwater supplies world wide. However, as the population increases, we would just be left with inadequate water supplies for everyone, eventually bringing world famine. Scientific attempts to feed more mouths through the use of pesticides has also proven to be devastating, such as the use of DDT. The scientific outlook that we can simply manipulate the earth to our growingly abusive behavior is merely preposterous. Ignoring factual concerns such as resource depletion and exceeding carrying capacity is societies attempt to sweep the dirt under the rug.

Dr. Paul R. Ehrlich would say that science, in a way, has betrayed man kind. It would have us believe that we are somewhat invincible, able to carry on forever on this planet’s limited resources, even while our population grows rapidly. The boundaries of natural laws have always been challenged by science in order to give humans some sort of advantage. When it comes to resources however, there is bound to be an obvious breaking point. As expressed in CNN’s Crossfire, much of the rapid population growth is found developing nations. This is due to many reasons, but there are four general underlying factors which play a great part in the issue. First off, we must take a look at the current system of government. A democracy is a necessary do support positive growth, and allow for social freedoms. Secondly, government must support and provide education for its people. Education is a basic element which can be used to combat poverty and improve societies. Ensuring that everyone maintains a positive contribution to our global communities means providing them with the means to do so. If education is not made available, we can not expect change. Women’s rights are also a major area of concern in many developing nations. Here in North America, we have seen tremendous increases in the percent of women in the workforce. This has a major impact on birth rates, as women now tend to have less kids so that they can work, or simply because they have the freedom to do so. In impoverished countries where women do not have these rights, they are often forced to stay home and work to obtain food for their families. In many circumstances, having more children is a way families get more help, more hands to work. This however, comes at a cost, because although many hands make light work, many hands means more mouths to feed. The issues of women’s rights can be tied back to education, as birth control and family planning are often never taught, and in many cases, not the woman’s choice. Last but not least would be adequate health care. In areas where child mortality rates are high, families are often seen having many children in the hopes that some will survive to support the family. Health care is also the key to a stable society, in which people can focus on innovations and growth rather than staying alive, or coping with constant illness.

All of the above four factors were discussed by Nick Eberstadt during the Crossfire debate, and most logical people would agree with the theories general message. In the film, “The Nature of Things”, we begin to see where we as humans stand in the natural order of things. Before we move on and try to invent ways to mask our problems, we must solve the underlying factors that that cause them. We cannot prevent the inevitable; for the world in which we live is indeed bountiful, but has its limits. The very point at which our population exceeds these limits is not yet known, so our population continues to grow under the optimistic eyes of economists. It is my opinion that we must not only think of what a larger population can do for us, as it would also amplify our problems. We must also concentrate on the potential of our current populations if the right factors are in place. The word sustainability is defined as ensuring that we meet the present needs of society, while ensuring that the needs of future generations are not jeopardized. This means not only being effective, but also being efficient. The day that we as a society become efficient rather than only effective, and realize that there are limits, will be the day we can ensure a sustainable future for generations to come.

(Demographic issues and concerns obviously involve much more than the topic above. The different stages of transition (i.e. post transition) are other up-and-coming concerns for our society, especially in the developed world. these issues, regarding their economic factors will be discussed at a further date, and ofcourse, please post your comments!)

Conservative Budget 2008

Federal Budget Analysis

The Conservative government’s Minister of Finance, James M. Flaherty, has come out with a detailed budget proposal for the year of 2008. It is a plan that has taken into account all aspects of the the Canadian Economy, and the needs of its citizens. Like any political proposal of this magnitude, it has been followed by both praise and critisism. With an issue as important as the federal budget, there are also intriguing differences in opinion. While some may suggest it meets Canadian Economic goals, others may say that the budget is far from doing so. This difference in opinion is much due to the diversity in Canadian society. While the budget may meet the needs of some, it may at the same time, ignore the needs of others. This is one of the most difficult aspects of creating a federal budget. The government must relatively balance the distribution of funds among all parts of society to best meet the needs of all people. The Conservative government’s budget plan for 2008 encompasses all areas of the Canadian economy and takes into generous consideration the needs of individuals and business. The proposed budget would surely meet Canada’s economic goals through helping business and industry, individuals, and insuring political and financial stability for long term success.

People opposing the 2008 budget proposal suggest that it is merely a “shell game”, and is “much more notable for what it does not contain than for what it does contain” (An Insignificant Shell Game). They would also suggest that it sets aside the needs of public service. This years Budget proposal lays out many plans to lower taxes, help corporate sectors, and lower federal debt. However, some suggest that through doing so, the plan does not give nearly enough support to environmental and manufacturing areas, “The amounts being spent on the environment and the manufacturing sector are peanuts, compared to the huge corporate tax breaks…and the large sum going to debt repayment” (An Insignificant Shell Game). This article’s criticism supports the opposing view by also suggesting that the budget is not in the best interest of Canadian citizens. It would also suggest that it does not take into account the need to focus on the environment or on Canada’s future involvement in manufacturing. These suggestions could not be further from the truth. First off, the budget is meant to be in the best interest of economic growth and stability. The opposition criticizes the Conservative’s efforts to reduce Canadian debt, and invest in long term stability. Focusing on corporations and providing further tax incentives will only ensure that investors will see the growing possibilities in Canada. Furthermore, the claim that the budget ignores public and social needs, as well as the environment is completely unfounded. The budget would clearly set aside hundreds of millions of dollars in public transit programs, education funds, job programs, unemployment insurance, retirement bonuses and much more. Not only do the plans meet the needs of Canadian citizens, but they are also working in unison with positive manufacturing and environmental plans.

The overall purpose of the budget would obviously be to meet all of Canada’s economic goals. Many of these goals tie in with the government’s responsibility to ensure the equitable distribution of wealth. This can be one of the hardest aspects of creating a budget, but the Conservative government has laid out its plans in a way that meets the needs of all societal sectors. Their government has been running on a surplus profit that is being used to pay down large amounts of debt, a total of 10.2 billion this year. Due to this reduction, the amount of interest also drops, and the federal government is left with more money to invest in the economy. When the government pays less on debt and interest, the taxation policies on citizens can also be reduced, “We are reducing the tax burden to the lowest level since the government of John George Diefenbaker” (Budget 2008). The reduction of public debt has opened up new opportunities for supporting Canadian society, and this is quite evident in the 2008 budget. The fair division of wealth is a guiding factor that can make or break economic growth. In preparation for an economic slow-down, the budget will invest billions of dollars in helping business and industry, a driving factor of the economy. While doing so however, it must also try to make communities more efficient, improve infrastructure, and deal with social needs. There are many core responsibilities that need to be addressed in order to ensure increased productivity and a promising future for Canada.

Some of the main economic goals lie within the realms of business and industry. The current budget proposal institutes plans to support economic growth, increase productivity and efficiency, and reach higher employment rates. It plans to do this by making Canada a fantastic place to own and invest in business. The budget proposes to lower the federal corporate income tax rates so that it reaches 15% by 2012. Not only will this help corporations but it would also give Canada a notable achievement, “This bold initiative will give Canada the lowest overall tax rate on new business investment in the G7 by 2010, and the lowest statutory tax rate in the G7 by 2012” (Budget 2008). Tax breaks like these are surely incentives, and the Conservatives are merely continuing what has worked well in the past, “The 2008 budget includes $12 billion in incremental tax relief, bringing total tax relief since the Conservatives took office [in] 2006 to $21 billion” (Global Economic). The federal budget is also trying to push provincial governments to reduce their corporate income tax rates so that federal and provincial rates combined would be 25% by 2012. This goal would not only assist Canada’s current industries, but also make Canada’s business tax rate competitive on a global scale. If Canada wins this competition, it will be able to advance economic growth, and offer more employment and productivity, in turn raising GDP. By bringing in new business and promoting growth, we would also be raising Canada’s output of consumer and capital goods. The budget would also bring in benefits specific to manufacturing businesses and the automotive sector. Due to the tough times these industries have faced in recent years, and continue to face today, the government brought in a temporary allowance for capital costs in 2007. The plan for 2009-10 is to extend this capital cost allowance for three years. What this allows businesses to do is write off their investments in equipment and machinery so that they can invest in advancing their facilities. This is all part of the budget’s plan to turn Canada into a world competitor for manufacturing. One major sector in particular, the auto industry, has had a lot of influence on the strength of the Canadian economy. For the years of 2009-10, the government plans on opening an Automotive Innovation Fund. Not only will this help the industry, but it will also help the environment, “This money will fuel the development of greener and more fuel-efficient vehicles. This will help preserve the environment” (budget 2008).

Not only will the budget help business and industries, it also provides countless benefits to individuals and communities. One of the most popular examples of this would have to be the Tax-Free Savings Account. One of the main focuses of this year’s budget is long term stability. This means encouraging Canadians to invest in the future and be able to confidently save money, “Canadians will be allowed to save up to five thousand dollars a year ….The money can grow tax free, like an RRSP. Contributions won’t be tax deductible, but withdrawals won’t be taxed either” (Federal). This account can be used for anything, and there are no restrictions to when you can withdraw or recontribute. Full employment is also a major factor in long term stability, and this means bringing in incentives and aid to northern communities. The cost of living is on the rise, and many northern communities are struggling to keep up with inflation. Even though inflation is low and stable at the time, the help is long overdue and the issues must be addressed. It is up to Canada to institute the opportunity to bring more Aboriginal Canadians into the workforce. This is why the new budget plans on devoting 70 million dollars over a two year time span, “Chief Clarence Louie of the Osoyoos First Nation in B.C. pointed out that there are a large number of Aboriginal Canadians willing to work, they just need a chance” (Budget 2008). Part of helping Canadian communities also means helping the environment. Many of these issues are interconnected, and can be related to productivity and efficiency. Canada is not only trying to be effective, it is also trying to be efficient. Public transit is an efficient way to travel and it is a step in the right direction towards a cleaner environment. The budget puts $1.3 Billion in support of public transit, and also gives a tax credit for the people who use it. Not only is public transit an efficient way for people to travel, it is also a step in reducing traffic, in turn insuring that goods and services can be more easily and effectively delivered. Helping individuals and communities also means promoting education. This is one of the most basic yet vital elements used to insure a successful future. Compared to the current system, the budget’s proposal would allow 100,000 more students from low or middle income families to receive funding, “this funding will reach an estimated 245,000 students” (Budget 2008). More scholarships are also being opened up, with an emphasis on creating the next generation of world class researchers. Four of the priority areas will be the environment, natural resources and energy, health, and Information and communications technology. These areas of focus are meant to get Canada recognized on a global scale, open up new opportunities for employment, and become environmentally efficient.

The budget proposal for 2008 given by the Conservative’s Minister of Finance, James M. Flaherty, displays promising future potential. I believe that that it promotes Canadians to save, as well as to invest in Canada’s business potential. The corporate and industrial benefits will surely make Canadian businesses more profitable, all the while making Canada an enticing investment for foreign companies. The budget lowers taxes on corporations, which will surely assist productivity, and it offers much benefit to individuals as well. Productivity relies on having a stable work force, and part of that relies on job opportunity and the resources to get people involved. Aboriginal communities have long been neglected in this regard, that is why this current budget proposal goes out of its way to open up new opportunities to Aboriginal and northern communities. Another main aspect that I find particularly important for the individual would be the Tax Free savings fund. It would be the first of its kind, and encourage people to save their money. This is just one step towards insuring long term financial stability for Canadians. In today’s day and age, environmental issues have also taken center stage. The environmental implications of the budget, such as research and pollution control, will help to make Canada a world leader in environmental sustainability.

Points in the opposing article would suggest that the budget sets out to do all of the wrong things. The article “An Insignificant Shell Game”, even criticizes the Conservatives efforts to pay back debt, saying that they are focusing on it far too much. I feel that this is a ridiculous suggestion, since it is an obvious benefit to pay down debt and reduce government interest payments. In fact, it is because of the large debt reduction, that the excess money can be distributed to our economy. The opposing article is merely proposing procrastination, and that is never a good option when in debt. While many of the supporting articles rave the Conservatives efforts to improve business and industry, the opposing article complains that these actions are bringing a shortcoming to social needs. This complaint is unfounded in my opinion, since investing in business and industry ends up helping individuals in society, and allows for economic growth, which benefits everyone. One can not expect the same monetary value to go towards both causes equally; it is a matter of balance and relativity. If some of the main economic goals are to reduce public debt, ensure economic growth, and increase productivity, than it should be expected that large amounts of money go in that direction. This is not to suggest that social needs of specific areas in society are not important; the plan merely insures equitable distribution of income that will allow for the most overall progress. Creating something as influential as a federal budget is bound to attract a wide spectrum of views. Much of the controversy lies in the fact that most groups in society just want what is best for them. Putting together a federal budget means taking into consideration what would be best for everyone, and insure that Canada is able to meet all of its economic goals. The question that everyone now has is the general inquiry of what amendments will be made to the budget. As far as I can tell, these changes will not be anything too drastic, and I don’t see my opinion on this promising budget changing any time soon. I agree with what it has set out to accomplish, and I hope that Canada will begin seeing its positive effects in 2009, and many years to come.


Works Cited

“An Insignificant Shell Game!” PIPSC. Feb. 27, 2008. .

“Budget 2008.” Ministry of Finance. James M. Flaherty, P.C., M.P.. Feb. 26, 2008. Feb. 27, 2008. <>.
“Federal Budget 2008 Prepares Canada for Economic Slowdown.” By Ben McCulloch, Feb. 27, 2008. Feb. 27, 2008. .

“Federal Budget Prudent for Today’s Economic Conditions.” Canadian Bankers Association. < option="com_content&task=" id="76895&Itemid=">.

“Global Economic Uncertainty Helped Shape 2008 Canadian Budget.” By Stephen Huebl, Ed. Nancy Girgis, CEP News, Ottawa. Feb. 26, 2008. Feb. 27, 2008.
.

Ontario Master's/Junior's Championship

Well the contest was a success for for the members of my club as well as myself. It was a long day but we all pulled through and made some great lifts.

My lifts passed my expectation, as I did a 350 Squat, a 2o3.5 Bench, and a 418 Deadlift.

We all qualified to go to the Canadian Nationals. As of now, my best lifts are:

Squat - 355lbs

Bench - 225lbs

Deadlift - 440lbs

The Nationals will be from April 9-13, 2008.

Belated Powerlifting Update

Well, it has been some time since i have made an update on my lifting career, or anything for that matter. Summer was all too short and busy. The good news is i have qualified for the Ontario Junior/Master (provincials) in december. To this date, my personal best squat has been bumped up to 335 (which is in the video), and my deadlift is at 365. Bench PB is still 195. I'm hoping for the Ontarios to get atleast a 350 squat ( it will most likely be higher after 4 more months of training), a 400 deadlift, and a 200 bench. they should all be easy goals. at my last contest i pulled 365, and that was raw, so this time i might try to get to 400 with a suit.

YMCA v. Barrie AffirmativeDebate

In the case of Anderson V. YMCA of Barrie, I will prove there were no grounds for discrimination based on sex


The fitness facilities in Barrie offer fitness for both men and women, and of course, women only. In the case of Anderson V. the YMCA of Barrie, Anderson and O’Neill brought the complaint that women were unable to buy premium memberships. We’re talking about the YMCA, which stands for Young Men’s Christian Association, women were still able to use the facilities and they had women’s change rooms and shower facilities available. The only difference was that they lacked amenities such as an additional change room facility, including perhaps a sauna and such other things offered with premium memberships. This would not prohibit them from the use of the facility itself, which is really the main intention for going, or at least it should be. When I searched an online directory for fitness centers in Barrie, 12 out of the 34 fitness centers were for Women ONLY! The others were all for both men and women, such as Allendale Recreation Center. I challenge you to find even 6 fitness centers in one city that are men’s only, which would be half of what I found for women’s only. It was quite easy to find 12 women’s only, and those that I counted were only those obvious ones, whose name clearly stated it was for women only, such as: Ladies workout Express, and ExpressFit for Women. I did not see one out of the 34 that only offered fitness only for men.

Women were allowed into the YMCA, which was a step forward for an organization that was men’s only to begin with, and a sign of non-discrimination compared to the YWCA, who is still closing the doors to men. Having a women’s changing facility, and opening all of its programs to women is expressing equality. The fact of building a premium facility meant only to provide further luxury services and amenities which are above and beyond the necessities of the YMCA’s members. Building these facilities would bring about large expenses, not to mention the quite major renovation.

Furthermore, the YMCA defended the non-existence of a Women’s Plus facility on the basis that women members, when surveyed, had not expressed an interest in one. This information came straight from the case file. Clearly, if only Anderson and O’Neill wanted this expensive renovation, the demand would not have permitted its construction.

So with this, there was no reason that the YMCA of Barrie should have been forced to create extra facilities and amenities for women, when there were plenty of other availabilities in the area.

Curves, fitness for women is yet another institution (also found in Barrie) that only offers fitness for women, however also provide a separate facility for men under the same corporation, BUT not curves itself. This is just like the YMCA by the fact that they have a YWCA, except for the fact that Curves doesn’t let men into the facility, yet the YMCA (young men’s Christian association) lets women into their facilities. The YWCA’s in Kitchener for example are for women and children only. They do not provide services for men equal to the services for women. So I bring about a question, wasn’t this case supposed to be about EQUALITY?

Adding to this, institutions have rights of their own. They are able to offer their services to specific areas of the public. If you dictated what the YMCA had to provide as far as services, then you would have to follow through with this precedent for countless other organizations and institutions. Let’s just take a look at any women’s fitness centers, should they have to build facilities for men? Or how about an even a broader aspect, we saw a women play on the PGA Tour for golf, yet men are definitely not aloud to go on the WPGA Tour where there is surly money to be made for numerous men. This would also go for countless other sporting organizations. And how about the United Negro College Fund, should they not be forced to provide funds for whites?


Allot comes down to institutional right. Institutions have the right to provide specific services, aimed towards certain areas of the public. Forcing an institution to provide services based on a certain sex goes against the institutions rights to focus their services towards a particular area of the community. Again it comes back to the fact that there are many other institutions that do so, and aren’t penalized for it. This is what was violated for the YMCA, and so therefore including all the other particulars, there were no solid grounds for making the complaint.

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION


This case involves the principals of affirmative action. However, Affirmative action groups are discriminatory. So if Anderson and O’Neill claimed they were discriminated against, bringing in such affirmative action to force the YMCA into renovation would further spoils institutional rights. That is the real discrimination, telling an institution that they have to change simply because the complainants are women.

At that I rest my case

Thank you Madame/ Mr. speaker