Winnipegger

Hey guys. I haven't posted in a quite a while. A friend is serious about seeking the federal Conservative leadership. He isn't an elected MP, but has been active a long time. He's from Winnipeg. Needs signatures. Should I post his platform here, or create a new thread?

Restructure the system. Efficient management. This reduces the cost of a degree in half. It also allows students to get out of school and into the workforce sooner. Or allows students who can't currently get a master degree to get one. This is not free, it's just efficient management Far more effective than trying to make it free. I got the Manitoba Minister of Education to start implementing this plan. Then university administration pushed back, got it killed. That minister was replaced. The current minister claims she's implementing it "slowly", but late 1999 to now is 13 1/2 years! That isn't slow, that's dead. And I consider my plan mild, dramatic change would be something like you are proposing. They need to implement my plan! It's mild, it's humble, it's practical, it needs to get done now!

Most professors do not get 4 months of summer vacation. To be considered a full-time employee, they have to teach at least one of intersession, summer day, or summer evening sessions. Does it matter if they teach during May and June and call it the intersession, or 3rd semester of the regular session?

I proposed something a lot less dramatic. Although many claim my ideas are radical. I could give the long winded, 6-page document that I gave to the Manitoba Minister of Education in 1999. That Minister even started to implement it, then got major push-back from bureaucrats and backed off. I'll give you the short version: - Coordinate curriculum between high school and University. Replace all high school courses that confer university admission with ones that also confer full credit for first year university in the same course. As long as student chose their courses in first year correctly, they skip first year entirely. First year university will become a remedial year for those students who couldn't cut it in high school. - Change at least one university in every major urban area to a 10-month/3-term calendar. That is beginning of September to end of June, the same as high school. Reduce Christmas vacation to 1 week instead of 2. And schedule exams for 1 week at the end of each semester/term instead of 2 weeks plus 2 days. Keep spring break. This does not reduce class time by a single day, or even a minute. It reduces vacation time. Currently 2nd, 3rd, and 4th year university have 2 semesters each for a total of 6 semesters. By teaching 3 semesters per year, this is condensed to 2 years. Again, that reduces vacation time, not class time. Each semester has 3 months of class time, so currently there is only 6 months of productive class time per year. This changes to 9 months of class time per year. And students coming from high school are already used to that calendar, so it's isn't arduous. Combine these two initiatives together, reduce a 4 year degree to only 2 years. Costs for university are fixed per year. Cost for buildings, utility bills, professor salary, janitor salary, and administration staff. So there's no justification for this to cost students more per year. By keeping the annual cost the same, but reducing time to get a degree in half, it cuts total cost of a degree in half. Or to put it another way, by teaching 3 semesters per year instead of 2, the cost per course can be reduced by 1/3rd. When I wrote that paper in 1999, university tuition was 5 times what I paid when I went in the early 1980s. The Manitoba government froze tuition, but universities refused to freeze cost. They passed all their cost increases to the province. They've since lifted the tuition freeze. Now tuition is even higher. This is a problem, a major problem. My solution solves it. University of Manitoba provides the majority of master degrees in this province. They have a policy that any student who has a 4-year bachelor degree has to take 1 year of pre-master work before they can enter the master program. I haven't found any other university that requires this. The pre-master year is a courtesy to students who already have an advanced degree. For example, if someone has a Ph.D. in chemistry but wants to take a master degree in computer science, but doesn't have a bachelor degree in computer science, then they can take the pre-master year in computer science instead. So the pre-master year is supposed to replace a 4-year bachelor degree, available only to those who have an advanced degree. You don't take both a 4-year bachelor plus a pre-master in the same field. When I looked at a master in computer science, I noticed they had a catch. If you take your 4-year bachelor in computer science at the U of M (not any other university), plus graduate with honours, plus graduate with first class honours, plus graduate with grades so high no one will ever achieve it, then you can skip the pre-master year. But if any student ever gets close to achieving that, they'll drop your grades. This university does do that. I noticed some departments at the University of Manitoba have dropped the pre-master requirement. And the nasty computer science department head was fired. Yup, not retired or resigned, he was fired. It takes a lot for a tenured professor to get himself fired. I could go on about that guy, but I'm already getting off-topic. The point is to eliminate the pre-master year for those with a 4-year bachelor degree in the same field. The purpose is to reduce a master degree to 2 years. I'm told at some universities an elite student can complete a master degree in just 1 year. I'm not asking for that, just 2 years. Currently the average student at U of M requires 5 years to complete a master degree. In addition to the bachelor degree. When I was a student, every student had to get approval from a student advisor to register for courses. If she doesn't say "yes", you don't get enrolled. When I asked about the master program, that person said she would never allow any master student to enrol in more than 12 credit hours per year. The bachelor program has 30 credit hours per year. An engineering degree had 36 credit hours per year. So why only 12 per year? I could go on about problems from that person too. Hopefully she doesn't work there any more. So any student who can afford to spend 4 years in post-second education will graduate with a master degree instead of just a bachelor. Any student who can only afford 2 years can graduate with a bachelor instead of just a community college diploma. Something similar can be done with community colleges. Winnipeg has a couple technical vocational high schools that specialize in the trades. Their curriculum can be coordinated as well to confer credit for at least one term in community college. Our community colleges used to have a 10-month/3-term calendar. A degree was completed in 2 years. Our largest college has changed to an 8-month/2-semester calendar just like universities, requiring 3 years to complete the same degree. But annual tuition is the same, which increases cost of a degree by 50%. That was done for money. So it's a cash grab, it isn't about students. This needs to be fixed; Red River College needs to be changed back to a 10-month/3-term calendar. Well! This ended up rather long. I may as well add a link to the document here.

Before I begin, I would like to ask if the members of this forum are capable of sane honest discussion about political issues? I ask this because some members of political parties engage in personal attacks, insults, or simply lie when they feel their party is challenged. I asked this on another Canadian political forum, members were not able to do that. When I criticised their party, they not only engaged in personal attacks and insults, but seriously were not able to understand the difference between debating issues vs personal attacks. I am hoping to engage in honest debate here. I will not "pull my punches" regarding performance of other policial parties, but there's a difference between debate vs attacks. And please stay on topic; in one debate a couple years ago on that some other forum, in a debate about F-35 fighters those members argued about Ukranian vs Russian alphabet. That was a deliberate attempt to derail the discussion when they couldn't win. I have some serious ideas. And I have serious criticism of, well, all political parties. I chose one that most closely matches my views. I joined that party. So my leaning is generally toward that party. But again, there's a difference between debating issues vs attacks. Generally, my point matches those made by Greg in his post " New Members Please Read ". So before I begin, can we all abide by these rules?

??? Actually, his actions were mild. Here in Winnipeg real estate prices have shot through the roof. My sister bought a house last year at $120,000 but when I look at it, it appears to be worth $36,000. It is old and in really rough shape. I bought my house in 1990, I paid $46,500 for a house that the real estate agent claimed has 800 square feet. The city property assessor said it is 684 square feet, but I can only confirm that if I measure from the outside of the stucco, measuring the inside of exterior walls is smaller. My house is two story while my sister's is a single story, and my sister's house is really rough. I checked MLS on-line, in our neighbourhood houses go for $49,900 to $199,000 for houses of the same size. That doesn't make sense, some real estate speculators are driving prices up based on cosmetic crap. It's time to rein-in speculators. I am not a member of the Conservative Party so don't like to compliment Jim Flaherty, in fact I would like to take down the Conservative Party, but I like the idea of increasing down payment for non-owner occupied properties to that required for a mortgage without mortgage insurance. However, when I bought my house in 1990, that was 25%, now it's 20%. I would like to see the minimum to get a mortgage without insurance back to 25%. And that would include increasing the minimum down payment for non-owner occupied properties. You are right, we should make it easier for low income earners to own their own home. Actually, I am in that range. However, home builders charge whatever they can get away with, and real estate agents also sell used homes for whatever they can get away with. If the finance minister makes it easy to afford an over-priced home, then they will just increase the price further. The way to drive home prices down is to increase the down payment minimum. That may not sound obvious to you, but as long as home builders and real estate agents can easily find buyers, they will increase prices further until they can't find buyers. Since those selling homes insist on making it hard for buyers, the only thing we can do is make it hard for sellers. Jim Flaherty increased the maximum amortization period from 30 years to 40 years, which really doesn't reduce payment, it just keeps you enslaved for a decade more. He also eliminated the minimum down payment, which raised the risk of overpriced homes sold to owners who can't afford it, and real estate price "correction" (drop/crash) causing foreclosures where the bank cannot recover its money. Since Canada does not allow home owners to walk away from a house without further liability, that is extremely dangerous. As I said, when I purchased my house I paid a 10% down payment because that was minimum at that time. I assumed the mortgage resulting in an odd amortization period: 20 year and 9 months. The interest rate was 11.75%; today interest rates are lower, but interest rates are already rising. The Royal Bank of Canada website announced house mortgage rates will increase after February 28. I would like to see the minimum down payment for a mortgage without insurance increase to 25%, and the minimum down payment for non-owner occupied houses increase to 25%, and the maximum amortization period decrease to 30 years. Let me put it another way; using the inflation calculator on the Bank of Canada website, a house purchased for $46,500 in 1990 would be worth $66,811 in 2009. (They don't have inflation figures for 2010 yet.) So why would such a house cost $140,000 plus? This just doesn't make sense. Someone is scamming new home buyers. We have to do something to drive prices down. If you can think of another way to drive prices down, I would really like to hear it. Really. How do we do it?

When I bought my house in 1990, I took out a mortgage with a 10% down payment, 25 year amortization, and 1 year fixed term. The mortgage also had the option of doubling-up a payment any month, and lump sum payment once per year at renewal time of 10% of the remaining balance. Each double-up payment would let you miss a payment later, consider it pre-paying, but you could just continue in order to pay down the mortgage more quickly. I doubled-up payments whenever I could, and when I got a high paying job in 1999/2000 I doubled every payment as well as applying the maximum lump sum payment at renewal time. The result was my mortgage was paid in year 2000. That was 9 years and 8 months from purchase to mortgage free. The last couple years my income has not been so good, I wouldn't have been able to pay a mortgage, utility bills, and all other living expenses with what I'm making right now. By eliminating my mortgage, I have much lower living expenses so can afford to remain in my house. ::Edit:: I checked my old mortgage documents (they're from 1990). I had assumed the mortgage of the previous owner. The remaining amortization at the time I took possession was 20 years and 9 months. If I hadn't paid it off early, I would still have a mortgage today. ::end of edit:: This is my real life experience, but it is also a metaphor for the country. Pay down debt aggressively when financial times are good, so we can survive when times are bad. The current batch of Liberal MPs have been saying we have to stimulate the economy due to the recession; well in general that's a good idea, but the Canadian economy is not that bad. It's time to "shut off the taps" as Jim Flaherty has said. That may sound like I'm supporting the Conservatives, but I'm still critical of the Conservatives for increasing spending and reducing debt repayment in years 2006, 2007, and 2008. The "stimulus package" for 2009 was far too much; we needed something but what we got was overkill. Perhaps all this has taught the Conservatives the need to pay down the debt fast when times are good. Residential Mortgage Rates by RBC Royal Bank

And how would that work? Would government give everyone a free house? A free car? How would they "borrow on our behalf"? I worked hard to pay off the mortgage of my house, so now I have no mortgage at all. But income tax is still there. And when I did have a mortgage, income tax was greater than my mortgage payment. So where is the benefit?

Huh? The current mortgage rate is 4.65% for a 6 month convertable mortgate, 3.40% for 1 year fixed term, progressing up to 5.20% for a 7 year term (increasing after Feb 28), 6.80% for a 10 year term, or 8.05% for a 25 year term. These numbers are from the Royal Bank web site, as of today. But as I said, the interest rate I calculated in December 2005 for the Federal government's debt was 7.082%. You would expect the government to do better because of the clout they get from borrowing so much, but they really aren't. As long as the government carries debt, they have to pay debt service payments. The government doesn't have any money, it just plays with taxpayer money. So that means we have to pay those payments as tax. As long as the debt is close to the level it is now, taxes will remain what they are now. Governments may be able to drop GST or income tax one or two percent, but they'll never be able to make substantial changes; and as soon as the economy does poorly taxes will have to raise back up. Today there are MPs already calling for increased taxes to deal with the deficit. During World War 1 Canada went into debt to pay for the war effort. We didn't have either personal nor corporate income tax either; income tax was introduced as a "Temporary War Income Tax". The finance minister at the time wrote a plea to future finance ministers to abolish the income tax once war expenses were over. Today the government has a lot more expenses than it did then, we can't afford to abolish both, but once we pay off the debt we can afford to get rid of one. After World War 1, income tax was not abolished right away due to the large debt, then the stock market crash of 1929 followed by the Great Depression. Despite all this, the Canadian federal government did pay off the debt prior to World War 2. Unfortunately the second war put us back in debt. Our politicians haven't even tried to pay off the debt since, a portion of today's federal debt is still war expenses from World War 2, so we are stuck with high taxes. I have equally short patience for anyone of any political party who is irresponsible with taxpayer's money. The government has to live within its means, because we the taxpayers have to pay the bill.

Interest rate was calculated by taking the federal debt and dividing by interest paid that year. The debt has many parts, each with a different interest rate and the government does not release those details to the public. This calculation gives the average that they do pay. By the way, it worked out to 7.082%. Considering mortgage interest today is lower, they must have some long-term debt from the Mulroney years when interest rates were much higher. Last night I saw a panel on CPAC about finance. John Manley said one advantage they had in the 1990s was interest rates were falling while they were cutting government jobs, so the private sector could create jobs to higher the people they laid-off. He pointed out interest rates will go up from here, cutting government jobs while interest rates are rising will shrink the economy. If this does happen we will see a spiral like we saw in the 1980s. I also remember hearing an announcement by the US guy in charge of the reserve, he said he set the prime lending rate to less than 1%, I think it was 0.25%, so interest rates could not go any lower. He was trying to stimulate the economy by dropping interest rates, but you can't go below zero. So John Manley is right, interest rates will go up, they can't go down. The economic problems in the U.S. are a prime example of what not to do. Most people don't realize where the problem started, because those to blame are covering it up. The US Congress altered banking laws to loosen up restrictions, specifically so US banks could lend more money to the US government. This was to fund the US federal debt. There was a concern that foreign concerns were holding too much of the US debt, giving them leverage to control the US. And since they had an insane deficit, they just needed more money. You saw the results, the junk mortgage crisis and the banking melt-down. There is also the problem that the economy just doesn't have enough money to lend to business, the US government has sucked too much up for it's government debt. In a free market economy lack of money would be offset by rising interest rates and shrinking economy, but the US government has been controlling interest rates to both stimulate the economy and keep interest they have to pay down. Adam Smith market laws don't apply when the US federal government artificially alters the rules for its own benefit. Today Canada has a problem of foreigners buying up our companies. But we need investment capital; foreign investors are permitted to buy our companies so the Canadian economy can get their capital. But foreign owners will take profits to whatever country they live in, so ultimately this is self-defeating. Dumping huge quantities of capital into the banking system will free Canadian investment capital for free enterprise, reducing our dependency on foreign investment. The laws of supply and demand will also drive interest rates down; important because interest rates are ready to rise again. Interest rates at the level of the 1980s would be crushing for our economy. It would also crush government finance as long as the government has a large debt load. The government can just print money, but that drives the value of the dollar down. In fact, the total wealth of the country does not increase at all when you print more money, it just reduces the value of the dollar so it becomes a hidden tax. For example, you print so much money that to total amount of money in circulation increases 10%, then the value of the dollar will drop by roughly 10%. That means the value of all money in circulation after printing money drops so the total wealth of the nation does not change. However, paying off government debt increases money available for business investment without dropping the value of the dollar at all. So you see paying off the debt also stimulates the economy. And it reduces dependence on foreign investment, permitting more Canadian ownership of our own economy. Eliminating income tax would also make all of Canada a tax-free zone, so highly paid knowledge workers such as scientists, engineers, architects, and business executives would move to our country. My sister called it a tax shelter, but that term assumes taxes are justified in the first place. We could expect companies to relocate their offices with high salary employees to our country, making Canada the knowledge focus for the entire planet. Don't we want good, highly paid jobs? I also have an education plan that would make our post-secondary education system the best in the world, increasing quality of education while making it more affordable without costing tax dollars; but that's a discussion for another thread. But the point is it meshes with this plan to make Canada a tax-free zone, bring highly paid knowledge based jobs here. So yes, it is complex; and yes, macroeconomic policies do have broad effects on society. This post is already way too long.

All the spending increases since the Conservatives were elected. Would you like to help me create that list?

That was introduced when they limited political contributions from corporations to $1,000 per year, and from individuals to $5,400 per year. Now political contributions have been further restricted, individuals can only contribute $1,100 per year and corporations are not allowed to contribute anything at all. Eliminating the government money of $1.75 per vote is a good idea, but we would have to greatly ease restrictions on direct political contributions. Actually there's a story to this. The first restriction was introduced by Jean Chrétien when he was worried that Paul Martin would get the Liberal party leadership. Was it a ploy to screw over Paul Martin? Probably. The second restriction was by Stephen Harper after the Conservatives won. The Liberals were in a leadership race, the convention would be in the last quarter of 2006, but the election was January 23, 2006. Stephen Harper attempted to set the individual political contribution limit to $1,000 and make it retroactive to the beginning of 2006. He knew perfectly well that the delegate fee for the Liberal leadership was $995, and he ensured the delegate fee was included as a political contribution, so anyone who had contributed more than $5 during the last election would not be permitted to be a delegate. This would eliminate all core party members. The senate intervened, upped the limit with an inflation calculation to be $1,100 and made it effective January 1, 2007. So it did not interfere with the Liberal leadership convention. Actually I think corporations should be permitted political contributions. It is common for any fundraiser to find a company to donate services in kind, so that all expenses to run the fundraiser are paid. That way 100% of all proceeds go to the cause. In this case the cause would be a candidate. Companies usually make contributions as an inexpensive means to market their company or product, not for political reasons. Prohibiting all corporate donations prevents this basic means of fundraising. So would voters permit this? It would be another way to reduce spending. Reduced spending means reduced taxes.

Where in anything I wrote does it say anything about cutting transfer payments to Ontario?

This is the sort of response I usually get initially: fantasy land. It isn't fantasy land. I got the federal interest payment for 2005 from the federal budget, plugged in the figures to a mortgage payment function in an excel spread sheet. The result was 16 years to pay off the debt, if we started in January 2006. I don't want to get partisan, but the May 2006 budget stated that if the Conservatives had not intervened the surplus for 2005/2006 would have been $17.4 billion. That's according to the budget written by Conservative Finance Minister Jim Flaherty. That budget stated he intended to increase spending to reduce the surplus to $8.0 billion, but the federal government's fiscal year end was March 31 so this budget was actually after the year end. The Auditor General's report that summer stated the surplus for 2005/2006 was actually $13.2 billion, so obviously the Conservatives did spend a lot in the first 2 months they were in power. The election was January 23, 2006, Ministers were sworn in February 6, the year end was March 31. In fact I'm sure Stephen Harper was desperate to have a Christmas election because if he waited until spring 2006, this large surplus would have come out, and that was what voters demanded of Paul Martin. If the 2006 election was delayed to the spring, Liberals would have been re-elected. So if the Conservatives hadn't deliberately spoiled it, we would have already been on our way to accomplish this in 2006. Of course the Liberals had pressure within their party to increase spending as well, but as of January 2006 Paul Martin was controlling them. Ok, away from partisan crap, back to what we should actually do. • Cut spending to restore the $17.1 billion surplus. Paul Martin did it before, we can do it again. • Apply all that surplus to the principle of the debt, set the total of the principle plus interest payments as a fixed total. That's how the mortgage of a house works. If we started this in January 2006 it would have been finished in 16 years. • Since the total debt payment will remain fixed, the budget will remain balanced even in a severe recession. • Increase GST back to 7%, and at the same time cut personal income tax by 2% in every income bracket. 2% up, 2% down: you pay income tax on all your income but only pay GST on some things, so this is a tax cut. Pay for that by also undoing the 1% cut to corporate income tax. • Both corporate capital tax and corporate surtax stay gone. • Replace the GST Rebate (CRA calls it GST Credit) with a line item tax credit on income tax, but double the amount. Prorate to income tax withholding from each and every paycheque. • Dividends no longer taxable for personal income tax; taxed under corporate income tax. Corporate tax is at a lower rate, but when personal income tax is abolished corporate income tax will stay. Since foreign corporations don't pay income tax to Canada, so foreign dividends will remain taxable under personal income tax. GST Credit As listed in the summary, the total plan to completely abolish personal income tax has a couple other items needed to balance the books. First, replace the GST credit with an income tax credit. Everyone who currently qualifies for the GST credit will still qualify, same rules, but the amount will be double the current credit. Instead of mailing a cheque, it will be pro-rated to income tax withholding from each and every paycheque. The increase will be paid by eliminating the expense of administering the GST credit system, it will simply be a line item on income tax returns. So instead of taking taxes with one hand only to give half of it back with the other, we won't take it in the first place. The Fraser Institute did a study several years ago; they determined the average administration cost for each cheque the government writes is $75. That's for all cheques, not necessarily GST cheques, but based on that the administration cost is roughly equal to the cheques themselves. That is why I said replacing the mailed cheque with a line item tax credit would eliminate that administration cost. We would double the GST credit, it would mean more money in the pockets of Canadians while being cost neutral for the federal government. Dividends The other item is dividends. These used to be double taxed; both corporate and personal income tax. That was fixed by making dividends deductible from taxable income for the purpose of corporate income tax. So they are now charged personal income tax but not corporate. Reverse that: make dividends no longer deductible from taxable income for the purpose of corporate income tax, but not included in taxable income for personal income tax. These two items would be applied the first year, in the first budget, along with GST, personal income tax, and corporate income tax adjustments. From then on, all tax cuts will be made to personal income tax. Since corporate income tax is at a lower rate than the highest personal income bracket, the dividend shift will be an immediate tax cut; however, since all further tax cuts will be to personal, they will not apply to dividends. And when personal income tax is abolished all together, corporate income tax will remain so dividends will stay taxed. All this is do-able. It will only remain fantasy as long as you voters allow our politicians to get away with tax-and-spend. The Conservatives like to talk about reducing spending, but they have increased spending even more than the Liberals. From the 2005 budget under Ralph Goodale to the 2009 budget under Jim Flahety, program spending increased by $67.5 billion. And people wonder why we have a $58 billion deficit. Paul Martin was able to control spending, but with him gone all political parties are guilty of tax-and-spend. They will only do so as long as you let them get away with it. Ok, getting off my soap box now. So back to the pole. Given the fact we can pay off the debt, and once gone we can abolish one major tax (but only one), which would you eliminate?

In October year 2000, Paul Mart announced the surplus for that year would be $17.1 billion. That got me excited; if we treat the federal debt as a mortgage we could pay the whole thing off. Just apply the entire $17.1 billion to the principle of the debt, then set that plus interest as a fixed total. As the principle comes down, interest will come down. For every dollar of interest reduced, increase the payment to the principle by that same dollar, so the total remains fixed. Because the total never grows, this works even in a severe recession. Even if economic growth is completely stagnant, zero growth, tax revenue will remain the same. During the 2006 election campaign I calculated this again; if we were to reduce spending to restore the $17.1 billion surplus, and set a fixed repayment schedule starting in January 2006, it would have taken 16 years to pay off the debt. The Auditor General's report in the summer of 2001 said the surplus that year actually ended up being $18.1 billion. We wouldn't need the $18.1 billion, just $17.1 billion. When I talked to voters during the 2006 election campaign I suggested completely abolishing the GST. That is after the debt is repaid, not before. However most voters in my riding said no, not the GST, get rid of income tax. Ok, that is more difficult. Interest on the debt is greater than revenue from the GST, so abolishing the GST would be easy; we could abolish GST and still have a little money left over. Not a lot, but a little. But income tax generates more revenue generates more revenue than interest on the debt, so it would be more difficult. I took this as a task and figured out how to do it. There are a few catches: when we abolish federal personal income tax, EI and CPP premiums must stay. That's how we pay for those programs. But they will remain at the same rate we pay now, no increase or decrease. And provincial income tax is under the authority of the provincial government, nothing the federal government can do about it. But we can get rid of federal personal income tax. I will list exactly how to do this later, but first the big question. Once we have completely eliminated the debt, we can abolish one major tax. Together these taxes generate over 90% of all federal revenue, once the debt is gone you can abolish just one. You can't abolish two, and certainly not all three; the federal government needs to get its money from somewhere. But we can get rid of one. Which one would you eliminate?

The Dessault Rafale, built in France, is a high performance fighter jet. Fast, manoeuvrable, carries lots of ordinance, and has a carrier version. It's the highest performing carrier plane in the world. However, at €64 million per plane, it's a bit expensive. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafale The Eurofighter Typhoon is an even higher performing aircraft. The Avro Arrow built in Canada in the 1950s was designed to be capable of supercruise, top speed greater than mach 2 (reported to be mach 2.5) but it could cruise at mach 1.5 at 50,000 feet. The Eurofighter Typhoon is also capable of supercruise at mach 1.5. It's weapons load isn't as much as Rafale, but it's top speed is faster, supercruise is faster (Rafale can cruise at mach 1.02), and manoeuvrability is greater in every way. But it's a pure air force plane, not capable of carrier operation. At €63 million per plane it's also expensive. Both the Rafale and Typhoon are delta wing aircraft with a canard; they look like an Avro Arrow updated to 21st century technology. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon The HAL Tejas is a light weight fighter. It's small, and doesn't perform quite as well, but has a carrier version that can land on a carrier of the same class as the HMCS Bonaventure. It's small size makes it ideal for a carrier; small deck area and low weight permit the ship to carry many of them. It uses a "ski jump" ramp to launch, and arrester cable for landing. Not capable of vertical landing like a British Harrier. Performance specifications match a CF-18 Hornet. Cost is US$21 million for an air force version, or US$31.09 million for a carrier version, so the air force version costs less than a Hornet. The catch is it's still in development, they're having problems with the engine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAL_Tejas

The deal also excludes transit. Here in Winnipeg we have 2 major bus manufacturers: New Flyer makes city transit busses, while MCI makes intercity busses, eg Greyhound. New Flyer has had a problem for years that American cities will not buy Canadian built busses, so openned a facility in North Dakota to do just enough finishing work to claim to be American. This means jobs lost to the States. This is a blatant violation of the NAFTA. Now this "Buy American" deal exludes transit, so we continue to have this problem. Bombardier openned a plant in New York to build subway cars; again losing Canadian jobs to the States. This is a bad deal.

This deal comes when only 2 weeks remain gain access to U.S. stimulus spending, more of the U.S. stimulus money is spent, but it gives U.S. firms permanent access to Canadian stimulus spending, including access to provincial and municipal projects. We get practically nothing from them, they get permanent access to us. Why would any Canadian negotiator agree to this?