Crazy idea of the week - have Canada buy the

Not far from the Esquimalt naval base there are four retired US Aircraft Carriers - the Forestal Class USS Ranger and USS Independence and the Kitty Hawk Class USS Kitty Hawk and USS Constellation.   Their current fate seems to be either to be disposed of as artificial reefs or become museum ships.  What if Canada were to acquire one or two?  OK, I admit I am thinking about this because of the cool image from Google Maps.  It is also an off the wall idea being put forward a religious pacifist.

The four aircraft carriers currently sitting at Bremerton Washington

I know the idea sounds utterly nuts, but what if the ships were not used as primary aircraft carriers but were used as a floating multi-purpose Canadian Forces Base?   Right now Canada is proposing to spend $1.3 billion for each of the new Joint Support Ships.   How far would $1.3 billion go in buying and refitting these retired carriers?

Yes, I crapped all of the New Arrow as a replacement for the F35 idea that was floated the other week, but  that idea had no useful merits to it that I could see on any level.  The CF105 Arrow was a bad idea in 1959 and half century does not improve it.

The Kitty Haek carriers are large enough to house 5000 people but can also carry  large amounts of supplies and still have aircraft based from it.  It is large enough to move Canadian Army armoured vehicles.  It allows the needs of a support ship to be combined with the need for some sort of amphibious assault ship which Canadian military actions since 1990 seems to indicate are needed.   A dozen to two dozen helicopters and 500 infantry troops could easily be based from a ship like this and still allow for it to be a resupply ship.

Also, if Canada is going to procure the F-35s, the carrier version could just as easily be acquired so that they could operate from the the Kitty Hawk carriers.  Canada could also buy second hand US F18E/F Super Hornets to use on the ships, I am sure they would be much cheaper than the F35s and we have the existing know how with the plane type.

The proposed Joint Support Ship for the Canadian Navy has an estimated range of 10,800 km, for a Kitty Hawk class aircraft carrier is 19,000 km.  The new ship would have a displacement of 28,000 tonnes, about 1/2 the displacement of a Kitty Hawk carrier.   The scope and scale of the new Joint Support Ship is not dramatically out of scale with these carrriers.  The speed of the carriers is faster than the Joint Support Ship with them being able to cruise at close to 60km/h.  The 12,500 km from Esquimalt to Sydney Australia could be done without refueling in less than 9 days.  Halifax to the Eastern Mediterranean in 6 days and the Gulf in 9 days.

The Kitty Hawk class carriers are about 60% the displacement of the Nimitz class carriers the US are using now.

Would the Americans sell to Canada?   With these ships I can not see are reason as the Kitty Hawk class carriers were the last non nuclear US carriers.   It also means keeping two more carrier like ships available in the NATO arsenal.   Basing one in Esquimalt and one in Halifax would cover areas of the Atlantic and Pacific the US does not have large naval presence in.

If the role of the Canadian military continues to be UN related interventions around the world, shifting to these ships I think would likely be a smart direction to consider.  Canada has not really had the ability to properly engage in the missions since 1990 without relying on other nations to support Canada.   Buying a couple of used Kitty Hawks could give Canada the independence of action that it does not currently have.

Ultimately think of this idea as a way to get Canadians to discuss what they expect the role of the Canadian Forces will be over the next 20 years.  If it is what it has been, buying some second ships like carriers may be the best way to move forward, if it is not we have to have make it clear why we have the Canadian Forces and what we expect them to do.

How do we get more people to work for more years?

Many countries have fallen into a trap with an aging retired population and shrinking work force.   This ultimately leads to a problem when the majority of a people in a given country are not working for a living.   For  the dependent people to survive, they require the working population to provide for them.

The retirement age of 65 came about in the 19th century when the average man was lucky to live to age 65 - government sponsored retirement was not going to be a decades long thing for most people.   We now are in the situation in many countries where a 65 year old is expected to live another 20 or more years.   It is not good for the well being socially or financially for a large portion of the population to be retired.

It would be ideal of the average person had a 45 to 50 year working life - start work between 20 and 25 and finish at age 70 to 75.

So where to start?

First off, no white collar public sector worker should be allowed to collect a pension before age 70.   They should specifically be bared from collecting OAS, CPP or their government pension before their 70th birthday. They also need to all move to defined contribution from defined benefit pensions.   Provincially I would phase this in over 30 years with a transition away from the current magic number of 85 (your age and years of service combined) to the age of 70 through changing the magic number by 1 each year though allowing people to retire at 70 if they reach that first.

Second, people should be allowed to contribute to their pension up to age 75 if they want to.   They should also be allowed to continue adding to their RRSP till then as well, the requirement to cash out your RRSP creates a financial disincentive to people working longer.

Third, people should be allowed to defer collecting their CPP and OAS for as long as they like.   In return they should be rewarded with higher payments in the future, say a 50/50 split on the savings between government and the person.   What are the actual numbers?  I am not sure but I know actuarially this could all be worked out.

Fourth, reconstruct CPP so that it is a properly full funded pension system and one in which current contributions pay for current retirees.   To do this would take a long time, it would have to be phased in with an ever increasing portion of the contributions going into individual accounts for the people that are paying into CPP, doing this would mean that people see a direct connection between continuing to add to their CPP and therefore work longer.   The transition would likely be something on the order of 30 years.

Fifth, change EI so that it is a proper insurance system and have the money paid in by each person go into an account for themselves.   If at the end of their working life they did not use up their EI funds, allow 50% to be contributed to their personal RRSP and have the other 50% go towards fully funding their CPP.

Sixth, make it easier for people under age 30 and over age 60 to start their own businesses.   Provide financial incentives to people starting businesses through such things as fully refundable tax credits.

Seventh, make all income earned by anyone under age 20 free of income tax and then transition to paying full income taxes at age 25.  I would allow youth to also opt out of CPP and EI up to age 25.

Eighth, all anyone over age 75 to work up to 20 hours a week tax free.   The income they earn from working would not be counted as income on their income tax return.

• Society benefits because with more people working there are more people adding value in society and this means economic growth.   Increasing our labour force by 5% would increase the GDP of the country by roughly 7-8%, basically enough to comfortably avoid the next global recession.
• Getting people to work longer also means we have more retained knowledge within the work place.
• Keeping older people actively working longer will keep them mentally and physically fitter for longer.
• As a society we have the cost of government spread out over a larger portion of the population.
• With youth working earlier and keeping more of their money, they will be able to spend more and will be able to save more for what they need in their lives.   It would make realistic for someone to finish high school  and work for a couple of years to pay for going to university.
• Seniors would have a larger purchasing power if they worked longer and this would increase demand in society.   It would also mean that more wealth it collected within a family which would eventually be able to pass down to the next generation.

As a society we need to ensure that we have enough people working and we need to reward people for choosing to work for more years in their life.

Time for more polling in BC!

I would like to see some more polling in BC about provincial political intentions.   To that end, I asking Frank Graves of Ekos what it would take to bring them into this market.

I am thinking outside of the box and trying to figure out how to make this possibly work - any ideas on where the money could come from to make this possible, please let me know.   No idea too crazy for me to consider.

Why not have the Legislature meet outside of Victoria?

Given all of our communications technology, there is no reason all the MLAs need to come to Victoria to conduct the business of the Legislature.    The time has come for the BC Legislature to meet outside of the Victoria on a regular basis.

Most of the work of the Legislature in BC tends to be done in the spring session, this means the fall session is normally shorter (or not held at all).   If the Legislature were to commit to holding a proper fall session each year and plan the dates ahead of time, it would be possible to have the MLAs meet elsewhere in the province.   Having a fall session is something the public wants - most people are truly surprised to hear for how few days the MLAs in BC meet each year.

There are no shortage of locations in BC where the Legislature could meet.   They would not be 19th century Francis Rattenbury architecture, but there are many locations would meet the needs of the Legislature.   A simple community centre gym would be enough to allow 85 MLAs to sit.

BC did hold one ceremonial session of the Legislature outside of Victoria, this was in New Westminster in 1967 (I think, but I could be off by a year or two).

The benefit of holding Legislature elsewhere is that the people would have a chance to see the MLAs in action, but at the same time the MLA would the sense of what life was like in part of the province they do not live in.   I am personally of the opinion one of the reasons rural BC suffers so much is that very few MLAs spend any extended periods there.

What towns would I have the Legislature meet in?   I would start with the small rural towns.   Places like Fort St James, Clearwater or Port Hardy.   These small resource based towns are the economic, historical and spiritual backbones of BC and for the last generation have been treated as after thoughts by all the governments since Bill Bennett.

Holding the Legislature in small resource towns would also show MLAs the simply reality that limited services and weather make on life in the towns that provide the province with the revenues needed to allow us to have a government that is not on the verge of bankruptcy.   One early winter snow storm stranding them all in town for a weekend would be good for all of them.

For the small towns, having 300 to 400 extra people come and be there for four to six weeks would make a huge difference to the community economic well being.   It also means the people in these towns would have a chance to meet MLAs from all over and make the idea of government not seem as distant and foreign as it often seems in rural BC.

Once again, this is one of my "out of the box" and I assume the MLAs, political staff and senior civil servants would not only not consider the idea, they would actively ignore the suggestion of it.

Crazy Idea of the Week

Since Canadian Forces Maratime Command needs to replace the Preserver and Protecteur, and nothing is happening yet with the replacement vessel, how about buying a used ship?

The HMS Ark Royal is available for sale at the moment, though June 13th is the final date for tenders in the auction process.  

• Yes, the Ark Royal is an aircraft carrier
• Yes, the last used ships we bought from the Brits seem to be have sold to use by some bent East End used ship salesman.
• Yes I am a pacifist by faith and have no real business talking about anything to do with military procurement.

But I think the idea has some merit and here is why.

The size of the Ark Royal is large enough to have the storage capacity for what is needed for the Canadian Forces on mission.  The ship would have to be modified from what it has been used for to be able to take on the full role as a supply ship by changing sections of the ship into various forms of storage.

Using the Ark Royal would allow for more space for Canadian Forces personnel on board because it has been designed for a larger crew by about 350.   It could take something more of a floating Canadian Forces Base role as it would have the space to house a regiment.

The Ark Royal is a good design for hosting helicopters and could also be able to provide a platform for some F-35s.    We seem to be hell bent to buy them, so why not have a platform that they could use?

The nature of the sort of missions the Canadian Forces could take on would be expanded if they were to have the Ark Royal as a supply ship with other uses.  

One of the two Protecteur class ships could retired sooner rather than later.  I suspect that there would still be a role for the future Joint Support Ship, but reduce the need to two instead of three.   Buying the Ark Royal would be much cheaper than building one of the new ships.

OK, post away about why my idea is crazy and have no idea what I am talking about.

The Online Party of Canada

The Online Party of Canada is a new federal political party that wants to harness the power of the internet for politics.

Michael Nicula of Toronto is the party founder.  You can read an interview with him here.

The jist of the party is that it would be the extreme end of representation of the will of the people.  All OPC representatives would vote as the majority public opinion tells them should vote.   The positions of the party are decided by online voting.   The voting on most issues is topping out at 25 people.   The gap between the desire of the founder and the reality of being a political party are huge.

Given that the party is call the Online Party of Canada, one would expect the website to be of better quality.  The Facebook page is ok, but nothing brilliant.    Their Twitter feed reads like a one way communication, there is no sense of a dialog going on.  Actually it is not even a dialog but a series of announcements.  The Youtube videos on the party's channel are not well done.

What Michael seems to want to do with a political party, Susan Einarsson wants to do with lobbying of government.   The two of them should team up.

I will watch some more and see what comes of this.   Given that an election could coming soon, the Online Party of Canada needs to find more than $300K just to be able to run a full slate of candidates in the election.   In Canada, unless you are a separatist, any serious party has to field a full slate in an election.

At this time the party looks like a part time hobby of  a single person.

A way to save the federal government some money

I was thinking about the fact that we have Elections agencies in all the Canadian provinces and we have Elections Canada as well.    Do we really need to have both?  What if we abolished Elections Canada and had the provincial election agencies handle all the federal elections?

There are staff at the federal and provincial level, the difference being that the provincial elections staff are much better distributed across the country to manage elections.  

There is nothing that has to be done for Federal Elections that could not be handled by provincial elections agencies.   In fact provincial agencies handle bigger elections in each province than Elections Canada does.   Having one agency handle all the provincial and federal elections would mean that overall fewer fulltime staff would be needed but at the same there would be a more consistent work load for the staff.   With elections normally every 3 to 4 years, in three out of four years the election agency has a lot less to do.   With one agency handling both elections, there would be a general election every 21 months or so that the staff would work on.

The Federal parliament would simply have to pass a new Elections act that names the Chief Electoral Officer in each province as the person mandated to run the election in that province.    The funding would flow to the provincial election agencies on the basis of something like $5 per voter per year with it tied to the cost of living index.  The exact mechanism can be worked out later.

The federal election rules are clear and should not be an issue for each provincial CEO to follow.  I would see the provincial CEOs submitting reports to the federal parliament.   It all strikes me as logistically much more effective and cost efficient than what we have now.

I can not think of any reason this would not work, but I am certain people will point reasons why they think the idea is flawed.   I am also realistic to know that this is not going to happen because the Federal government works in one way, taking more powers in.   The feds are in so many areas of provincial authority and constantly expanding their role but never agreeing to stop.

Fundamentally what I want to see in Canada, a federal government looking for how to eliminate their duplication of services provided by provincial governments.   I want to see the feds out of natural resources, education and health.   Sure, the feds can send money to th e provinces in those areas, but do not have ministries dealing with those issues.

Time for us to get one of the Royal as GG

I would like to see us move away from political type appointments for the Governor General and offer the position long term to one of the younger members of the royal family.   If we are going to have a representative of the Queen, why not make it someone closer to her and someone on a more permanent basis?

I am thinking maybe we offer it to the Duke of York for ten years with his oldest daughter Beatrice the role as Governor General in waiting with the intention she would take over at age 30 something.   If we are going to be a monarchy, lets make it little more real.   Let us build our own royal celebrities for the US media, it would boost the tourism if we had a real royal sitting in Rideau Hall, for whatever reason the Americans are more gaga about the royals than the Canadians or Brits.