Can we trust Deloitte & Touche?

Look at this page which shows 2006 federal election expenses by category and party. You'll that it shows zero for non-radio/tv advertising by the Conservative Party. This was recently amended by the Conservatives after they were questioned on it by Elections Canada (see Ottawa Citizen article here). This zero stands out like a sore thumb. There are only nine categories of expenses and every significant party has non-zero expenses in each category.

Deloitte & Touche were the auditors who approved the Conservative return back in May 2006. Months later they withdrew that opinion. How could they miss something so obvious? The next time I read an annual report of one of their clients, can I trust it?

To Deloitte & Touche:
This is not a trivial matter because there are serious questions currently about whether the Conservative Party illegally circumvented election spending limits in 2006.
I call on you to explain yourselves. Your brand is at stake.

Ontario MMP referendum: response to Prof. Dan Usher's article in the Kingston Whig-Standard

Letter to the Editor:

In Professor Dan Usher’s article on the October 10^th referendum question (A flawed proposal for reform, Kingston Whig-Standard, Monday Sept. 24, 2007), he stated that the current first-past-the-post electoral system favours large parties and, conversely, that the proposed reform (MMP) is biased against large parties and in favour of small parties. I think there is another bias to worry about.

It seems to me that one problem with the current system is that it favours politicians or parties who have a geographically concentrated base of support and who are advocating for a particular region. A good example of this (looking federally for a moment) is the Bloc Quebecois who have a large number of seats in Ottawa compared to their share of the national popular vote, and who are especially concerned about Quebec. Conversely, the current system is biased against those who are especially concerned with issues that affect people all across the province, or country, but whose supporters are not concentrated in any particular region. An example of this is the Green party who might win up to 10% of the vote in the Ontario or next federal election but not win any seats because their supporters are well spread out.

Is it fair that an electoral system should favour a “Quebec First” party over an “Environment First” party?

Some important political issues may concern just a few ridings and others are of concern to voters across the province. For that reason it doesn’t seem unfair or unrepresentative to me that we supplement our provincial legislature with new members having a province-wide constituency. It might even better represent, in Prof. Usher’s words, “the interests of the people of Ontario in the policy of its government”.

Ontario Liberals propose new February statutory holiday

Letter to the Editor

I think it’s a good idea for Ontario to join other provinces and add a new statutory holiday in February (Critics pan Liberal’s proposal for winter holiday, Sept. 5, 2007, The Whig-Standard). As a society I believe we should be trying to be wealthier by having more time rather than having more money. Decades ago futurists were predicting that we would have more and more leisure time. Nothing of the sort happened. We certainly got wealthier, but it seems like we worked more to earn more money so we could buy more “stuff”. Since the Liberal government wants to call the holiday, “family day”, it seems appropriate to consider the example of average Canadian household size which decreased from 3.9 in 1961 to 2.6 in 2001 and continues to decrease. One of the reasons for this decline is that we have been working to buy more living space. But in this day and age when we are worried about environmental sustainability, perhaps we should put a higher value on having ‘time’ and a lower value on consuming ‘things’.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses claimed that, “a paid day off means a $2-billion ‘blow’ to the province’s economy”. My answer to that is that if the CFIB really believes that one more holiday would be a $2-billion ‘blow’, then why don’t they advocate one less holiday which by their logic might be a $2-billion ‘bonus’ to the Ontario economy. Shall we get rid of Christmas? The point is that an extra day of life for every working Ontarian, to spend as they please or offer to others, should be worth something too – perhaps, ultimately, comparable to the money missing from their pockets. Are businesses going to be seriously harmed by having to pay wages and losing ½% of a year’s work in return? In the long run I think not. Inflation has been running at around 2% per year recently. So holding the line on salaries for 3 months would be a crass way of getting back that ½% if a business were really intent on doing so.